The High Court of Punjab & Haryana has imposed a financial penalty of Rs.30,000 on a school in Haryana for mistakenly assigning zero marks to a Class X board student. The mistake, arising from the school's negligence, resulted in the inadvertent interchange of marks for two students who shared identical names. Consequently, the affected student, who received a zero in the 2021 exam, was unable to appear for their Class XII board exams.
New Marksheet To Be Issued
In directing the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to issue a new mark sheet for the impacted student, Justice Vikas Behal emphasized the repercussions of the school's error. Justice Behal noted, "it would be relevant to note that on account of the mistake made by the school not only the petitioner has suffered but even the respondent-Board had to suffer litigation expenses in the present case without there being any fault on their account."
School Did Not Counter Claims
Moreover, the school did not counter the claims presented in the petition. Given the petitioner's assertion that she did not seek any compensation, the court, in response to the school's negligence, imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000. The court directed the school to remit this amount to the Board as a consequence of its laxity in addressing the critical matter at hand.
The Court considered the petition filed by a student requesting the rectification of her examination results and the issuance of a corrected detailed marks certificate. The petitioner argued that, despite actively participating in the exams, she was erroneously assigned a score of zero. In a perplexing turn of events, another student who shared the same name but had already left the school was awarded the marks meant for the petitioner.
School Admitted To The Mishap
During the proceedings, the Court took note of a crucial detail: a letter from the school to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). In this letter, the school explicitly admitted that, during the process of uploading the marks, a misunderstanding occurred due to the identical names of the petitioner and the other student. This misunderstanding led to the inadvertent interchange of their results.
Upon the petitioner's request for rectification of her marks, the board conveyed that the school failed to submit the revised marks within the stipulated timeframe on the online portal.
School Did Not Address The Issue
Despite multiple appeals, the school persisted in asserting that the application had been forwarded to the board without taking any concrete steps to address the issue.
The Court, taking into account these submissions, remarked that "the petitioner is stated to have cleared her 11th class examination and could not give 12th class examination on account of the mistake of the school, and in case the necessary directions are not passed in favor of the petitioner, then her future would be jeopardized."
The Court, recognizing the potential long-term consequences for the petitioner, underscored the urgency of issuing appropriate directives to rectify the situation.