Principal, Delhi Public School vs PRIYANKA PRIYADARSHINI

THIS is an appeal by the Principal, Delhi Public School, Naico Nagar, Angul. The complainant Priyanka Priyadarshini and other students through their legal guardians aproached the District Forum, Angul for relief under the C.P. Act against the Principal for not allowing them to continue their study as student in Class XII of the said school.

THE case of the complainant was that they were admitted to Class XII of the school during month of April, 2003 on payment of tuition fees. During the second week of June, 2003 they were asked to appear for the compartmental examination for the subjects of Class XI in which they had failed. Since they failed in that compartmental examination, therefore, the authorities did not allow them to continue in Class XII. That the present appellant arbitrarily conducted a second compartmental examination for these students who did not appear in the first compartmental test for Class XI and then allowed them to continue in Class XII. It is further their case that the compartmental examination for Class XI was supposed to be during month of April, as per the school calendar but the authorities intentionally conducted the compartmental examination in the month of June, and this violated the provisions of the set of rules published for the school by the appellant vide school diary. It is the case of the school that the complainants did not pass the subject for which they were required to appear in a compartmental test. But with a view to facilitate to keep in touch with their studies and for their interest only the authorities allowed them to take admission in Class XII expecting that they would be successful in the compartmental examination. Their continuance in higher class was dependent on their passing the compartmental examination for Class XI. In other words the authorities in fact expected these students to pass in the compartmental test under the circumstances and, therefore, with that bona fide belief they admitted them into the Class XII. But that itself did not give them any right to continue merely because they were allowed to study in that class.

Heard Mr. G.B. Jena, the learned Counsel for the complainants and Miss S. Ratho the learned Counsel for the appellant-Principal, Delhi Public School. Miss Ratho is right in stating that the consumer case is not maintainable in view of the very nature of the case. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the school authorities. It is only for the better interest of the complainants that they should be in touch with their courses, they were allowed by the Principal to sit in the class on payment of the requisite fees for that class. Since they could not be successful in the compartmental test so they were considered to have failed to take admission in Class XII.

MR. G.B. Jena on the other hand strenuously urged before us and quoting Rule 4 of the school diary that the Principal should have held the compartmental examination test in the month of April, as per the provision and, therefore, holding the compartmental examination in the month of June, was to the utter detriment to the interest of the complainants. He also referred to the decisions relied on by the District Forum in the case of N. Shreedharan Nair v. Registrar, University of Kerala, I (2004) CPJ 27 (NC)=2001 (3) CPR 27 (NC); Cora Academy of Education v. C. Vani, reported in 2002 (1) CPR 93 (NC); and B. Krushna v. Vishwa Dudha Parisad, reported in 2000 (3) CPR 49 (NC), to sustain the view that non-imparting of education by an educational institute for consideration is a deficiency of service. While we have no quarrel with the proposition laid down by the Honble National Commission in the above 3 decisions cited by Mr. Jena, but we have reservation so far as the present case is concerned. Here the complainant wants to continue in Class XII. Though admittedly they have failed in the compartmental examination held in the month of June, in respect of the subjects in which they failed while continuing as student to Class XI. In other words they want to exercise their rights merely on the basis, that once they have been allowed to take admission in Class XII by the Principal and that too by paying fees, they cannot be disallowed to continue. This is something very peculiar a demand which is neither sustainable in the eye of law nor should be allowed for the greater interest of the students and the institutions. Admittedly they failed in certain subjects in Class XI. The compartmental examination according to their own case should have been conducted in the month of April. It would be a fallacy to accept the contention of Mr. Jena that because the compartmental examination held in the month of June that worked out against the interest of the complainant. In our view the students get another two months time for compartmental examination, yet they failed. Such a demand should not be encouraged. The judgment of the District Forum is wholly erroneous on the facts and circumstances of the case and against public policy. That apart we find such a case would not be maintainable in a Consumer Court and in fact the complainant seeks a direction in the form of a mandamus which power can be exercised only by the High Court under writ jurisdiction. Therefore, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. But parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.