Safiya Malik

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand allowed a writ petition challenging a revised mark-sheet issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and directed the issuance of a corrected certificate based on prior academic performance. The Court held that the student could not be penalised for an error committed by the school authorities and ordered compensation from the school for its negligent conduct. The CBSE was directed to issue a fresh mark-sheet within a stipulated period, and the school was directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner.

The petitioner, a student who appeared in the All-India Senior School Certificate Examination (AISSC) in 2012, failed in the Chemistry subject but passed the remaining four subjects. After failing the supplementary examination in Chemistry, the petitioner sought to appear in a compartment examination solely for the said subject.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Telangana Speaker To Decide On Disqualification Of BRS MLAs Who Defected To INC Within 3 Months | Quashes High Court Order And Warns Against Delay Tactics By Legislators

However, due to an error by respondent No.3, S.M. Nimawat Public School, Fatehpur Shekhawati, the examination form submitted to CBSE included all five subjects instead of Chemistry alone. The petitioner alleged that this form was not filled out in his handwriting, except for the signature, and the subject codes and descriptions were inserted by the school.

Upon receiving the Admit Card indicating all five subjects, the petitioner raised an objection before the school. He was assured that necessary corrections would be undertaken, and on this assurance, he appeared only for the Chemistry compartment paper. Following this, the school issued a Transfer Certificate declaring the petitioner as "XII Passed."

On the strength of this certificate, the petitioner secured admission to a B.Tech. course, which he completed successfully. He later sought admission to an M.Tech. course, during which he was required to submit his Class-XII mark-sheet.

At this juncture, upon approaching the school, he discovered that the CBSE issued a revised mark-sheet showing him as "Absent" in the four subjects and "Pass" only in Chemistry, ultimately declaring him as "Fail" overall. This discrepancy arose from the erroneous form submitted by the school. The petitioner challenged this revised outcome.

In response, the CBSE submitted that the petitioner himself had submitted the form for all five subjects and subsequently remained absent in four papers. As per Rule 42 of the CBSE Examination By-Laws, 1995, he was marked absent and declared failed.

CBSE further argued that students may sometimes apply for improvement in subjects they have passed. Hence, there was no fault in treating the petitioner as failed based on his own application. However, the petitioner contended that the entire confusion arose due to the incorrect form submitted by the school, and he had no intention of appearing in the other four subjects.

The petitioner stated that he was never informed by the school that the form had been submitted for all five subjects. It was only upon receiving the Admit Card that he became aware, and thereafter, the school reassured him that he could appear solely for Chemistry. Based on this assurance and the Transfer Certificate showing him as passed, the petitioner completed his graduation and planned for post-graduation.

The petitioner argued that due to no fault of his own, his academic record was tainted, and his educational prospects jeopardised. He claimed that the revised mark-sheet and the CBSE letter dated 21.09.2017 be quashed, and a direction be issued to CBSE to declare him pass in all subjects, combining his 2012 main examination results with the Chemistry result from the 2013 compartment exam.

The Court reviewed the submissions and materials placed on record, including the examination form and correspondence.

It recorded: "The examination form annexed with the writ petition bears only the signatures of the petitioner, however, the description of the subjects and subject codes have not been filled in the petitioner’s handwriting."

The Court noted: "It appears that the school Authorities themselves filled out the examination form of the petitioner, mentioning all the five subjects."

Further, the Bench observed: "It is the contention of the petitioner that he was given assurance by the school authorities that the needful will be done on their part and acting upon such assurance, the petitioner appeared only for one examination, i.e., Chemistry in his compartment examination."

The judgment remarked: "Subsequently, the school has issued a transfer certificate to the petitioner reflecting the petitioner as passed in Class-XII Examination and on the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner got admission in B.Tech and passed his graduation."

The Court also recorded: "It is quite shocking on the part of the school authorities that the examination form of a passed candidate was forwarded, for appearance in all those subjects, which the petitioner has already passed."

On the issue of negligence, it was observed: "The respondent No. 3, i.e., the School is guilty of not only sending an incorrect examination form of the petitioner to the respondent-CBSE, marking the petitioner’s passed subjects for reappearance, but also guilty of issuing an incorrect and erroneous Transfer Certificate to the petitioner by showing him as “XII Passed” in the same."

In relation to CBSE, the Court stated: "Since the respondent-CBSE treated the petitioner as absent in the four subjects and declared him 'Fail' in the subsequent examinations, the School has no reason or occasion to issue a Transfer Certificate showing the petitioner as 'XII Passed'."

The Court further took note of the academic consequences faced by the petitioner, stating: "The petitioner has successfully completed his Graduation i.e. B.Tech. If the action of the respondents is allowed to stand in the same manner, the entire future and career of the petitioner would be jeopardized despite there being no fault on his part."

On public law damages, the judgment referenced precedent: "The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Krina Ajay Shah & Ors. Vs. The Secretary, Association of Management of Unaided Private Medical & Dental Colleges & Ors. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 666 has considered grant of compensation to the candidates... the Petitioners are certainly entitled to public law damages."

Similarly, the Bench cited: "The Hon’ble Apex Court again in the case of S. Nihal Ahamed Vs. The Dean, Velammal Medical College Hospital and Research Institute & Ors. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 662 has granted compensation to the candidate."

It concluded: "For causing harassment and mental agony to the petitioner by creating an obstacle in his future educational pursuits, the respondent-School is liable to compensate him adequately for its blatant negligence."

Also Read: Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Denied For Delay If Plea Was Timely | Karnataka High Court Says Decisions Must Be Made Within 90 Days

The Court allowed the writ petition. It directed the Central Board of Secondary Education to issue a fresh mark-sheet and certificate to the petitioner. The order stated: "The respondent-CBSE is directed to issue a fresh mark-sheet and certificate to the petitioner, based on the marks of all the four subjects which he previously secured in the main examination along with the marks secured by him in Chemistry subject in the compartment examination."

It further directed: "The respondent-CBSE shall comply with the order passed by this Court within a period of one month."

On compensation, the Court stated: "The respondent No.3 is directed to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner, within the above period of one month."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Amit Gupta with Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pareek, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. M. S. Raghav, Advocate

Case Title: Manish Saini vs. CBSE & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JP:28039

Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3052/2018

Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand