BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION vs HUNEY PURI

THIS order shall dispose of above mentioned appeals as they have arisen out of the order dated 23.5.2005 passed by District Forum, Yamuna Nagar in Complaint Case No. 113 of 4.2.2005.

PUT shortly, the facts of the case are that the complainant - Huney Puri has passed the Matriculation examination through Haryana Open School as Jain Mahavidayala, Sadhaura did not approach the Board of School Education, Haryana, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as the Board) for issue of enrolment number in time. Thereafter she got admission in D.A.V. College, Sadhaura (hereinafter referred to as the college). The college also did not approach the Board for getting her allotted enrolment number in 10+1 class. When her application for enrolment was sent to the Board for taking 10+2 examination of the Board, the same was rejected by the Board on the ground that the complainant has not applied for enrolment after passing Matriculation examination and joining 10+1 class due to the default on the part of the College, which was required to send the enrolment form during the period the student was studying in 10+1 class, as per Clause 8 of the circular letter relating to the enrolment of class 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th for the session 2003-2004 and the rejection so made was communicated to the complainant vide letter memo No. 36866 dated 12.8.2004. Aggrieved by the action of the Board, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum wherein she prayed that direction be issued to the appellant to issue enrolment number and also roll number to her so that she may be able to appear in 10+2 class examination going to be held in the month of March, 2005. In addition, she claimed Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her. The claim was contested by the college. In the written statement filed, it was pleaded that the complainant has joined the college after passing the Matriculation examination on the basis of Matriculation certificate which bears enrolment number issued by the Board in terms of the direction issued in Clause 6 of the circular letter referred to above. It was further pleaded that the Board had issued direction contained in Clause 8 of the circular letter that the students, who had passed Matriculation examination through Haryana Open School, the college/school has to get enrolment number in 10+1 and the enrolment number given on their previous certificate through Haryana Open Board shall be invalid and after receiving the said letter, the college applied for the enrolment of complainant through letter No. DAVS/1302 dated 24.9.2004 along with enrolment return proforma in which particulars of the complainant were mentioned, but the Board declined the claim of the college vide letter No. 19215/A-1/Enrolment/X+II dated 7.12.2004. It was further pleaded that the college had made another request to the Board to enrol the complainant and necessary information was given to the parents of the complainant vide letter No. 1509 dated 12.2.2005. The college had also informed the complainant about the rejection of the application for enrolment of the complainant to her parents. It was accordingly pleaded that as there was no fault on its part, the complaint merited dismissal.

The Board also rejected the stand of the complainant. It was pleaded in the written statement filed that the complainant has passed 10th class from Haryana Open School but the college where she has joined 10+1 class had not sent enrolment return form and for that reason her enrolment number could not be issued to the complainant and her application for enrolment was rightly rejected on the ground that the complainant has not applied for enrolment after passing 10th class examination and joining 10+1 class in the college and the said college did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the circular as it was required to send enrolment return in the 10+1 class in which admission was granted to the complainant. Thus, they maintained that they have rightly rejected the prayer for the issue of roll number to the complainant to take part in 10+2 examination and there being no deficiency of service on their part, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

DURING the pendency of the complaint, the complainant had applied for permission to take part in 10+1 examination, which was allowed subject to final decision of the complaint filed by her. On secrutiny of the pleadings and evidence produced on record by the parties, the District Forum rejected the stand taken by the college as it was concluded that it has failed to perform its duty in terms of the circular letter issued. At the same time, taking into consideration that the complainant should not suffer having taken part in the 10+2 examination and in view of future career of the complainant, directions were given to the Board to declare her result after obtaining late fee or imposing penalty upon opposite party No. 1 college. It was also directed that if for the said purpose any amount is required, the same shall be paid by the opposite party No. 1. It was further held that as the opposite party No. 1-college has been deficient and negligent and on that account the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment, it was directed that compensation amount of Rs. 50,000 be paid to the complainant. It is against this order, the present two separate appeals have been filed by the Board as well as the College. The Counsel representing the appellants in both the appeals as well as the Counsel representing the respondent-complainant have been heard at length.

AT the threshold of the arguments, the learned Counsel representing the Board has raised a preliminary objection to the directions issued by the District Forum in the order dated 23.5.2005 for declaring the result of 10+2 examination in which the complainant had appeared under the directions of the District Forum because such directions cannot be given in view of the position settled in case Sanjay Kumar Nam Deo v. Jiwaji University, III (2003) CPJ 98 (NC). In this case it was laid down that the university does not render any service for consideration in the matter of conducting examination, evaluating papers and declaring result and for that reason the complainant could not be construed as consumer and upheld the order of the State Commission in this regard. In support of their stand, reference was made to Ex. Sub. Sachida Nand Sharma v. Chairman, C.B.S.E., I (2003) CPJ 251 (NC)=2004 CTJ 39 (CP) (NCDRC), wherein it was laid down that an institution holding examination renders no service to an examinee taking the examination and for that reason any omission or commission on its part in connection therewith not to be termed as deficiency in service. Reference in this regard was also made to another case Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohotak v. Rominder Yadav, 1998 (1) CPC 389, of this Commission wherein it was held that a dispute between an examinee and the university does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as held in M.D. University''s case, 1995 (2) CPC 634 and 642 by this State Commission. In view of the position of law stated above, there is a considerable merit in the stand taken from the side of the appellant. As the prayer of the complainant relates to the declaration of her result in 10+2 examination held by the Board, the same cannot be accepted because the complainant cannot be construed as a ''consumer'' in view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case and the complaint was liable to be dismissed on this ground qua the Board. In fairness to the Counsel for the complainant-respondent, reference as made to the case Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala and Ors. v. Ashutosh, I (2003) CPJ 17 (NC)=2005 (1) CPC 637, wherein university failed to register complainant''s name for degree of M.Phil on the ground that entrance test was valid only for one year and there being minimum requirement of five students but only two students have qualified and for that reason the class could not be started. It was noticed as a fact earlier entrance test was valid for three years and contention of the university for one year period was not proved by evidence and for that reason the university was directed to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and declaration of result was directed to be subject to the submission of dissertation under the rules. Manifestly, the controversy in that case was entirely different than the controversy raised in the present case. Another case to which the reference was made from the side of the respondent-complainant is Gurukul Kangri Vishwavidhalaya v. Km. Aditi Bansal and Anr., 2005 CTJ 976 (CP)(NCDRC), wherein the complainant had obtained admission with the petitioner-college and after leaving the college, she made a request for refund of the amount deposited by her, which prayer was declined. Thereafter she invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum which directed the college to refund the deposited amount along with compensation of Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 1,000 as costs. In appeal, State Commission allowed the appeal partly after deleting the direction for payment of compensation amount of Rs. 25,000 while maintaining the rest of the order. The revision carried before the Hon''ble National Commission was dismissed. In other case, Controller of Examinations, Himachal Pradesh University and Anr. v. Sanjay Kumar, I (2003) CPJ 273 (NC)=2003 CTJ 773 (CP)(NCDRC) roll number was not sent to the complainant as a result of which she could not appear in the supplementary examination held in October, 1977. Thereafter she filed the complaint which was allowed by the District Forum and the complainant was held entitled to the compensation amount of Rs. 20,000 with costs of Rs. 500. On the appeal preferred by the university, State Commission reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 10,000. Further, revision was carried to the Hon''ble National Commission which dismissed the same. Reference was also made to the case M. Ravindranath and Anr. v. Mercy College, Palakkad and Anr., III (2002) CPJ 158 (NC)=2002 CTJ 112 (CP)(NCDRC), wherein it was laid down that imparting of education for consideration is a service and falls within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Similar view was taken in case. H.L. Kalsi and Anr. v. New Era Education Society (Regd.) and Ors., 2002 CTJ 595 (CP)(NCDRC). The dispute in case, Guru Nanak Dev University and Anr. v. Jagjit Singh & Anr., II (2005) CPJ 318=2005 (2) CON.LT 1 related to the refund of the fee. It was also laid down in the case N. Arjunan and Anr. v. The Dean, Merit Swiss Asian School of Hotel Management, IV (2004) CPJ 620=2005 (1) CON.LT 434, that imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Similar decision was rendered in case, Bangalore University v. S. Dattatri, II (2005) CPJ 623=2005 CTJ 760 (CP) (SCDRC). In all the above mentioned cases in which reliance has been placed from the side of the complainant, the controversies raised were entirely different and for that reason they do not advance the stand of the complainant against the Board.

COMING to the merits, it cannot be denied that Clause 6 of the circular letter deals with only of those students to whom enrolment numbers have already been issued and for that reason no fresh application for that purpose is required to be made. This clause manifestly is applicable to the regular students and not to the students who had passed Matriculation examination conducted by the Haryana Open School Board. The case of the complainant is covered under Clause 8 of the said circular letter becaue it clearly states that the students, who have passed 10th class from Haryana Open School and the school in which the said student had taken admission in 10+1 class, is required to submit another application in 10+1 class for issuance of enrolment number and that enrolment number has to be annexed with the certificate. It has been admitted by the college that they have not made compliance of Clause 8 of the said letter on the assumption that the case of the complainant was covered under Clause 6 of the circular letter, which stand of the college is manifestly against the mandatory requirement of Clause 8 of the circular letter. Therefore, enrolment could not be issued to the complainant during the period the complainant was admitted in 10+1 class entirely due to the negligence and non-performance of the duty by the DAV College, Sadhaura and they are directely responsible for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant on that account. It appears that the District Forum has not found any fault with the stand taken by the Board which is covered under Clause 8 of the circular letter in its order dated 23.5.2005. The order giving directions to the Board to declare her result of 10+2 examination as such cannot be sustained. Therefore, we accept the appeal of the Board and set-aside the order of the District Forum whereby the Board has been directed to declare the result of the complainant for 10+2 examination held by the Board and dismiss the complaint qua the Board.

AS regards the directions issued against the college by the District Forum, whereby compensation of Rs. 50,000 on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant has been awarded, the same is on higher side and taking into account the totality of the circumstances on record, we reduce the compensation amount to Rs. 25,000. With this modification in the order of the District Forum, the appeal filed by the college is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.