RABINDRA NATH GHOSAL versus UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 698 · Decided: 30-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RABJNDRA NATH GHOSAL 
v. 
UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 
B [G.B. PATTANAIK, Y.K. SABHARWAL AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Education/Educational Institutions: 
MA. Examination-Non-declaration of result-Writ Petition filed for. 
C publication of result-High Court appointed a Committee to go into the delay 
in publication of result-Single Judge considered the report, awarded 
compensation-Division Bench set aside the award of damage by holding that 
it is not a fit case to apply doctrine of public law-On appeal, Held, it is not 
appropriate to grant compensa1ion under Article 226132 for minor infraction 
D of duty by public officer-Before granting exemplary damage the Court must 
ensure that fimdamemal rights under Article 2 I have been infringed and 
sufferer was a helpless victim-Constitution of India: Articles 2 I, 32 and 
226-Writ Jurisdiction-Award of compensation. 
Appellant appeared for M.A. Examination in certain subject and the 
E result was not declared for quite a long period. In the meanwhile, he took 
admission in an other course of study. After a gap of 5/6 years he wrote 
to the University authorities for declaration of result. As the result was 
not declared he filed a Writ Petition. Soon after, result was declared by 
the University and appellant was found to have failed. Single Judge of the 
High Court appointed a Committee, headed by a retired Judge, to 
F investigate into the matter as to why result was not declared for years. 
Upon consideration of the report, the Single Judge directed the University 
to pay certain amount as compensation and damages and to take 
appropriate action against erring officers and also directed payment of a 
fixed amount as costs. 
G 
Respondent-University filed an appeal. Division Bench of the High 
Court found the Respondent negligent and held that appellant had failed 
to establish the problems faced and the extent to which he had suffered 
prejudice due to non-declaration of the result by the University. The Bench 
held that it was not a fit case to award compensation for damages by 
H invoking the doctrine of public law. However, the award of cost was 
698 
RABINDRA NA TH GHOSAL r. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTT A 
699 
confirmed. Hence this appeal. 
Appellant contended that the Division Bench erred in setting aside 
the order of the Single Judge by concluding that this was not a fit case to 
award compensation. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A claim in publ!c law for compensation for 
contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection 
A 
B 
of which is guaranteed in the Constitution is undoubtedly an acknowledged 
remedy for protection and enforcement of such right and such a claim 
based on strict liability made by resorting to a Constitutional remedy, C 
provided for the enforcement of fundamental right is distinct from, and 
in addition to the remedy in private law for damages for the toi't; as was 
held by this Court in Nilabati Behera. It is in fact an innovation of a new 
tool with the Court which are the protectors of the Civil Liberty of the 
citizens and the Court, in exercise of the same, would be in a position to D 
grant compensation when it comes to the conclusion that there has been 
a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21. (703-G, H; 704-A, BJ 
Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, 11994] 1 SCC 243; 
Common Cause v. Union of India and Ors., [1999] 6 SCC 667 and Neelabati 
Behara v. State of Orissa, 11993] 2 SCR 581, referred to. 
E 
1.2. It would not be correct to assume that every minor infraction 
of public duty by every public officer would commend the Court to grant 
compensation in a petition under Article 226/32 by applying the principle 
of public law proceeding. The Court in exercise of extraordinary power 
under Article 226/32 of the Constitution, therefore, would not award F 
damages against public authorities merely because they have made some 
order which turns out to be ultra vires, or there has been some inaction 
in the performance of the duties unless there is malice or conscious abuse. 
Before exemplary damages can be awarded it must be shown that some 
fundamental right under Article 21 has been infringed by arbitrary or G 
capricious action on the part of the public functionaries and that the 
sufferer was a helpless victiin of that act. [704-D, E, F] 
2. In the instant case, the report of the Committee clearly shows that 
the Appellant was aware, from the beginning, tha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.