The Orissa High Court has mandated that Sambalpur University reimburse a student who was mistakenly deemed to have failed his +3 exams in 1999 by giving him compensation in the amount of Rs 5 lakh. Bibhuti Bhusan Barik has been identified as the victim.
The Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi single-judge bench noted, “Universities have a great responsibility to their students, especially when it comes to administering exams efficiently and publishing results in a timely manner.” The observation highlighted the delicate role that universities play in determining students’ futures. These procedures are essential to students’ educational journeys, and skipping them can have detrimental effects on their general wellbeing, career prospects, and academic success.
The petitioner, Bibhuti Bhusan Barik, reportedly took the Sambalpur University +3 Commerce exam in 1999, according to reports on LiveLaw. His English score of only
He showed up, but he was ruled not present. In the subject of commercial law, where he was previously rated as “absent,” he seemed to have received a score of 23. His “absent” status resulted in the withholding of his final exam results. According to the submission, the petitioner has been making repeated, sincere attempts to approach college authorities over the past ten years, pointing out the inconsistencies in the assessment that went in his favour. However, all of his efforts have been unsuccessful.25 out of 100 was considered a “failure,” as it fell short of the required 30 points for passing. Furthermore, he was marked as absent for the Commercial Law paper even though he was present. He showed up for the final +3 Commerce Pass exam at the same time as he passed the English paper again.
Challenging this lax approach of the university, the petitioner approached the portals of the High Court demanding compensation for the academic and professional losses caused to him due to the delay of over a decade. The Court held that conducting investigations involves proper planning, ensuring the availability of necessary resources and maintaining an environment conducive to fair testing. Any discrepancies or inefficiencies can lead to unnecessary stress and may not accurately reflect a student’s abilities.
Emphasis was also placed on timely publication of results as delays in doing so can cause fear and uncertainty among students. Judge Panigrahi said discrepancies in the publication of results could hinder students’ ability to make informed decisions about their future, such as applying for higher studies or jobs.
One could argue that universities ought to compensate the impacted students in the event that they are unable to fulfil these obligations. This could take the shape of monetary reimbursement, study credits, or other actions that recognise and make up for the trouble that was caused. In addition to being a corrective measure, this provision emphasises the accountability of educational institutions,” he continued.
