Additional Joint Secretary Commissioner Of Govt Examinations vs V Srinivasulu

MR. Suresh Chandra, Member-Respondent No. 1-V. Srinivasulu s/o Suba Rayudu is the complainant in this revision petition. He appeared for SSC Examination through OP-2/Respondent No. 2 School in March 1997 and succeeded in the said examination with third division. SSC certificate was, therefore, issued to him but it contained some mistakes. According to the complainant his surname was mentioned as ''U'' instead of ''V'' and his father''s name was shown as ''Kotaiah'' instead of V. Subba Rayudu. His date of birth also came to be shown as 22.4.1981 instead of 6.6.1981. The complainant, therefore, addressed several letters to OP-School for rectification of the alleged mistakes but because of the time taken in the process, he lost three valuable academic years and could not pursue his studies for want of Secondary School Certificate. He, therefore, lodged a complaint before the District Forum, Prakasam District. The District Forum vide its order dated 21.3.2002 allowed the complaint and awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards mental agony with interest @ 9% p.a. from 19.5.2000 till the realization along with a sum of Rs. 500 by way of costs. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner herein who was OP-1 before the District Forum challenged this order of the District Forum before the A. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad through an appeal. The State Commission did not find any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal of the OP-1/appellant. The petitioner has now approached this Commission challenging this order of the State Commission passed on 13.9.2006 through the present revision petition.

IN its revision petition, the petitioner has denied any deficiency in service in the matter and has also given details of the efforts made by the Authorities at different levels to carry out the corrections in the SSC Certificate of the complainant in accordance with the procedure in force. It is submitted that the Fora below have failed to appreciate the response filed by the petitoner/OP-1 while deciding the case against him and dismissing his appeal.

WE have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Besides reiterating the submissions made in the revision petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the two important judgments given by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC)=VII (2009) SLT 109=(2009) 8 SCC 483, and Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, III (2010) CPJ 19 (SC)=V (2010) SLT 545. She has submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the first case, the present dispute cannot be called a consumer dispute. In view of this, she has pleaded that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order of the Fora below is liable to be set aside.

HAVING heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and considered the undisputed facts of this case, we find that this case is squarely covered by the celebrated ruling given by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Sinha (supra), wherein the Apex Court held as under: "Process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative. When Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its ''services'' to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by Board, hire or avail of any service from the Board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in examination conducted by Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having successfully completed the said course of education; and if so, determine his position or rank or competence vis-a-vis other examinees. The process is not therefore availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general examination conducted by Board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully completed secondary education course. The examination fee paid by student is not the consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for privilege of participation in the examination. The Act does not intend to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact that in the course of conducting of examination, or evaluation of answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service-provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. The Board is not a ''service provider'' and a student who takes an examination is not a ''consumer'' and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board."

APPLYING the above ratio to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner cannot be called a ''service provider'' and opposite party/respondent who appeared at the SSC examination cannot be treated as a consumer and hence the dispute in question shall not be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. In view of this, the petition stands allowed and the impugned order of the State Commission upholding the order of the District Forum and dismissing the appeal of the petitioner is hereby set aside. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties shall bear their own costs.