Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. After proper scrutiny, it was found that she was not given proper marks, accordingly, the marks was modified in the Mathematics and Science subjects. Accordingly, she has been granted 65 marks in Mathematics and 49 marks in science subjects. Accordingly, communication was made by the Bihar School Examination Board to the Headmaster of the School including the appellant. While the matter was pending, the appellant approached the State Human Rights Commission, making complaint that her answer book was not properly evaluated and was wrongly declared to have failed showing 05 marks in Mathematics subject. On receipt of the notice, the Bihar School Examination Board has filed its reply dated 22.03.2015, wherein explained the whole incident having stated that there is no loss to Priyanka Kumari as proper correction has been made and it was a sheer human error, no bad intention can be attached either to a particular person or institution but, the proper assessment has been made without any discrimination and without any malice. The State Human Rights Commission again directed for re-scrutiny of the paper of Priyanka Kumari and again error was found and the same has been corrected in the Science subject as earlier 49 marks was granted to Priyanka Kumari having been enhanced to 56 marks. So, on two Patna High Court L.P.A No.2306 of 2016 dt.18-12-2019 occasions, there is a revision of marks, which shows that casual approach was adopted by the authority with the future of the students. After scrutiny, marks was enhanced in Mathematics and Science subjects. Whereafter, the Bihar School Examination Board has issued notice to concerned examiner and scrutinizer and asked them to show-cause with respect to the irregularity committed by them. When no response was received, vide memo no.241 dated 10.06.2015 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition), they have been debarred to become the examiner and scrutinzer. Whereafter, explanation was again filed by the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, wherein it has been stated that show-cause were asked from the person responsible, who were engaged as examiner and scrutinizer, on account of non-receipt of explanation from them, they have been declared incompetent and blacklisted. Further stated that on enquiry, it was transpired that the officer, staff and employees of the Bihar School Examination Board are not directly responsible. On 08.09.2015, the uncle of appellant - Priyanka Kumari, has appeared and informed the Commission that till date Priyanka Kumari has not been given the amount, as mentioned under the scheme framed by the State Government. It appears from the record that again the case was fixed on 21.01.2016 and certain Patna High Court L.P.A No.2306 of 2016 dt.18-12-2019 order was passed, ultimately, the impugned order has been passed.

7. Learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board submits that the Human Rights Commission does not have jurisdiction as like the power and authority given to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but, it has been created under the statutory to achieve certain goal. The Commission has been given power to recommend for the action to be taken as well as on account of human error the appellant was not granted proper marks, in such matter, the alleged inefficiency of teachers, who engaged in evaluation of the answer book, cannot fall under the violation of the human rights.

9. Learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board also submits that when everything was brought to the notice of the Commission, the obligation lies with the Commission to verify as to who was the responsible person and at whose instance this situation has arisen and thereafter proper action could have been taken and as such, the Commission has wrongly exercised the power in the name of violation of human rights. He next submits that such mistake may happen with different organizations such as, U.P.S.C., B.P.S.C. or all such agencies and such mistake is called the human error, a person cannot be punished in the name of violation of human rights.

21. The word 'dignity' has not been defined anywhere Patna High Court L.P.A No.2306 of 2016 dt.18-12-2019 in the Protection of Human Rights Act, and as such, normal meaning in the dictionary is to be taken into service as mentioned in the definition Section. In the present case, nowhere it has been stated of violation of any Constitutional right as it does not fall in the category of Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is a case of granting wrong marks, which later on, rectified, was a human error, would not attract awarding of cost. It is further to say that the order has been passed without hearing of the persons, who are going to be effected and it also does not fall within the four corners of violation of fundamental right. Error is always attached with human, no allegation of having been committed with an ulterior motive has been made. In the case at hand, the Bihar School Examination Board, corrected the error in awarding the marks as well as those involved in evaluation of answer book have been declared incompetent and blacklisted. At the same time, the compensation amount under the scheme has been paid to the appellant by the State Government. In our view, awarding of marks incorrectly cannot be said that "dignity" has been downgraded in terms of human rights, does not fall under the definition of violation of human rights. It would apply when the person has been deprived of basic rights, which are basic intents Patna High Court L.P.A No.2306 of 2016 dt.18-12-2019 of all human being.