High Court imposes Rs 25,000 fine on education board for not including student’s name in merit list

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education (HPBOSE) for not including the name of a Class X student in the merit list.

While allowing a petition filed in this regard, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel directed the education board to include the name of the petitioner in the merit list of the top 10 meritorious candidates, who had scored the maximum marks in the matriculation examination held in March, 2024.

The court directed all benefits, which were to accrue to the petitioner as a result thereof, including scholarship etc, be given to her. The court passed the order on a petition filed by Yashaswini Aggarwal who contended that she had appeared in the Class X examination conducted by the board in March, 2024. In the exam results declared, she secured 686 out of 700 marks. As she was not satisfied with her result, she applied for a re-evaluation. Upon re-evaluation, her marks increased to 693 out of 700.

The grievance of the petitioner is that after the declaration of the re-evaluation result, she requested the respondents to issue her a merit certificate, which was given to top 10 students, who had scored the highest marks in the Class X examination.

As per the stand of the education board, to find a place in the merit list of the top 10 students, documents were to be submitted before August 30, 2024. The board said that the school head mistress furnished the particulars of the petitioner on September 9, 2024. Therefore, the needful could not be done, for which the board was not at fault, but it was the school head mistress who was at fault.

While rejecting the defence of the board, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed, “As it is the board that conducts the examination and declares the results, obviously onus is upon it to scrutinise, as to who are the top 10 meritorious candidates for inclusion in the merit list, which includes the re-evaluation result. The board can’t shif this onus on other respondents like the head master or head mistress of the school, as is being tried in the present case.”