HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10488 of 2023 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed today in the Court is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Sumeet Dikshit, the petitioner who appears in person and Shri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent- University. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: "1. That to moderate the marks awarded to the petitioner in the aforesaid 2 out of syllabus papers Land Law (30/100) & Professional Ethics (33/100), without demanding any fee for the same. 2. That in the case of any shortfall, award the grace marks as provisioned in clause 20 of the Examination Manual to enable the petitioner to clear the course as the petitioner has no other back papers in the 3 year course other than the aforesaid 2 papers. 3. That any other relief this Hon'ble court may be pleased to grant in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. 4. That the Hon'ble court may kindly impose costs on the respondent for dereliction of duty & causing mental stress on the petitioner and also direct to refund the back paper exam fee amounting 2200/- And not to Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : In Person Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Savitra Vardhan Singh Mr. Sumeet Dikshit .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Higher Education, Lucknow And Another .....Respondent(s) take any coercive unfair action in response to filing of this writ petition." 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was awarded less marks on account of there being change in the syllabus without notifying the said, which resulted less marks and despite, the petitioner requesting for grant of grace marks, the respondent-University did not oblige, which has resulted a mental harassment to the petitioner. It is argued by the petitioner that it was well within the rights of the University to have awarded the grace marks, however, for the reasons best known to the University, it did not do so. He, however, admits that subsequently the petitioner was made to appear in the back papers again, which he did despite not being keen to do so. It is stated that the petitioner has qualified the back papers examination thereafter and has now qualified all the six semesters. He, thus, argues that on account of being mental harassment faced by the petitioner, his self-respect was at stake, for which the present petition was filed. 5. He further argued that merely because the petitioner had subsequently appeared in the back papers, his rights, which vested, would not be altered and thus, the writ petition should be allowed and a suitable compensation should be directed to be given by the respondent-University. 6. The petitioner relies upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Priyanka Dubey Vs. State of U.P.; Writ-C No.1007064 of 2015 decided on 10th July, 2024 to argue that once dereliction of duty by the respondent-University is established, the petitioner would be entitled to grant of compensation. 7. The petitioner further relies upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India and others; Civil Appeal No.2679 of 2024 decided on 20th February, 2024, wherein it was said that whenever a tort found, the Court is empowered to impose the cost. 8. The said judgement would have no application to the facts of the present case, as there is no material on record proved by the petitioner to justify a quantum of compensation/loss caused on account of the act of the respondent-University. WRIC No. 10488 of 2023 2 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-University, on the other hand, argues that there is no provision for grant of grace marks and option of appearance in the back papers was given, which was availed by the petitioner and now he has qualified and had passed the six semesters. Opposing the request for grant of compensation, learned counsel for the respondent-University argues that no loss has been shown to have suffered by the petitioner warranting the grant of compensation. 10. He further argues that there is no provision for moderation in the rules of the University as claimed by the petitioner. He further argues that the grant of compensation is based upon establishing certain facts, which cannot be done in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, it is clear that the present writ petition is now confined to the loss of self respect as claimed by the petitioner on account of the conduct of the respondent-University. It is not disputed that the petitioner has qualified the six semesters of the examination. 12. In view of the claim of the petitioner with regard to loss of his self- respect and claim of compensation, the same cannot be adjudicated in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the same can be granted after appreciating evidence. 13. The petition stands disposed of. September 8, 2025 Ashutosh WRIC No. 10488 of 2023 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench