E-Paper
₹40,000 compensation to student: High court junks Himachal Pradesh University’s appeal
A division bench of the Himachal Pradesh high court, while dismissing the appeal, upheld the decision of the single judge and observed that a larger amount of compensation was liable to be imposed in this matter
The Himachal Pradesh high court on Wednesday dismissed the appeal filed by Himachal Pradesh University challenging the order to pay ₹40,000 as compensation to a student, who had alleged that irreparable loss was caused to his career due to delay in issuance of the consolidated mark sheet of MA (economics) to him.
A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Jyotsna Rewa Dua, while dismissing the appeal, upheld the decision of the single judge and observed that a larger amount of compensation was liable to be imposed in this matter.
Naveen Kumar had filed a writ petition alleging that the HPU was not issuing the consolidated mark sheet for MA (economics) to him despite the fact that he had passed all the papers in 2005.
He was shown absent in one of the courses. He made several representations to HPU authorities to settle the result, stating that he was not absent in any of the paper.
Later, the university officials verified from the attendance sheet that he was present in the paper, and he was assured that the matter would be settled soon.
However, when he applied for the consolidated mark sheet, his application was rejected. He again visited HPU with a proof of his attendance, but the authorities refused to entertain stating that they had no time to look for old records.
The petitioner had alleged that in the entire process, he spent thousands of rupees and was subjected to the ill-behaviour of officials. He alleged that those were his career-defining years, but he was deprived of weightage for want of a PG degree and even from appearing in various exams. He had prayed to direct HPU to issue his consolidated mark sheet and pay compensation of ₹ 5 lakh.
During the hearing, HPU authorities admitted that the petitioner had appeared in course and scored 19 marks.
The single bench had allowed the petition, directing the university to grant at least three chances to the petitioner to pass the course and to pay compensation of ₹40,000 to him.
The order was challenged by the HPU by way of appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the court observed that learned single judge has been very magnanimous in ordering such a meagre amount against the appellant. The court also observed that for the error committed, a larger amount of compensation was liable to be imposed. The court observed that it finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single judge.
