CUTTACK: The Orissa high court has directed Sambalpur University to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation within three months to a student for affirming that he had passed the B. Com examination, 12 years after declaring that he failed.
While issuing the direction, the single judge bench of Justice S K Panigrahi on March 28 said, “Universities hold a significant responsibility towards their students, particularly in the efficient administration of exams and the timely publication of results.These processes are fundamental to the academic journey of students and any lapse can have serious implications on their academic progress, career prospects and overall well-being.”
He added, “If universities fail in these responsibilities, it can be argued that they should provide compensation to the affected students. This could be in the form of financial compensation, course credits or other measures that acknowledge and rectify the inconvenience caused. Such a provision not only serves as a remedial measure but also underscores the accountability of educational institutions.”
“However, it is important to note that while compensation can provide some relief, it does not absolve universities of their responsibilities. Universities must strive to prevent such lapses in the first place through robust systems, regular audits and a commitment to student welfare,” Justice Panigrahi added.
The compensation was awarded in the case of Bibhuti Bhusan Barik, who appeared in the +3 commerce course exam as a private candidate of Sambalpur University through Panchayat College, Bargarh examination centre in 1999.
Barik filed petition on Jan 13, 2015 in HC seeking compensation
Barik’s final exam result was withheld due to non-clearance of the first exam, but was declared to have completed and passed the +3 commerce course on May 17, 2012. Aggrieved with the university’s ‘lackadaisical approach’, Barik filed a petition in the high court on January 13, 2015, seeking compensation from the institute for making him lose valuable years of his life.
Justice Panigrahi said, “This court finds no difficulty in coming to a conclusion that the action of the controller of examination of the university and its officials or staff whosoever is there, in firstly, recording wrong marks in the result of the petitioner and marking him as ‘failed’, and second, marking him absent in the exams in which he appeared, is an irresponsible act which has had an adverse consequence on the career and future prospects of the petitioner.”
While issuing the direction, the single judge bench of Justice S K Panigrahi on March 28 said, “Universities hold a significant responsibility towards their students, particularly in the efficient administration of exams and the timely publication of results.These processes are fundamental to the academic journey of students and any lapse can have serious implications on their academic progress, career prospects and overall well-being.”
He added, “If universities fail in these responsibilities, it can be argued that they should provide compensation to the affected students. This could be in the form of financial compensation, course credits or other measures that acknowledge and rectify the inconvenience caused. Such a provision not only serves as a remedial measure but also underscores the accountability of educational institutions.”
“However, it is important to note that while compensation can provide some relief, it does not absolve universities of their responsibilities. Universities must strive to prevent such lapses in the first place through robust systems, regular audits and a commitment to student welfare,” Justice Panigrahi added.
The compensation was awarded in the case of Bibhuti Bhusan Barik, who appeared in the +3 commerce course exam as a private candidate of Sambalpur University through Panchayat College, Bargarh examination centre in 1999.
Barik filed petition on Jan 13, 2015 in HC seeking compensation
Barik’s final exam result was withheld due to non-clearance of the first exam, but was declared to have completed and passed the +3 commerce course on May 17, 2012. Aggrieved with the university’s ‘lackadaisical approach’, Barik filed a petition in the high court on January 13, 2015, seeking compensation from the institute for making him lose valuable years of his life.
Justice Panigrahi said, “This court finds no difficulty in coming to a conclusion that the action of the controller of examination of the university and its officials or staff whosoever is there, in firstly, recording wrong marks in the result of the petitioner and marking him as ‘failed’, and second, marking him absent in the exams in which he appeared, is an irresponsible act which has had an adverse consequence on the career and future prospects of the petitioner.”
