RSA No. 3925 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 3925 of 2008 Date of decision: December 2 ,2008 Sudhir Singh ..Appellant. Versus The Chairman, Haryana School Education Board Bhiwani(Haryana) and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. S.S.Khurana,Advocate for the Appellants. .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the defendant/respondents has been accepted and judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside resulting into dismissal of the suit for declaration of the plaintiff-appellant. This is the case of the plaintiff that he passed a senior secondary examination in the year 1998 through open school. Defendants issued marks sheet on 28.8.1998, according to which, plaintiff obtained 245 marks out of 500. The marks sheet No. 00567 was duly issued and signed by defendant/respondent No.2. The said marks sheet issued by defendant No.2 is a valid document and binding upon the defendants. However, after lapse of 8/9 months, the defendants are alleging that plaintiff has committed fraud and they are demanding back the said original marks sheet. The defendants have no such right to call up the plaintiff to surrender the marks sheet. Thus a decree of declaration was prayed to the effect that marks sheet issued by the defendants in favour of plaintiff is a genuine one and defendants are not entitled to take back the aforesaid marks sheet. RSA No. 3925 of 2008 2 The defendants in their written statement took various preliminary objections. On merits, it was averred that plaintiff did not pass 10 + 2 examination from the Open Board. Due to bonafide mistake, marks sheet of 10 + 2 was issued by the defendants in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff appeared in 10 + 2 Examination under Roll No.9613410060 and obtained 16 marks for English Subject. The Examiner due to bonafide mistake has shown 50 marks in place of 16 in the Award for English subject. This mistake was traced out when candidate under Roll No.9610410060 applied for re-checking of her answer sheet for revaluation as her marks were shown as 16, whereas she has got 50 marks. For rectification of this mistake, plaintiff was informed and called upon to appear before the Board and to deposit the marks sheet but he did not deposit the same. It was reasserted that plaintiff did not pass pass 10 + 2 examination and due to bonafide mistake, marks sheet was issued in his name. It was also pleaded that there was fault on the part of the examiner, so his right of checking the answer sheet has been withdrawn and the marks sheet issued in the name of plaintiff has been cancelled. Rest of the averments of the plaint was specifically denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. Parties had led their respective evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court held that defendants are estopped from cancelling the marks sheet Ex.PW1/A as there was no fault or malafide intention on the part of the plaintiff in this regard. In the result, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendants filed an appeal. The District Judge, Rewari vide impugned judgment and decree dated 11.6.2008 accepted the appeal filed by the defendants and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which resulted into dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. Feeling not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal, challenged the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the RSA No. 3925 of 2008 3 lower Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that the principles of estoppel are applicable in this case and it is clear that in declaring the plaintiff to have passed the senior secondary examination, there is no mistake on the part of the plaintiff much less any fraud has been played by him. The mistake, if any, was on the part of the examiner and therefore, the result of the appellant cannot be cancelled and the same is valid and genuine document. On the basis of the above stated arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following substantial question of law in this appeal:- “ Whether the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court is sustainable in view of the clear finding of the court itself that the respondents/defendants have committed mistake and irregularity and appellant/plaintiff has not committed any fraud ?” I have herd learned counsel for the appellant. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the plaintiff has been declared to have passed the senior secondary examination because of the mistake committed by the examiner. The lower Appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact that no fraud has been committed by the appellant and there was no mistake on the part of the plaintiff-appellants. The lower Appellate Court has also recorded a finding of fact that plaintiff himself admitted the answer sheet Ex.D2 on the record to be his answer sheet. These findings of fact could not be disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. However, the argument has been raised that the appellant has acted upon the said marks sheet and has got admission in the higher class on the basis of this marks sheet and therefore, the respondents are not justified in cancelling the marks sheet to his detriment subsequently. The contention of the appellant is without any substance. Firstly, the lower Appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact that it is not proved on record that the plaintiff has obtained the admission in some College on the basis of the result declared by the defendants. Even otherwise, there is no estoppel against law. Undisputedly, the appellant has not passed the senior secondary RSA No. 3925 of 2008 4 examination and he was shown to have passed on the basis of incorrect marks shown in the awards due to the mistake of the examiner. The respondents have every right to correct such kind of mistake. It has also been proved on record that after discovery of the of the mistake, the appellant was informed on 13.1.1999 and the appellant has replied to the Board on 15.1.1999 saying that his marks sheet has been lost. The disputed marks sheet has also been cancelled and correct marks sheet has been issued. Appellant has failed to show any rule of the respondent on the basis of which mistake occurred in the result cannot be rectified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jalandhar Improvement Trust Versus Sampuran Singh etc. 1999(2) RCR (Civil) 568 held that the principle of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to protect illegal allotments. Thus the wrong declaration of result of the appellant will not create any enforceable right in his favour and against the respondents. Thus,I find no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. December 2, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE