Board of Secondary Education vs SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA

THESE cross-appeals arise out of the order dated 24.2.1995 whereby the D.F., Sikar partly allowed the complaint of Sunil Kumar Sharma respondent and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- to him as compensation for mental agony caused to him by rendering deficient services in the matter of permitting him to appear at the examination.

RELEVANT facts are that the complainant had passed the secondary examination from the appellant Board in the year 1976. His performance at the examination was not up to his expectation and satisfaction. In the year 1992 he decided to improve over his performance in the said examination and, therefore, applied to the appellant Board through his application, submitted to Shri Kalyan Govt. Senior Secondary School, Sikar, respondent No. 2, as private candidate. He had expressed his desire to appear at the said examination in a school at Beebepur, District Sikar as the centre. His application form was duly forwarded by respondent No. 2 to the appellant Board. It is alleged that the appellant Board changed the centre of examination, as was mentioned by the complainant in his application form and allotted a school in Fatehpur, Distt. Sikar as his centre. The case of the complainant however was that since he was not intimated of the name of the institution in Fatehpur, Distt. Sikar whereat he was required to appear at the said examination, he went to Beebepur School, in Sikar but was not permitted to appear at the examination at that centre. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and respondent No. 2 he filed his complaint before the D.F. at Sikar. The D.F., Sikar, vide its order under appeal, held the appellant guilty of rendering deficient services to the complainant and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- with interest @ 18% p.a. as compensation for mental agony to the complainant. The D.F. further directed the appellant Board to return the original mark-sheet submitted by the complainant along with his application, or in case such original mark-sheet was not available then a duplicate thereof without charging any fees from him, to the complainant. Aggrieved against such order of the D.F. the appellant has filed this appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant could not show that in the permission letter issued by the appellant to respondent No. 2 at Sikar, the name of the institution at Fatehpur, whereat the respondent was required to appear at the examination, was mentioned. That clearly amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

Insofar as the quantum of compensation awarded by the D.F. is concerned the complainant has no doubt prayed for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the D.F. and in that connection he had written a letter to the respondent No. 2 and also the appellant Board but such effort was made by the complainant at too late a stage. The examination was to be held on 26.3.1993 but the complainant chose to move his application to the appellant as late as on 23.3.1993 and that too under postal certificate only. Looking to this conduct of the appellant as also keeping in mind that he had passed the secondary examination as early as in the year 1976 and had thought of improving his performance in that examination as late as in the year 1992-93, we are of the opinion that the amount of compensation awarded is quite reasonable and proper.

BEFORE parting with the file we would like to mention that the parties invited our attention to our views expressed by us in the cases of Rajasthan University v. Sheeshram Saini, Appeal No. 743/95 decided on 8.7.2003 and Indira Gandhi National Open University v. Nilesh Sogani, Appeal No. 1006/03 decided on 13.8.2003 wherein we have taken somewhat different views on the basis of certain decisions of the National Commission which produced before us at the time of deciding those appeals. While deciding Appeal No. 743/95, Rajasthan University and Others v. Sheeshram Saini and Others, on 8.7.2003, we had referred to such a situation in the following words: "Placing reliance upon the decision of the National Commission in the case of Ex Subedar Sachida Nand v. Chairman, CBSE, I (2003) CPJ 251 (N.C.) the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that educational institution do not render service while holding examination and, therefore, any concomitant/omission/commission on their part cannot be termed as deficient. The learned Counsel was fair enough to produce before us the earlier decision of the National Commission in the case of Shree Dharan Nair N. v. Registrar, University of Kerala, 2002 NCJ 28 (NC), wherein the services rendered by the University to a student of LLB. course had been declared as services rendered for consideration for imparting education." This Commission however decided the issue in that appeal in the following words: ''In the instant case we find that since the appellant University had permitted the complainant to appear at the B.A. Part III examination in the following year and he had been declared ''pass'' in that examination, no injury can be said to have been caused to him by late declaration of his B.A. Part II examination in the year 1994. Since no injury was caused to him he was not entitled to any relief under Section 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986. It may be mentioned that the respondent had appeared as private candidate in the B.A. Part II examination as well as in the B.A. Part III examination''."

With regard to the reliance placed by the learned Counsel on the decisions of the National Commission, this Commission observed as under: "Insofar as the reliance upon the two decisions of the National Commission is concerned we would like to follow the later decision of the National Commission and accordingly hold the complaint not maintainable."

IN deciding Appeal No. 1006/03, INdira Gandhi National Open University v. Nilesh Sogani, (supra) no decision of the National Commission was relied upon and produced before us. The issue in that appeal was, therefore, decided on the merits of the cases of the parties and it was held that since due to the mistake committed by Shri D.K. Parihar, the Examination Controller of the appellant University, the respondent could not appear at the examination on 29.12.2001, the University had rendered deficient services to the respondent. Today the respondent has placed reliance upon the decision of the National commission in the case of Controller of Examination, Himachal Pradesh University and Others v. Sanjay Kumar, I (2003) CPJ 273 (NC). IN that case the complainant had applied for supplementary examination in the subject of English for the IINd year examination, to be held by the University. The date of writing the paper was 6.10.1997 and 8.10.1997. By that date the complainant could not get his roll number in the absence of which the complainant could not appear in the examination resulting in loss of a year in his studies. The D.F., on the basis of the facts stated above, had held that the University had rendered deficient services to the complainant. The State Commission upheld such finding though reduced the amount of compensation from Rs, 20,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- only. IN revision petition filed by the University before the National Commission reliance by the parties was placed on the decisions of the National Commission in the cases of Chairman, Board of Examination, Madras v. Mohd. Abdul Kader, II (1997) CPJ 49 (NC); Registrar University of Madras v. Murupegam, Revision Petition No. 26/93; Registration, Evaluation, University of Karnataka v. Mrs. Poonam G. Bhandari and Ors., G.A. No. 245/1992; Registrar, University of Bombay v. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, Bombay, I (1994) CPJ 146 (N.C.) Kurukshetra University and Others v. Vinay Prakash Verma and Others. After examining these decisions the National Commission laid down the position of law in paras 8 and 9 of the report in the following words: "8. It is not the intention of the Commission to exclude even the administrative aspects relating to education from the definition of service. This aspect has to be seen to be falling within the definition of service. IN the present case, deficiency in service was seen in the form of non-supply of roll number to the complainant. Since ''Roll Number'' document is the authority for an examinee to be admitted in the examination hall, depriving the complainant of the same at the writing time is not the same as marking or evaluation of papers announcing the results or re-checking of the marks or holding of examinations. The facts of the case are different from the facts of the cited cases. Hence, we find that the petitioner cannot get support from them.

Non-supply of roll number in time to enable the complainant to write the paper is a case of deficiency in service. We see no ground to interfere with the orders of the State Commission which is upheld. This revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/- to be payable by the petitioner to the complainant."

It may be appreciated that after having reviewed a number of decisions rendered by the National Commission on the subject on hand, it was finally clearly laid down that it was not the intention of the Commission to exclude even the administrative aspects relating to education from the definition of service, as given in Section 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986 (the Act). That aspect shall have to be considered as falling within the definition of "service". The National Commission clarified that since roll number document is the authority for an examinee to be held to be admitted in the examination hall, depriving the complainant of the same at the writing time is not the same as marking or evaluation of papers, announcing the results or re-checking of the marks or holding of examinations. Viewed in the light of the observations made by the Hon''ble National Commission in the above case, the act of the appellant Board in not mentioning the name of the institution whereat the respondent was required to appear at the examination amounted to deficiency in service within the meaning of the term defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.

IN view of the above discussion, we find no force in either of the two appeals and dismiss them accordingly. Appeals dismissed.