JUDGMENT P.C. Naik, J.
1. This is the third journey of the petitioner to the Court for simple relief which is for issuance of a direction to opposite party No. 1-Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, to declare the result of the C. T. Examination in which she appeared in 1991.
2. The facts are simple. After passing the High School Certificate Examination in the year 1987, the petitioner joined the Women's Secondary Training School at Kaduapada to undertake C. T. course. After completing it, she appeared at the Special C. T. Examination which was held in the year 1991. An Admit Card was issued assigning her the roll number 118299. Her result was, however, withheld on the ground that she was under-age. It is the case of the petitioner that on more than one occasion she approached the authorities and also filed a representation along with her matriculation certificate to, show that she was not underage and as such her result be declared. However, as the Board did not pay any heed to her representation, she approached this Court by way of O. J. C. No. 8429 of 1997 praying for a direction to the opposite party therein to consider the representation and declare her result. That petition was disposed of on 3-7-1997 with a direction to the opposite party therein to dispose of the petitioner's representation, as per Annexure-3 to the said writ petition, within three months of communication of the order.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that after the disposal of that petition, the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa, verified the records sent by the Inspector of Schools and S. T. School (Women) Kaduapada relating to her admission and after verification and satisfaction, sent a letter (Annexure-2) to the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, pointing out that the petitioner was not under-age at the time of her admission into the S. T. School and that her result may be declared. But, as no action was taken by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, on letter dated 24-3-1998 (sic) (Annexure-2), the petitioner approached this Court by way of Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 633 of 1998 for taking action against the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education for not publishing her result. That petition is pending consideration. Since the result of the petitioner has still not been declared, she has again approached this Court for relief.
4. Mr. S.S. Das, learned counsel representing opposite party No. 1-Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack, submitted that the result of the petitioner cannot be declared as she was under-age.
5. During the course of hearing, the petitioner filed an affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the admission register showing "9-2-1971" as her date of birth, Annexure-4 thereto is the list of candidates of Kaduapada Secondary Training School sent by the Inspector of Schools, Cuttack III Circle, Cuttack to the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack. On the last page of the said annexure, the name of the petitioner finds place at serial No. 36 with the remark "S.L.C. issued after admission". This list contains an endorsement of the Additional Inspector of Schools, Cuttack III Circle, Cuttack which reads thus:
"Verified the list with reference to the Admn. Register, S. L. C./C. L. C. and Attendance Registers of the candidates".
Reference may also be made to Annexure-2, the Admit Card of the petitioner bearing Roll Number 118299 and showing her date of birth is 09-02-71, Annexure 2A is the letter from the Directorate of Secondary Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar to me Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa wherein it is mentioned that the date of birth of the petitioner is 9-2-1971, and that, she was not under-age at the time of her admission into the said Secondary Training School. The said letter clearly indicates that S. L. C. was issued in her (petitioner's) favour after her admission and that a request was made to the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa to declare the petitioner's result. However, in spite of this, the result of the petitioner has not been declared.
6. From a consideration of the facts and material on record, we have not been able to understand as to why during this long period of about eight years the Board has not been able to declare the petitioner's result. Apparently, it is not disputed that the petitioner had appeared in the Special C. T. Examination held by the Board in the year 1991. The Admit Card bears her roll number and the date of birth (9-2-1971). Thus, when the petitioner passed her H. S. C. Examination, as averred by her, in the year 1987, she would be about 16 years old. And, when she appeared in the Special C.T. Examination, 1991, she would, therefore, be about 20 years. This follows from the documents on record. The Directorate of Secondary Education has also clearly stated that the petitioner was not under-age when she took admission in the Secondary Training School (W) Kaduapada. Therefore, the inaction of the Board in not declaring the result of the petitioner is not appreciated, more so, when no effort whatsoever has been made by the Board to explain as to why she was under-age.
7. In our considered view, as the petitioner undertook the examination, her result had to be declared, whether she passed or failed is altogether another question. If a case was made out in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Board for cancellation, necessary order would have been passed to that effect. But, the Board could not sit over the matter without informing the petitioner as to what was the result of her examination. The Board, we feel, has been utterly indifferent to the plight of the petitioner and has, we may say so, acted in a callous manner. Had the result been declared, the petitioner would have known what was her position and could have taken up another examination. But, she has been kept in suspense for all this period for no fault of her, rather because of the indifferent attitude of the Board.
8. Since we are of the opinion that the action of the Board in not declaring the result of the petitioner is improper, we allow the writ petition with a direction to the Board to declare the result of the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today. As we are satisfied that the action of the Board is not proper and that the petitioner has been during this period put to unnecessary expenses on approaching this Court thrice and has also undergone mental tension and harassment, we feel that this is a fit case in which we should saddle exemplary cost on it so as to refrain it from acting in this manner in future. The cost, we assess at Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) payable to the petitioner within four weeks from today.
9. In the result, the writ application is allowed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) on opposite party No. 1.
B.P. Das, J.
10. I agree.