Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/56/2021 on 23 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
SPECIAL APPEAL NO.56 OF 2021
23RD FEBRUARY, 2021
Between:
Board of School Education Uttarakhand Ramnagar.
.......Appellant
and
Master Pulkit Shukla and another.
.......Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Virendra Singh
Rawat
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Gaurav Raj,
learned counsel
for respondent
no.1 and Mr. C.S.
Rawat, learned
Chief Standing
Counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
The Secretary, Board of School Education,
Uttarakhand is aggrieved by the order dated
11.01.2021, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition (M/S) No. 13 of 2021, whereby the learned
Single Judge has imposed a cost of `.50,000/- upon
the Secretary, Board of School Education,
Uttarakhand to be paid to the writ-petitioner for the
mental, physical and social harassment caused to him
and his family members.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the
Master Pulkit Shukla, the writ-petitioner, is a student,
who had taken his High School Examination in the
year 2020 conducted by the Secretary, Board of
School Education, Uttarakhand. When the results
were declared on 29.07.2020, it was discovered that
the marks awarded to the writ-petitioner in Science
subject were too little. For, he was given 29 marks
against the Science subjects. According to the writ-
petitioner he had done well enough to score at least
54 marks in the Science subject. Since according to
the writ-petitioner the marks were not correctly
reflected, he filed the writ petition before this Court.
3. By order dated 06.01.2021, this Court
directed the respondent no.2 to complete the
instructions, which they had received from respondent
no.2. It was discovered that the writ-petitioner should
have been granted 20 marks more than the marks
that were granted to him. Therefore, the total marks
were determined to be 69 marks against the original
29 marks given to the writ-petitioner. It is in light of
these facts and considering the fact that there was a
2
negligence on part of the Secretary, Board of School
Education, Uttarakhand that the learned Single Judge
directed the cost of `.50,000/- to be paid by the
Secretary to the writ-petitioner. Hence, the present
appeal before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant
submits that although an error has crept in the
evaluation of the papers, a cost of `.50,000/- is too
high a cost to be imposed upon the Secretary.
Therefore, he has humbly pleaded that the cost
should be reduced from `.50,000/- to a lesser
amount.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the writ-petitioner submits that despite repeated
request of the petitioner to re-evaluate the papers,
the respondent no.2 had ignored the representation.
Since, the respondent no.2 had been negligent in
discharging his duties, since the petitioner and his
family members have been subjected to mental
harassment, the cost of `.50,000/- imposed by the
learned Singled Judge is legally justified. Therefore,
the learned counsel has supported the impugned
order.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the order.
3
7. Undoubtedly, there has been some
negligence on part of the respondent no.2. Once a
representation was made, it was the duty of the
respondent no.2 to have the papers re-evaluated.
Undoubtedly, an error has crept in while granting
marks to the writ-petitioner. Hence, the respondent
no.2 cannot be absolved of all the liabilities. However,
simultaneously it has to be kept in mind that to err is
human. Therefore, the cost of `.50,000/- seems to be
on the higher side. Accountability would be achieved
and justice would be done, even if the said cost were
to be reduced from `.50,000/- to `.30,000/-.
8. Therefore, for the reasons stated above,
this appeal is partly allowed; the impugned order is
modified to the limited extent that a cost of
`.30,000/- shall be paid by the Secretary to the writ-
petitioner. In case the said amount is not paid within
a period of one month, the writ-petitioner shall be
free to file a contempt petition before this Court.
_____________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt:23rd February, 2021
Shubham
