The central legal principle established is the vicarious liability of the examining authority to compensate students for losses caused by its mistakes in conducting examinations.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. In this appeal preferred under section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 defensibility of the order dated 23-3-2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 12969/08 is called in question.

2. The facts which are requisite to be exposited are that the writ petitioner, the respondent No. 1 herein, invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus to the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal (for short 'the Board') to declare his result of Class XII Examination which he had undertaken in March, 2008. In consequential relief it was prayed that on declaration of such result if it is found that the petitioner was entitled to appear in the supplementary examination to give a direction to revaluate the answer scripts or to permit him to appear in the supplementary examination and to issue a further direction for taking provisional admission in college. As is evident, the undisputable facts are that the writ petitioner, the respondent No. 1 herein, was informed about the cancellation of his results on a complaint of copying allegedly reported by the Centre Superintendent. Subsequently the information was found to be incorrect. Roll number of the respondent No. 1 had got mixed up with another roll number. After the mistake was detected his result was declared on 26-8-2008 and the mark-sheet was issued on 27-8-2008 wherein he was shown having supplementary in the subject of English (General). By that time the supplementary examination was already over. The Board realising its mistake permitted him to appear in the examination to be held in the year 2009.

3. It is noticeable from the order of the learned Single Judge that he had declined the relief of revaluation by placing reliance on Regulation 119 of the Board of Secondary Education Regulation, 1965 and the decision rendered in M.P. Board of Secondary Education and another vs. Ku. Vinita Rupra, 1998 (1) MPLJ 595. The learned Single Judge further took note of the fact that as the supplementary examination has already been held in July, 2008 no direction could be given to hold a special supplementary examination for the writ petitioner. However, the learned Single Judge took note of the fault committed by the Board which resulted in the loss of entire year forcing the petitioner to reappear in the Class XII Examination, 2009. He expressed anguish about the mental agony that had been suffered by the petitioner therein because of the approach of the Board and the concomitant facts and awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the loss of entire year. A direction was given to pay the said amount within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order. Liberty was granted to the Board to recover the same from the officer concerned after fixing the liability in accordance with law.

4. We have heard Mr. Vivek Mourya, learned Counsel for the appellant on the question of admission.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Mourya, learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has fallen into serious error by awarding compensation to the respondent No. 1 without taking note of the fact situation that when the Board conducts the examination at a large scale mistakes of this nature are likely to occur. It is his further submission that in the absence of any kind of impropriety by the Board awarding of compensation is absolutely unjustified. It is canvassed by him that the action of the Board was not mala fide or biased and hence, no compensation should have been awarded.

6. To appreciate the submissions raised by Mr. Mourya, learned Counsel for the appellant we have bestowed our anxious consideration and carefully perused the pleadings and the order passed by the learned Single Judge. On a scrutiny of the factual matrix it is clear as crystal that the result of the appellant was cancelled treating his roll number to be 283616