JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a relief of writ of mandamus for summoning all the answer scripts of the petitioner i.e. Hindi, English, Sanskrit Mathematics, Science and Social Science for being re-evaluated and to declare the result accordingly.
2. It would appear that the learned Standing counsel was granted two weeks and no more time on 13.7.2006 to file counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit if any was directed to be filed within 3 days thereafter besides directing to produce original answer scripts of the papers aforestated.
3. From a perusal of the record that the petitioner applied for scrutiny of all the answer scripts in the above subjects on 14.6.2006 but it yielded no response and it is in this backdrop that the petitioner was compelled to file the present petition.
4. The learned Standing counsel has conceded that in fact, the petitioner was awarded 76 marks instead of 74 in Sanskrit, 37 marks in Math instead of 35 and 27 marks in Science II paper instead of 22. Thus total difference of marks works out to be of nine marks.
5. The learned Standing counsel has stated across the bar that corrected mark-sheet has been handed out to the petitioner to day in court.
6. I have been of the consistent view that the error of the nature be it bonafide, has the effect of ruining the career of a student and cannot be viewed with equanimity particularly regard being had to the fact that the petitioner had applied for scrutiny but it yielded no result and further that the error in computing marks has occurred not in one paper but in three papers. It is indeed a serious matter and it does not commend to me for benign view,
7. The learned Counsel tried to whittle down the mistake stating that there is difference of only 9 marks in aggregate marks.
8. In view of agony and suffering undergone by the petitioner during all this period, I am inclined to award cost in the case considering that the error which I has happened in the case was rectifiable by a little promptitude. Learned Standing counsel prayed for taking a benign view considering that it was an inadvertent error. Regard being had to the fact that the petitioner had preferred a representation to the Board which did not yield the desired result and subsequently, he was compelled to prefer the instant petition. In the circumstances, no ground is made out to take a benign view.
9. In the facts and circumstances, the cost is quantified at Rs. 5000/- which shall be payable to the petitioner within a period not exceeding three months. The Board will be at liberty to institute enquiry and recover the aforesaid cost from the delinquent official. The Court would also appreciate if board comes out with ways and means which may obviate chances of such error which have had the ruinous effect on students. The Board may also evolve effective measures to fix accountability of Examiners in the event of repetition of errors like leaving answers unexamined/unmarked and mistake in computing marks.
10. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above direction.
11. Let certified copy be issued to the learned Standing counsel within (sic) days.
12. The petition shall be listed after three months with compliance report.