CONTROLLER OF EXAM., HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY vs SANJAY KUMAR

PETITIONER, Himachal Pradesh University was the opposite party before the District Forum where the complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in rendering service to the complainant.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant applied for supplementary examination in the subject of English for the second year examination, to be held by the petitioner. The date of writing the papers 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 an year in studies. It is the contention of the complainant that he had completed all the formalities in time. After hearing the parties, District Forum held the petitioner deficient in rendering service and awarded a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/-. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the State Commission while not agreeing with the plea of the petitioner that the complainant is not a consumer, agreed with the finding of the District Forum on the point of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, yet reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 10,000/-. Hence, this revision petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the complainant is not a consumer within its meaning as defined in C.P.A., 1986, in support of which he cited the case decided by this Commission in Chairman, Board of Examinations, Madras v. Mohd. Abdul Kader, II (1997) CPJ 49 (NC).

The argument of learned Counsel for the respondent is that the orders of the lower Forum are correct in holding the respondent/complainant a consumer. This order must be upheld.

THE only point on which the order of the State Commission is assailed is that it erred in holding the complainant to be a consumer. We have gone through the citation and also our orders passed in Registrar, CRevision Petition No. 26/1993; Registration Evaluation, University of Karnataka v. Mrs. Poonam G. Bhandari & Ors., F.A. No. 245/1992; Registrar, University of Bombay v. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat - Bombay, I (1994) CPJ 146 (NC); Kurukshetra University & Ors. v. Vinay Parkash Verma & Ors. cases. Important point in consideration in these cases was the issues relating to examination held by a university - be it the matter of declaration of results, marking valuation/revaluation of papers. It is in these circumstances that the Commission had held that in respect of these issues, a University or other examination taking bodies like CBSE, do not render service. In Chairman, Board of Examination, Madras v. Mohd. Abdul Kader (supra), this Commission, by a majority judgment had held : "We must make it clear that in this case or in the earlier cases this Commission did not consider the general question whether the imparting of education for consider-ation would come or not within the ambit of the service under the Act. Whether a University or an institution affiliated to it imparting education is within the arena of consumer jurisdiction is a question which this Commission will consider and decide when it directly arises before it. What this Commission has decided in earlier cases is that a University or the Board in conducting public examination, evaluating answer papers, announcing the results thereof and thereafter conducting re-checking of the marks of any candidate on the application made by the concerned candidate is not performing any service for hire and there is no arrangement of hiring of any service involved in such a situation as contemplated by Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. A candidate who appears for the examination cannot be regarded as a person who had hired or availed of the services of the University or Board for consideration."

IN Registration Evaluation, Karnataka University v. Mrs. Poonam Bhandari & Ors. (supra), this Commission had held : "We are clearly of the view that in carrying out its statutory function of conducting the examination, evaluating answer papers and publishing the results of candidate, the University was not performing any service for consideration and a candidate who appeared for the examination cannot be regarded as a person who had hired or availed of the services of the university for consideration."

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 right time is not the same as marking or valuation of papers announcing the results or re-checking of 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 take 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. Revision Petition dismissed.