R.S.A.No. 3376 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3376 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.9.2009 Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar ......Appellant Versus Savita .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.P.S.Khurana, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Savita had filed a suit for recovery, which was decreed to the extent of Rs.20,000/- by the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 5.12.2003. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 25.5.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- R.S.A.No. 3376 of 2008 (O&M) 2 “2. The brief facts put up by the plaintiff/respondent before the learned lower Court are that she is a student of Government College, Gurdaspur affiliated with Guru Nanak Dev University under registration No.94/SG/A/999 and was qualified to appeal in B.Sc.III (Medical Group). Her name was declared by the college authorities to appear in the examination to be held in the month of April, 1997. She was allotted Roll No.89412. She appeared in the examination as well as practicals and was confident to be successful. But when her result was declared on 13.6.1997, she was shown having compartment in Chemistry. When she received the detailed marks card, she came to know that she has obtained only 11 marks in the practical. She approached University authorities and then came to know that she has actually obtained 35 marks in practical but due to negligence of University authorities the marks were shown as 11. It was alleged that the plaintiff/ respondent was to appear in Post Graduation but she could not appear in the entrance test due to her compartment and therefore, she is entitled to damages of Rs.2 lacs. 3. Upon notice, the defendant/appellant filed written statement taking the preliminary objections, that the suit is not maintainable and it is bad for non joinder of R.S.A.No. 3376 of 2008 (O&M) 3 necessary parties on merits, it was admitted that the plaintiff/respondent appeared in B.Sc.-III (Medical Group) and she was shown compartment in Chemistry practical with 11 marks and actually she had obtained 35 marks. It is stated that when this fact came to knowledge of University authorities, the result of the plaintiff/ respondent was revised by way of Notification No.82 dated 26.8.1997 and it was alleged that it was a clerical mistake for which the plaintiff/respondent is not entitled to any damages. It has been further pleaded that under the Ordinance 6 Page 499 of G.N.D.U. Clander Vol. 1.2 part B of 1991, the candidate can seek admission to the higher class within 12 days from the date of declaration of result. It was also pleaded that copy of the Notification was given to the plaintiff/respondent personally and she could have obtained the admission. Defendant/appellant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.2,00,000/- from the defendants as damages due to the deficiency service of the defendant? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD R.S.A.No. 3376 of 2008 (O&M) 4 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action? OPD 5. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff Savita had filed a suit for damages on account of wrong declaration of her result by the defendant-University. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, have awarded Rs.20,000/- as damages to the plaintiff due to negligence on the part of the defendant-University. It has been observed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court in the impugned judgment that in the written statement, defendant- University had specifically admitted that in Chemistry practical examination, result of the plaintiff was declared to the effect that she had obtained 11 marks instead of 35 marks and thus, she was shown to be having compartment in the said subject. Thereafter, the result of the plaintiff was corrected. The case of the plaintiff was that she had suffered harassment due to the incorrect declaration of result by the defendant-University. DW-1 Gurbachan Singh Ghai admitted that result of the plaintiff was declared on 13.7.1997 as compartment in Chemistry. The entrance test for classes of B.Ed., M.Sc. etc. had R.S.A.No. 3376 of 2008 (O&M) 5 been taken by the University in the end of July 1997. The plaintiff approached the University authorities and on enquiry, it was found that in fact, the plaintiff had obtained 35 marks in Chemistry practical instead of 11 marks and the mistake was rectified vide notification dated 26.8.1997. Thus, the plaintiff could not appear in the entrance test, which was held in July 1997 as the notification vide which her marks was corrected was issued in August, 1997. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly allowed Rs.20,000/- towards damages to the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 07, 2009 anita