IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1274 of 2010 1. The Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna through its Secretary, Patna 2. The Chairman Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna 3. The Secretary Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna ------ Respondents – Appellants. Versus Anita Kumari, D/O Shri Kishori Prasad, R/O Village and P.O.- Sardal Patti, P.S.- Parihar, Distt.- Sitamarhi --- Petitioner/Respondent. ----------- 2. 12.7.2011 Heard Mr. Syed Arshad Alam for the appellants. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the respondents of C.W.J.C. 7494 of 2010, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 20.7.2010, whereby the said writ petition has been allowed, and respondent no.1 therein (the appellant herein) has been directed to publish the result of the writ petitioner of the examination in question by 21.7.2010. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The writ petitioner (the respondent herein) was admitted to the course for Diploma in Physical Education. The minimum age for admission to the course was 18 years of age on the relevant date, whereas she was 17 years and 8 2 months on that date. After completion of the course, she had submitted her application to appear in the final examination to the appellants herein which was routed through her institute. The appellants had issued the admit card, the respondent had appeared at the examination held in 1988, but could not clear the same. The appellants had thereafter held the next examination after a gap of 6 years in a situation, when it was duty-bound to hold examination once every year. The respondent had appeared at this examination but the result was not published. Therefore, the respondent had moved this Court, and the matter was remitted to the authorities to dispose of her representation by a reasoned order which has been rejected by the impugned order, leading to the present writ petition. 3. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, has held that she (the respondent) was short by four months on the relevant date. The Board had issued the admit card to appear at the examination in spite of the clear declaration by the respondent in her application form about the date of birth that she was 17 years and 8 months on the relevant date. The learned Single Judge has further found that the respondent is not guilty of misrepresentation or the 3 like. The learned Single Judge has also noticed that the appellants, after holding the examination in 1988, had held the next examination after lapse of 6 years in a situation where it is an annual examination. Regulation 17 of the Bihar School examination Board relied upon by the appellants has been considered, which does not come to their aid. In such circumstances, she has directed for publication of the result of the respondent on or before 21.7.2010. We entirely agree with the discussion in the order of the learned Single Judge. We are further of the view that this appeal is wholly unmerited, and the respondent has been subjected to great harassment ever since 1994. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits on instructions that the result has been published on 21.7.2010, and the respondent has passed the examination. 5. It appears to us that the respondent has lost such a long number of years since she appeared at the examination in 1994, to her great prejudice. We do not see any justification for this appeal, and calls for a minimum of notional compensation to the respondent. The quantum of compensation to the respondent must be considered carefully. What heavily weighs in our minds is that the 4 respondent had most truly and faithfully disclosed in her application form seeking permission to appear at the examination that she was 17 years and 8 months of age. Knowing full well, the appellants had issued the admit card. The respondent was thus not guilty of misrepresentation or the like. Added to this situation is that after 1988, the annual examination was held in 1994. To the same has to be further added the lapse of time since 1994, the litigations in this Court and erroneous disposal of her representation. Non- publication of the result may have come in the way of her further studies, or further course of action. She may now be over-age for further courses or employment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the appellants shall pay a notional compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs) to the respondent which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 1.1.1995, till the date of payment. 6. We are mindful of the well known principle of law that the appellant should not be worse off than the impugned judgment. This principle of law may not be applicable to the discretionary, prerogative writ jurisdiction where interest of justice is paramount. The learned Single Judge did not 5 bestow her thought to the question of compensation to the writ petitioner. This kind of irrational approach on the part of the appellants against a young girl cannot go uncompensated. We will be failing in our duty if we do not compensate her. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the respondent per speed post at the cost of the Court. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) ( Vikash Jain, J.)