Orissa High Court: In a civil writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the actions of the Sambalpur University declaring the petitioner as ‘fail’ in his +3 examinations by marking him as ‘absent’ on multiple occasions and ultimately decalring him as ‘passed’, a single-judge bench comprising of Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. stated that the actions of the officials of the University were irresponsible and has had an adverse impact upon the career of the petitioner, hence, the University was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs.
The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner aggrieved by violation of his right to life and personal liberty, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, by the careless actions of the University. The petitioner had been marked absent on multiple occasions for his +3 examinations despite being present, and consequently, his result was withheld due to his ‘absentee’ status.
From 2001 – 2011, the petitioner constantly approached the authorities of the University to inform them about the discrepancies in his mark sheets but there was no response. As an attempt to prove his claim, the petitioner requested the principal-in-charge of the Trust Fund Degree College to write to the University regarding his presence at the examination centre, after which a result sheet was published on 21-12-2011 which showed that the petitioner had attended the exam but had failed the same.
On 02-06-2012, he filed an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for supply of his marks in English paper. The response stated that the result was declared as ‘failed’ due to a missing mark entry from 1999. Later, the University, vide a back dated notification 17-05-2012 released the result of the petitioner indicating that he had passed all the initial examinations where previously, he was either marked as failed or absent and had successfully completed and passed the +3 Commerce course. Being aggrieved by the lackadaisical approach of the University, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking compensation from the University for losing some valuable years of his life.
The Court allowed the writ petition and, held that the actions of the Controller of Examination of the University and its officials, as to recording incorrect marks in the result of the petitioner and showing him ‘fail’, and marking him absent in the exams in which he diligently appeared, were irresponsible and had an adverse impact on the career of the petitioner, which was irreversible. The Court said that the Universities hold a significant responsibility towards their students, particularly in the efficient administration of examinations and the timely publication of results, and they are fundamental to the academic journey, and any lapse can have serious implications on their academic progress, career prospects, and overall well-being. It was also stated that if the Universities fail in their responsibilities, compensation should be provided to the students, in the form of financial compensation, course credits, or other measures that acknowledge and rectify the inconvenience caused. The Court also pointed that compensation can certainly provide some relief, but it does not absolve Universities of their responsibilities. The Court also advised that Universities must strive to prevent such lapses with robust system, regular audits, and a commitment towards student welfare.
The Court referred to University of Kerala v. Sandhya P. Pai, 1991 SCC OnLine Ker 20, wherein it was held that serious errors that negatively impact the lives of diligent students cannot be ignored. The Court also referred to Manoj Kumar v. State of Bihar1 wherein, the Bihar School Examination Board was directed to pay Rs 2 Lakh compensation to a girl who was wrongly declared ‘fail’ in a paper of the Secondary School Examination, 2017. The Court said that the loss suffered by the petitioner, as to enduring significant hardships and loosing ten years of his professional life cannot be compensated in other way, hence, the Court directed the University to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the petitioner within three months of presentation of the present order before the University authorities.
[Bibhuti Bhusan Barik v. State of Orissa, 2024 SCC OnLine Ori 1261, Decided on 28-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
On behalf of petitioner – Advocate Tanmay Mishra; Advocate S Sourav
On behalf of Opposite Party – Advocate Sanjeev Udgata
Buy Constitution of India HERE
1. Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7185 of 2019 (Patna HC).
