PRINCIPAL, RAJENDRA COLLEGE vs SHREEYA HOTA

HEARD Mr. Patnaik the learned Counsel for the appellant i.e., The Principal, Rajendra College, Bolangir and Mr. Debasis Hota on behalf of his sister, the complainant in the Forum below. The question for decision before this Commission is whether the impugned order of the District Forum, Bolangir directing the Principal, Rajendra College, Bolangir to give admission to the complainant to P.G. Botany Class and failing which, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation is sustainable in the eye of law.

THERE is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant after having passed her B.Sc. with Honours in Botany in the year 1999 applied for a seat in Botany and Zoology in the Post Graduate Class of Rajendra College, Bolangir. A selection was made but she was refused admission on the ground that she did not come within the zone of consideration, her position after selection being Sl. 47 in Botany and 43 in Zoology, whereas only 16 seats were to be filled up. This is precisely the stand of the Principal in written version. We have heard both the parties extensively.

While it is the contention of Mr. Patnaik on behalf of the appellant that a student is not a consumer as held in the decision of this Commission reported in 86 (1998) CLT 27 (OSC) in C.D. Appeal Nos. 91 of 1996 and 133 of 1994 decided on 12.8.1998 and 27.8.1996 respectively, it is the contention of Mr. Hota relying on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Original Petition Nos. 39, 40 and 41 of 1994 reported in 1997 (2) CPR 24 (NC), that a student is a consumer as has been held in the said decision. While Mr. Patnaik further urges that there has been no laches, lapses or any mala fide in the selection of the student, for admission, Mr. Hota submits that the Selection Committee while adopting the selection process have violated the guidelines issued by the Sambalpur University inasmuch as the University prescribes that in such cases of selection there shall be a written test and not on the mark basis. It is also stressed by Mr. Hota that having wrongly applied the mode of selection, the action of the authorities amounts to deficiency of service and thus unsustainable and can be challenged and dealt with by this Commission and not by any other Forum.

HAVING given our anxious thought to the issue we dispose of this appeal in the following manner. The crux of the point is whether the non-selection of the complainant for admission is illegal. Two sets of guidelines for the purpose of selection to such Post Graduate Classes are placed before us. Mr. Patnaik refers to the guidelines contained in the Government College prospectus under Clause 1(a), i.e. the details of procedure for admission to Honours and Post Graduate Classes. According to this, clause for the purpose of selection the matter of holding a viva voce test, or a written test is left to the discretion of the Principal. Mr. Hota on the other hand refers to the Sambalpur University Regulation, 1991 read with Government College prospectus at page-21 paragraph-9 which prescribes that any such selection will be subject to the regulation and guidelines of the respective Universities. Mr. Hota has drawn our attention to Clause 2.03.01, i.e. the screening and selection of the students the language of which is as follows : "The Heads of the Departments shall constitute the respective Admission Committees to screen the applications based on the prescribed entrance qualification and the criteria fixed by the University Authority. The admission shall be done strictly on the result of the entrance written examination conducted for the purpose in order of merit subject to satisfaction of the other minimum requirements of admission. The Admission Committee of the respective departments shall prepare a merit list for each category of applicants as prescribed by the Academic Council. The merit list of the screened applicants (preferably not more than 3 times the number fixed for each category) shall be prepared."

WE may say that the jurisdiction of this Commission is only to entertain the dispute with regard to any deficiency in service and awarding compensation to persons suffering loss for such deficiency in service, if proved. In the present case admittedly a selection has been made by the Selection Committee as provided mentioned above in the Government College prospectus and in that selection the complainant has failed to secure a seat. This Forum is not authority to sit in appeal against the selection made by the Selection Committee and, therefore, it does not have any jurisdiction to deal with such matters. Even assuming that this Commission have jurisdiction, as strenuously urged by Mr. Hota, we rather do not find there to be any deficiency in service since firstly complainant''s case has been considered and she has been found to be much below in the merit list. A total non-consideration of her case for selection or any, inaction in the matter of processing her application for selection, in our view would certainly amount to deficiency of service. In other words it is not a case of non-consideration for selection but a matter of elimination by the purpose of selection. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service. There is also no deficiency in service since the Selection Committee, apparently have adopted a procedure prescribed under Government prospectus as mentioned above referred to by Mr. Patnaik. On this score also the complaint petition is not maintainable.

THERE is yet another reason not to entertain this complaint.

THE purpose of the Act is to give speedy and inexpensive justice to the party aggrieved. THE provisions of the Act are very clear that the Forums are not supposed to deal with interpretation of law/regulations, rules etc. and implication of such interpretation and their application to a particular case in a given circumstances. This matter has to be left to be decided by the competent Forum i.e. may be Civil Court or the High Court. THE entire case of the complainant is that there has been violation of principle of natural justice, infringement of fundamental rights etc. This Commission is not competent to deal with this matter accordingly we dismiss the complaint petition but without costs. This however would not prevent the complainant to approach any other Forum for redressal of his grievance. Dr. (Mrs.) Arati Mohanty, Member-I agree. Mr. Pramodnath Das, Member-I agree. Complaint Petition dismissed.