Page No.# 1/20 GAHC030005792019 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RFA/22/2019 Mizoram Board of School Education and 2 others Aizawl, Mizoram VERSUS Sh Lalchhanhima Rentlei Aizawl, Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr L H Lianhrima Sr. Adv. Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Joseph Lalchhanhima Renthlei BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG Advocates for the appellants : Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, Sr. Adv Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli Advocate for the respondent : Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei Date on which judgment is reserved :18.11.2025 Date of pronouncement of judgment :01.12.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : N/A Whether the full judgment has been pronounced?: Yes Page No.# 2/20 J U D G M E N T & O R D E R (CAV) Heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The instant RFA is filed against the Judgment & Order of the learned Senior Civil Judge-IV, Aizawl District, in Civil Suit No. 114/2015, dated 26.08.2019, wherein the appellants were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only to the plaintiff/instant respondent within 3 months from this date of order as compensation for the injury/damage caused to the plaintiff/instant respondent due to negligence act. The defendants/instant appellants were further directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- (10,000+5,000) as pleader’s fee and cost of the suit with an interest thereon at the rate of 10% to the plaintiff/instant respondent from the date of the judgment and order to the date of realization. 3. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing the present appeal is that the present respondent, who was the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 114/2015, had approached the trial court for payment of adequate compensation by stating that he had appeared in the matriculation examination conducted in the year Page No.# 3/20 2015 and being a competitive student, who had always been outstanding among his peers, he was expecting to pass on distinction, however, when the results were published, he had secured only 65 marks in the science subject. Thereafter, being extremely aggrieved, he had applied for re-evaluation of his marks, and subsequently, his marks in the science subject was improved from 65 marks to 82 marks. However, because his previousmarks of 65 in the science subject, he did not get admission at St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School and by the time his marks were re-evaluated, scoring 82 marks in the science subject, the admission process at St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School in science stream was already closed. Because of him not getting admission into St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School which had always been his ambition,as he felt that this school provided the best education in the State of Mizoram and would help him to achieve his future career, he had to take admission at Serkawn Higher Secondary School, Lunglei which he felt was below the standard of education imparted by the St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School. The present respondent,thus being highly aggrieved by the fact that he could not get admitted into St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School, had filed the Civil Suit against the present appellants, praying for monetary compensation as hereunder: Page No.# 4/20 i) to be paid Rs. 3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs) for the injury and damage suffered as a result of breach of duty in erroneously giving him less marks than what he deserved when the results were first published. ii) Rs. 30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand),along with 12% interest per month from the date the notice was served, for all the expenses incurred by the present respondent in travelling and staying in Aizawl in connection with the re-evaluation of his answer paper. iii) Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) as compensation for pain, shock, suffering, hardships, and inconveniences suffered by the present respondent. iv) Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs) as punitive damages. v) Rs. 40,000/- (rupees forty thousand) for the legal expenses incurred. 4. It was also the case of the present respondent that though the present respondent’s father had tried to obtain the answer sheet through RTI, the same was refused which suggested that this answer sheet was negligently calculated and evaluated. 5. The present appellants, in their written statement as respondents in Civil Suit No. 114/2015, contested the suit by stating that though they admitted that they committed an error in giving less marks in the science subject, however, they denied any negligence and submitted that the Mizoram Board of School Education (MBSE) Bye-laws, 2008 and the MBSE (Amendment) Act, 2014 provided for the re-evaluation of marks within 15 days. As a result, the marks of Page No.# 5/20 the present respondent was re-evaluated, and the marks scored by him were duly corrected from 65 to 82 percent. It was also the case of the present appellants that the present respondent should have made St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School a party in the Civil Suit for refusing his admission, and that the present respondent’s assessment of Serkawn Higher Secondary School, Lunglei of being of a lower standard than the St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School is his own assessment and he cannot put the blame on the defendants/instant appellants for any loss or damage that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants/instant appellants since re-evaluation was done as per law. 6. From the submissions made by both the parties, the learned trial court had framed the following issues: i)Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style? ii)Whether there is negligence on the part of the defendant(present appellants) in checking the answer sheet of the plaintiff (present respondent)? iii) Whether the plaintiff (present respondent) suffered loss/damage as a result of negligence? iv) Whether the plaintiff (present respondent) is entitled to the relief claimed? 7. The learned trial court decided all the issues in favor of the present respondent and passed the impugned judgment and decree wherein, the present appellants were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees Page No.# 6/20 one lakh) only, to the plaintiff (present respondent) within 3 months from the date of the judgment as compensation for the injury/damage caused to the plaintiff (present respondent) due to negligent act. The defendant (present appellants) was further directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- (10,000/- + 5000/-) as pleader’sfee and cost of the suit, with an interest thereonat the rate of 10% to the plaintiff from the date of the judgment till the date of realization. 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the instant appeal is filed. 9. Mr. Lianhrima, learned Senior counsel submitted that the Civil Suit No. 114/2015 along with the connected RFA are liable to be dismissed and set aside since St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School was not made a party in the Civil Suit No. 114/2015. He submitted that the respondent’s grievance is for not getting admission into the St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School, thus, it is the St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School which can address the grievance of the respondent and therefore, is a necessary party. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in State of Assam Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2010) 10 SCC 408 para 16 wherein, it was held that the law is now well settled that a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is Page No.# 7/20 necessary for a complete and final decision of the question involved in the proceeding. The learned Senior counsel also relied on the judgment in Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417 para 15 wherein, the Apex Court held that a “necessary party” is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a “necessary party” is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A “proper party” is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. 10. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the case of the respondent as a plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 114/2015 was based only on oral evidence given by the respondent/plaintiff with no documentary evidences to support his claim. The respondent/plaintiff had simply stated that the interviewers at St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School, after looking at his mark sheets, had not granted an admission, and that if he had obtained 80 marks or more in science subject, he would have been given admission. However, there is Page No.# 8/20 no evidence to prove the same nor is there any evidence to prove that his rejection was due to obtaining low marks in science subject. The respondent/plaintiff had not mentioned the date of his application for admission to St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School, nor is there any date of his rejection mentioned. The respondent/plaintiff did not have any documentary prove to support any of his claimsnor did he produce any witness before the court. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the case of the respondent/plaintiff was based on his imaginary assessment that Serkawn Higher Secondary School, Lunglei, was not a good school as compared to St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School, and that the respondent/plaintiff is not authorized to make such a claim. The learned senior counsel thus submitted that the learned trial court had erred in finding that the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to any relief, and that the quantum of compensation given to the respondent/plaintiff is without any basis. He submitted that the respondent/plaintiff, without any documentary evidence, has failed to show that the appellants were negligent and that any damage was caused to the respondent/plaintiff in not getting admission into the school he desired to get himself admitted. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors., Vs. Page No.# 9/20 Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269 para 15 & 19 wherein, it was held that the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff. 11. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the learned trial court had erred in placing reliance upon the ruling passed by the Apex Court in President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr. Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 603 wherein, the learned trial court failed to realize that the facts and circumstances are different from the instant case. He submitted that there was no provision for re-evaluation under the Board of Secondary School Education, Orissa, whereas, in the Bye Laws, 2008 under the MBSE, there is a provision for re-evaluation if a complaint is made within 15 days from the date of the declaration of the result u/s 35(i) of the Bye Laws, 2008. He, therefore, submitted that the case relied upon by the learned trial court was not applicable. 12. The learned senior counsel also submitted that the appellants had no reason to be biased or unfair towards the respondent since the answer papers were corrected against the roll numbers of the candidates, and the names of Page No.# 10/20 the candidates are not shown in the answer sheets. He submitted that the copies of the answer sheets could always be obtained by the respondent, if applied for, and that there was no reason to ask for copies of the answer sheets through RTI. 13. Per contra, Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this court, while considering maintainability of the Civil Suit No. 114/2015, had observed that the maintainability of the Civil Suit was already decided on 09.06.2016, and therefore, since the said Order dated 09.06.2016 was not challenged, the issue questioning the maintainability for non- joinder of necessary parties cannot be raised at this belated stage. The learned counsel has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. &Ors., (Supra) cited by the appellants, by submitting that since the grievance in the instant case, is against the Mizoram Board of School Education, the court can effectively adjudicate the case wherein, the presence of the St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School as a party is not required. 14. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial court had rightly relied upon the case of President, Board of Secondary School Education, Orissa & Anr., Vs., D. Suvankar & Anr., (supra) at para 3, 9, Page No.# 11/20 15 & 16, wherein , the Apex Court held that it was the Board which has to ensure that the correct marksheets are issued to the candidates since such candidates who appear at the High School Certificate are of tender age and if the Board indicates incorrect marks it would have adverse effect on the mind of the candidate of tender age. The court had also expressed its displeasure of the carelessness of the concerned authority. That in the instant case the results were declared on 27.04.2015 and being shocked and aggrieved with the marks scored in the science subject, the respondent had asked for the re-evaluation wherein, the marks scored in science subject was corrected from 65 marks to 82 marks only on 01.06.2015 for which the respondent had suffered much and his whole future career was spoilt for not getting admission in the school which he had always aimed to be admitted into. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the case of the respondent/plaintiff is supported by the evidence of the DW-1, who was the Director (Academic) MBSE. The DW-1, in his cross-examination had admitted that the cut off mark for science stream in St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School was 80 marks. The same defense witness had admitted that the respondent/plaintiff was initially given 65 marks and was not eligible to get admitted in the school since the cut off mark of St. Paul’s Higher Secondary Page No.# 12/20 School is 80 marks in science stream. The learned counsel submitted that the DW No. 2 also support the case of the respondent/plaintiff by stating that he was not aware of the defense witness taking steps or whether they were willing to place the answer sheet of the plaintiff as a part of the evidence. He also submitted that from the defense evidence, it is seen that they had not made any attempt to help the respondent/plaintiff to get admission into St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School after the re-evaluation of his marks, wherein his scored increased from 65 marks to 82 percent in the science stream. The learned counsel submitted that the evidence adduced by the respondent/plaintiff is sufficient since it is supported by the evidence of the defendant witnesses and that the evidence of the plaintiff/instant respondent is not merely hearsay. 16. The learned counsel thus submitted that the learned Trial Court held that the respondent should be compensated the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) and also compensated Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) as pleader’s fee for the pain and suffering faced by the respondent/plaintiff with an interest of 10% to the said amount till its realization. Therefore, there were no grounds to interfere with the judgment & order of the learned trial court. 17. This court has considered the submissions of both the parties. This court Page No.# 13/20 has also perused the evidence adduced by the parties in the Civil Suit No. 114/2025 and perused the authorities relied upon by the counsels for both the parties. 18. This court finds that the points to be considered in the instant appeal are: i) whether the impugned Judgment and decree was liable to be quashed for the non-joinder of necessary party. ii) Whether the appellant was negligent in initially giving 65 marks to the respondent in science subject which was later re- evaluated u/s 35(i) of the Bye Laws, 2008 of the MBSE, wherein the marks scored in science subject was improved to 82 marks from 65 marks. iii) Whether the respondent had suffered any pain or loss due to the initial wrong evaluation of his marks and whether the learned trial court had erred in awarding any compensation to the respondent by relying on the judgment of the Apex court in President, Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr.(supra). 19. This court finds that the learned trial court had observed that the maintainability of the Civil Suit was already decided on 09.06.2016. It appears that the said Order dated 09.06.2016 was not challenged and therefore this Page No.# 14/20 court finds that the issue of maintainability for non- joinder of necessary parties need not be considered at this belated stage. Further this court finds that the instant respondent was mainly aggrieved with the action of the instant appellant authorities and therefore the case could be effectively adjudicated in the absence of St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School. 20. On a perusal of the evidence on record, the undisputed fact is that when the results of the matriculation examination conducted in the year 2015 was published on 27.04.2015, the appellants had wrongly given 65 marks in science subject. Shocked and aggrieved by the result, the instant respondent had promptly applied for the re-evaluation of his marks in the science subject as provided in Mizoram Board of School Education (MBSE) Bye-laws, 2008 and the MBSE (Amendment) Act, 2014 within the stipulated 15 days. As a result, the marks of the present respondent was re-evaluated, and the marks scored by him were duly corrected from 65 to 82 marks on 01.06.2015. This court thus finds that even if there is a provision for re-evaluation, it is seen that after the re-evaluation of the marks was done, the marks scored by the respondent was improved by 17 marks resulting in him scoring 82 marks in the science stream from the initial 65 marks, which is quite a huge margin. A perusal of the evidence adduced, shows that there is no explanation made by the appellant Page No.# 15/20 authorities as to why the marks scored by the respondent was wrongly published. This court therefore, finds that such unexplained mistakes cannot simply be brushed aside after a re-evaluation and thus, with no explanation forth coming, this court is constrained to come to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the appellant authorities in initially publishing wrong marks of the instant respondent, which had caused shock and distress to the respondent. It is the considered opinion of this court that the mistake, even if unintentional, could have been avoided, considering the facts that the marks scored by the respondent could be improved from 65 to 82 on re- evaluation. 21. This court also finds that when the results of the matriculation results was published, declaring the respondent to score only 65 marks in the science stream, it had caused him much disappointment and shock, as a result of which he had promptly asked for the re-evaluation of the marks. The effect of publishing the incorrect marks is that the respondent felt that he had been deprived of getting admission into his dream school, which according to him, was the best institution to give him the proper education, especially, in science stream. This court however, does not find it necessary to delve into the correctness of his evaluation, that St. Pauls’ Higher Secondary School is better than Serkawn Page No.# 16/20 Higher Secondary School or that he was denied admission because of him scoring 65 marks in science subject. The fact remains that the wrong publication of the marks scored by the respondent had adverse effect on the mind of the candidates of tender age, for which he remained hurt and resentful and resulted in him filing a suit to be compensated for the shock, pain and grievance caused to him and which was not atoned even when the re-evaluation was done wherein his marks was improved greatly from 65 to 82. 22. At this stage this court finds it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portions of the judgment of the Apex court in President, Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr. (supra) i.e., paras 3,9,15&16, which this court finds aptly applicable in the instant case ; “3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Respondent 1 appeared at the High School Certificate Examination 2004 conducted by the appellant Board. Result of the said examination was published on 25-6-2004. Initially, Respondent 1 was declared to have passed in the Ist division securing 654 marks out of 750 marks. Respondent 1 made a representation pointing out that the marks appear to have been wrongly mentioned in the marksheet. Answer scripts were verified, and it was found that the marks awarded in one paper i.e. SSH were wrongly shown as 35 though Respondent 1 had really secured 65 marks. It was pointed out that the mistake occurred due to the wrong entry made in the computer. The error was rectified in the tabulation register and fresh marksheet was issued on 7-7- Page No.# 17/20 2004. The revised marksheet was sent to the Zonal Officer at Balasore for onward transmission to the Headmaster, N.S. Police High School where the petitioner had prosecuted studies. In September 2004, Respondent 1 filed a writ petition. It is to be noted that the Board had constituted a committee pursuant to the direction given in BismayaMohantycase [BismayaMohanty v. Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, (1996) 1 OLR 134] . The cut-off mark was fixed at 682. As at that time Respondent 1's marks were taken to be 654, his papers were not examined by the committee. As the candidate had deposited requisite fees for checking of addition of marks, the exercise was undertaken and it was noted that in the SSH paper he had secured 71 and not 65 as was posted on the cover page. In other words, the actual marks secured by the candidate were 690 and not 654 as was originally recorded. 9. One thing which cannot be lost sight of is the marginal difference of marks which decide the placement of candidates in the merit list. 15. The appellant Board is certainly not blemishless. Undisputedly, lesser marks were shown in the marksheet supplied to Respondent 1. In the first marksheet the total marks indicated were 654. Finally, marksheet was issued showing the aggregate marks to be 690. Except putting the blame on the computer firm, the Assistant Examiner and the Scrutiniser, nothing further has been offered by the appellant Board as explanation. True it is the first mistake of the computer firm but the second correction is clearly on the basis of the prayer for readdition of marks. It was found that the marks actually secured were 71 while on the cover page of the answer sheet the marks were noted as 65. For this the blame has to be fixed on the Assistant Examiner and the Scrutiniser. But that does not provide an escape route to the Board. 16. Ultimately, it is the Board which has to ensure that the correct marksheet is issued to the candidates since candidates who appear at the High School Page No.# 18/20 Certificate are of tender age. If by mistake the Board indicates to the candidates incorrect marks, it is bound to have adverse effect on the mind of the candidates of tender age. Therefore, it is imperative on the part of the Board to ensure that errorless mark sheet is issued to each candidate. The plea of the computer firm that considering the large number of candidates the mistake is not serious has no substance. The computer entries are made to ensure accuracy and to do away with defects which arise from manual recording of marks. The Assistant Examiner and the scrutinizer appear to have taken their jobs casually, negligent of the consequences which result from their negligent acts. Therefore, the sum of Rs 20,000 has to be paid to Respondent 1 by the Board out of which it shall recover Rs 15,000 from computer firm. It appears that the Board has taken action against the Assistant Examiner and the Scrutiniser for their negligence. While affirming action taken against them, we express our displeasure for their careless and negligent acts which have led to unnecessary litigation.” 23. Thus, this court on finding that the facts and circumstances of the above cited case is quite similar with the instant case, agree with the findings of the learned Trial Court that the plaintiff/respondent was entitled to the relief claimed to some extent. This court however finds that it cannot be guaranteed that had the respondent got admission at St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School, he would have had received a better education or a better future, which is based only on presumptions and assumptions. Thus, taking into considering the amount awarded by the Apex Court in President, Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr. (Supra), this court finds that the amount Page No.# 19/20 awarded by the learned Trial Court is on the higher side. This court finds it appropriate to reduce the compensation amount from Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) only to Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand) only. The direction to pay Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. 10,000+5000) as pleader’s fee and cost of the suit, will remain the same however imposing an interest of 10% from the date of the Judgment to the date of realization is interfered with and stands waived. The appellants are thus, directed to pay the full compensation amount to the respondent within 2 (two) months from the date of receiving a certified true copy of this judgment. Accordingly, the Judgment & Order of the learned Senior Civil Judge-IV, Aizawl District, in Civil Suit No. 114/2015, dated 26.08.2019 stands interfered with to the extend mentioned above. 24. This court also finds it proper to reiterate and emphasize that the Board and all those involved in conducting such examinations are entrusted with a huge and sensitive responsibility, in ensuring that the correct marks are issued and published, since candidates who appear at the High School Certificate examinations are of tender age and much stress and pain can be caused by initially publishing wrong marks. Such mishaps should be avoided at all cost, unless they occur due to situations which are beyond the control of the Page No.# 20/20 concerned authorities, which does not appear to be the case, in the instant appeal. 25. Accordingly, the instant RFA No. 22 of 2019 stands disposed of as above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant