M D University vs SURJEET KAUR

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 24.9.2004 passed by District Forum, Gurgaon in Complaint Case No. 818 dated 14.7.2000 of the respondent -complainant, whereby direction has been given to the appellant -opposite parties to issue B.Ed. Certificate with immediate effect and pay Rs. 1,000 as compensation for mental agony harassment and for incurring expenses in correspondence and conveyance. The amount was ordered to be paid within one month from the date of the order, failing which they are liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment.

PUT shortly, the facts of the case are that the complainant had appeared in M.A. Political Science in the month of April, 1995 and was successful. Similarly, she had also appeared in B.Ed. examination in May, 1995 but her result was withheld. In the month of June, 1998 she was informed by the appellant that she was ineligible to appear in the B.Ed. examination simultaneously with M.A. Political Science, which she took in the same year and this decision was communicated to her in the year 1995 itself. Subsequently, a policy decision was taken by the appellant to allow a mercy chance in December, 1998 to the candidates, who had already availed four chances. The complainant filed a fresh admission form, which was submitted along with Rs. 1,000 vide receipt No. 065842 dated 16.6.1998 and after her candidature was accepted, she was allotted roll No. 12821 and thereafter she took examination at Rohtak both in theory and practical in the month of December, 1998 and January, 1999. However, her result was not declared for which she made repeated representations to the appellant. After inquiry, she came to know that her result has been withheld because she was ineligible to appear in B.Ed. examination in May, 1995 but she could not have availed the mercy chances under the ordinance of the appellant. Forced by these circumstances, she filed the present complaint. In response to the notice, the opposite parties had put in appearance. They pleaded that the complainant was not competent to take two examinations in one year as per Clause 17 of the Ordinance of the appellant -university. At the same time, it was admitted that mercy chance was allowed as per letter dated 11.11.1998 to the complainant but factually this chance was meant for the candidates, who could not complete the degree within the spane of prescribed period. According to them, the complainant was duty bound to see the factual position and justified the withholding of the result of B.Ed. examination as she was ineligible to take mercy chance in December, 1998. The complaint was also resisted on the ground that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction and that the dispute raised is not a consumer dispute. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

ON appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and material placed on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued the direction as noticed in the earlier part of the order. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed.

THE learned Counsel representing the appellant has been heard at length. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent at the time of arguments. The learned Counsel representing the appellant while assailing the order of the District Forum has contended that in terms of the Clause 17 of the Ordinance issued by the appellant -university, the complainant was ineligible to take examination of Political Science, M.A. as well as B.Ed. simultaneously during the period April/May, 1995 and for that reason her result for B.Ed. was withheld, which action of the appellant was never challenged. It was also pointed out by him that special chance to appeal in B.Ed. examination was given to the students in the month of December, 1998, who had availed regular four chances and merely because at the time the complainant applied, paid fee, roll number was issued and took examination, would not in any manner, cover her case within the policy decision taken in December, 1998 and under these circumstances, her result for B.Ed. examination had rightly been not declared and withheld by the appellant. The District Forum accepted the complaint mainly on the ground that it has not been explained from the side of the appellants that as to why the form of the complainant was not rejected for the examination to be held in December, 1998. Rather in this case, not only her form and fee has been accepted but roll number for the said examination was also issued to her. May be officials of the university were responsible for violating the decision of the university regarding legibility of the person, who could take part in the B.Ed. examination in December, 1998 but for the wrong committed by the officials of the university, it would not in any manner clothe the complainant any right in this regard and the fact remains that she was not eligible to take part in the examination which was to be held in December, 1998. The findings of the District Forum in this regard as such cannot be sustained.

IN fairness to the Counsel for the appellants a plea was also raised that the District Forum should not have taken cognizance of the dispute as it was not a consumer dispute which could be raised by the complainant. In support of the stand taken, reliance was placed on the cases titled as Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak v. Rominder Yadav, 1998 (1) CPC 389, wherein the facts were that the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the university to issue roll number to the complainant and allowed him to sit in the B.A. II as a mercy chance. It was held that the impugned order cannot be sustained as the dispute between the examinee and the university does not come under the purview of the consumer dispute. In this case, the dispute is not with regard to the issuance of the roll number but with regard to the declaration of the result. In case Sanjay Kumar Namdeo v. Jiwaji University, III (2003) CPJ 98 (NC), the facts were that the complainant had appeared in the examination of LLB IInd year as an ex -student on old syllabus but he was made to answer one of the paper of Criminal Law as per new syllabus. The State Commission was of the view that the university does not render any service for consideration in the matter of taking examination, revaluating the papers and declaring the result and the petitioner is thus not a consumer. This view of the State Commission was upheld by the Honble National Commission by observing that there was no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which may be called for interference in the revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(d) of the Act. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.

THE ratio of the above mentioned case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The complainant has prayed for declaration of the result of B.Ed. examination held in December, 1998 by the appellants. Therefore, the complaint should not have been entertained by the District Forum and on this ground, it is liable to be rejected. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the appeal and while setting aside the impugned order, dismiss the complaint. Appeal allowed.