Chattisgarh High Court

Board Of Secondary Education And ... vs Sushil Kumar Dewangan And 3 Ors on 9 July, 2021

                                 1

                                                              NAFR


     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        FA No. 78 of 2007

                 Order reserved on : 18/03/2021
                 Order Delivered on: 09/07/2021


  1. Board Of Secondary Education, Through : The Secretary M.P.
     Board of Secondary Education : Bhopal, M.P.
  2. Board Of Secondary Education, Through : The Regional Officer
     C.G. Board Of Secondary Education, Raipur, C.G.
                                                     ---- Appellants
                             Versus
  1. Sushil Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Madan Lal Dewangan aged
     about 24 years, R/o Lalkhadan : Bilaspur, C.G.
  2. The Secretary Department of Education Government of M.P. :
     Bhopal.
  3. The Principal Modern higher Secondary School : Nehru Nagar
     Bilaspur, C. G.
  4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Collector Bilaspur.
                                                  ---- Respondents

For Appellants : Shri H. B. Agrawal Senior Adv.

with Shri Malay Jain, Adv.

For Respondent No. 3. : Shri Yogesh Patidar on behalf of Mr. R. S. Marhas, Adv.

For Respondent No. 4. : Shri Rakesh Sahu, Dy. G. A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

C A V Order 09/07/2021

1. Appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by

the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2007 passed by

learned District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 2-

B/2005, whereby the suit filed by the Respondent No. 1

decreed by the learned trial Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent No. 1

filed civil suit No. 2-B/2005 on the ground that he had

appeared in the supplementary examination of Class-XII in

the years 1995-96 and had succeeded, but the mark-sheet of

the said examination was not given to the respondent No.-

1/plaintiff by the appellants and respondent No.-3/defendant

No.-4. The respondent No.-1/plaintiff had continuously

requested them in vain but he could not get his mark-sheet

and could not continue his studies due to non-supply of mark-

sheet resulting in non-employment, and as such, he is

deprived of getting the monetary benefits. Further case is

that though the damages suffered can not be calculated in

terms of money, but he prays for award to the tune of Rs.

10,00,000/- against damages. This suit was instituted under

Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, stating to be

the indigent person. The permission was granted by the

learned trail Court under Order 33 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil

Procedure.

3. In reply, appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 denied all

the averments of the plaint in their written statement and

stated that suit is untenable, barred by limitation and no

cause of action is available with the plaintiff for filing the suit

for damages. Rest of the defendants were proceeded ex-

parte and they did not file any written statement.

4. After appreciating oral and documentary evidence of

both the parties, the learned trial Court partly decreed the

suit of plaintiff and awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- as damages

caused to the plaintiff by the act of appellants/defendants No.

1 and 2 for not giving the mark-sheet of the supplementary

examination of Class-XII. Being aggrieved by this judgment

and decree, the appellants filed this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

issue number 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the deciding issues in the case

but the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the

oral and documentary evidence available before it in its true

perspective. The learned trial Court has failed to consider

that plaintiff has apparently failed to prove his case for

damages. He also submits that there is no incriminating

evidence on record which could establish the fact that

plaintiff has suffered any damages. He next submits that in

this case the plaintiff had to prove that his education and

career has grossly suffered due to the inaction of the

defendants. No such conducive evidence is available. The

finding of the Court below on the issue No.-3 is on its own

presumption without there being any base. Therefore, these

findings are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel next

submits that the learned trial Court erred in deciding the

issue No.-6 which relates to limitation. The suit was presented

on 04.05.2001 and the cause of action as alleged by the

plaintiff himself arose in the year 1996 when the appellants

and the respondent No.-3 failed to provide the mark-sheet.

The suit, as such, ought to have been presented within the

prescribed period of limitation of one year. Next submission is

that the learned trial Court erred in giving the negative

findings on issue No.-5. The suit ought to have been

dismissed on this count alone. The entire suit is based on

alleged damages said to have been caused to the plaintiff by

inaction of the defendants in not providing him his mark-

sheet of Class-XII, whereas the plaintiff has failed to prove his

case regarding causing of alleged damages. Since the

plaintiff has failed to prove the damages, therefore, no cause

of action is available with him for filing the suit, thus the

judgment and decree may be set aside. In support of

arguments, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Eliamma Simon and

Another Vs. Seven Seas Transportation Ltd. and Others

reported in AIR (2002) Kerala 219, and the decision of High

Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) in the matter of B S

Yadav Vs. Prabhudayal reported in 1991 LawSuit(MP)186

(Equivalent Citations : 1992 AIR(MP)203, 1992 MPLJ 304,

1991 (2) MPJR 302).

6. None for the respondent No. 1, though notice has been

served.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4

supported the arguments.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

9. In the case in hand, the main objection of appellants is

that the suit is barred by limitation. Learned trial Court

framed issue No. 6 in this regard and recorded its finding in

para 9 of its order, which reads thus:-

9. "tgk¡ rd okn le;kof/k ds Hkhrj gksus dk iz'u gS] bl laca/k esa oknh us izn'kZ [email protected] dk uksfVl fnukad [email protected]@2000 dks izfroknh dza- 1 ls 3 dks tkjh fd;k- mlds ckn fnukad [email protected]@2000 dks fQj ,d i= fy[kk x;k- rRi'pkr fnukad [email protected]@2001 dks fQj ,d i= fy[kk x;k fQj fnukad [email protected]@2000 dks izfroknh us ,d i= oknh dks Hkstk] ftldh izfrfyfi §izn'kZ [email protected]§ ls Li"V gks jgk gS- fQj ,d i= fnukad [email protected]@2000] ftldh izfrfyfi izn'kZ [email protected] gS

esa Hkh vadlwph ds laca/k esa lacaf/kr izfroknh §ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My] Hkksiky§ us oknh dks i= fy[kk gS- nkok ykus dh fnukad rd vadlwph ugha feyh Fkh] ;g nkok ls izrhr gks jgk gS] bl laca/k esa oknh us vius 'kiFk dFku dh df.Mdk 3] 4] 6 ,oa 7 esa ;g rks ntZ djk;k gS fd vadlwph mls ugha feyh gS- bl laca/k esa oknh us izn'kZ [email protected] /kkjk 80 lh ih lh dk uksfVl] fQj vkosnu fnukad [email protected]@2000 §izn'kZ [email protected]§] fnukad [email protected]@2001 dks vkapfyd vf/kdkjh jk;iqj dks Hksts x, i= dh izfrfyfi §izn'kZ [email protected]§] fnukad [email protected]@2000 dk i= §izn'kZ [email protected]§ ,oa izn'kZ [email protected] ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My dk i= gS rFkk mUgha dk i= fnukad [email protected]@2000 §izn'kZ [email protected]§ dks izekf.kr fd;k gS rFkk iksLVy jlhn §izn'kZ [email protected]] [email protected] ,oa [email protected]§ dks Hkh izekf.kr fd;k x;k gS- blds vfrfjDr uksfVl dh ikorh izn'kZ [email protected]] izn'kZ [email protected] ,oa izn'kZ [email protected] dks izekf.kr fd;k x;k gS vkSj crk;k gS fd og vius eka&cki ds lkFk jgrk gS- mlus ;g Hkh crk;k gS fd mls vadlwph ugha feyh gS- izfrfnu okn dkj.k mRiUu gksrk x;k] blfy, ;g nkok le; ds vanj gS-"

10. Plaintiff has filed various documents and he examined himself

as PW-1, Ex.-P-1 is the notice of plaintiff which was sent by him to

respondent No. 1 (Secretary, Board of Secondary Education,

Bhopal, M.P.), respondent No. 2 (Regional Officer Board of

Secondary Education, Regional Office, Raipur, C.G.) and respondent

No. 3 (Secretary, Education Department Government of M.P.

Bhopal) on 19.07.2000. Ex.-P-2 is the copy of letter dated

11.10.2000 of Regional Officer, Exs.-P-4 and P-5 are the copies of

correspondence between concerned departments, and Ex.-P-6 is

the copy of letter dated 21.12.2000 which was sent by Additional

Secretary of Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal M.P. to the

plaintiff. The plaintiff filed this suit on 04.05.2001. Learned trial

Court finds in Para-9 of its order that plaintiff has proved several

letters Ex.-P-1 to Ex.-P-6, postal receipts Ex.-P-8 to Ex.-P-10 and

acknowledgment of notices Ex.-P-12 to Ex.-P-14 and last letter Ex.-

P-6 was sent by defendants on 21.12.2000. The plaintiff was

residing with his parents and stated that he has not received the

mark-sheet. Every day the cause continued to arose. Thus, the

finding of the trial Court with regard to limitation cannot be termed

to be illegal. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in

the same.

11. As far as other objection of the appellants that plaintiff did

not get his mark-sheet from 1996 to 2001 and his educational

career grossly affected, due to the negligence of defendants and

the trial Court awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- for damages are concerned,

in the matter of Pooja Agrawal Vs. Board of Secondary Education

M.P reported in 2013(MPLJ) 280, the High Court of M.P. held in

para 10, which reads thus :-

10. "This Court is now required to delve into the aspect of quantum of compensation. Petitioner has prayed for compensation of rupees one lakh. Admittedly the culpable negligence of the respondent Board has not resulted into any tangible loss as discussed supra and thus award of compensation as sought for in entirety is not called for. Moreso, award of compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for undisputed acts of culpable negligence ought not to result in undue enrichment of petitioner. Similarly on the other hand this Court cannot ignore the fact that no amount of monetary compensation can indemnify the mental and psychological damage incurred. There is another crucial view-point from which the aspect of quantum deserves judicial scrutiny i.e. exemplary cost. Whenever an instrumentality of the State acts in wanton disregard of the limits of reasonability set by the scheme of the Constitution, it shakes the confidence of a common man in the Rule of Law, thereby exposing itself to the rigours of payment of exemplary cost in addition to the actual costs incurred. This is necessary to instill the lost

confidence in the Rule of Law by punishing the wantonly negligent thereby in the process preventing recurrence of such culpable aberrations in future. Besides, exemplary cost caters to the lost time and energy of the Courts by adjudicating an avoidable litigation".

This Court finds that defendants have acted in most careless

and irresponsible manner due to which plaintiff did not get his

mark-sheet in a time bound period, as a result of which his

precious academic four years got affected.

12. This Court finds that the finding of the Court below is

based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence, which does not call for any interference by this

Court. The trial Court has not committed any irregularity or

perversity. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be and is hereby

dismissed. It is directed that the appellants to pay

compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as awarded by learned trial

Court, to the plaintiff within a period of six months from the

date of receipt of copy of this order and also to pay actual cost

of this avoidable litigation including Court fee and cost of this

appeal too.