PUNJABI UNIVERSITY vs INDER MOHAN

PUNJABI University, Patiala challenges order of District Forum, Patiala dated July 9,1997 in this appeal. The impugned order was passed on the complaint of Inder Mohan. A direction was given to the University to declare the result of the complainant and to hand over certificate i.e. Degree which was not earlier delivered and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant, Inder Mohan.

ONLY facts in brief are required to be noticed as we are of the opinion that the complaint was not maintainable and we need not express any opinion on merits of the case. Inder Mohan, the complainant, a student of M.A. Political Science had joined Nehru Memorial College, Mansa in 1992. He obtained Registration No. 62-NM(M) 86 with the Punjabi University, Patiala. He appeared in the third semester examination of Political Science conducted by the University as a regular student vide Roll No. 12294 in the month of March, 1992. The result was declared and he was to re-appear in one paper. He again re-appeared in September, 1992 vide Roll No. 2456. At the same time, he applied for re-evaluation as well as re-checking and re-counting of his answer sheet of the paper taken in March, 1992 on payment of necessary fees. The complainant requested time and again to the University to declare result and re-evaluation and re-checking of the papers taken in March, 1992. This request was made before as well as after declaration of the result of September, 1992 examination. The result of the complainant was withheld and option was being asked from the complainant as to which of the result aforesaid should be declared. The complainant gave his option but still the result was not declared. Again his option was asked for which he gave on April 8, 1996, which was entered in the office of Assistant Registrar (Examination) at Sr. No. 6434. The result of his final examination, which was taken vide Roll No. 4212 was declared. The same was not helpful to the complainant as the result of third semester was not declared by the University. He again sent his form to appear in Public Administration papers in 1994 alongwith necessary fee, which was accepted at that time but was not returned. Claiming himself to be a consumer he claimed different reliefs in his complaint.

The National Commission in Revision Petition No. 113/1994 "Punjabi University v. Surinder Kaur, Decided on October 19,1994 and relying upon the previous decisions in Revision Petition No. III /1993 decided on September 29, 1993 and in Appeal No. 284/1992 decided on December 7,1993 held as under "A University while valuing the answer papers of candidates or undertaking the revaluation of answer papers or re-checking of marks awarded to a candidate or while publishing the results of candidates is not performing a service which had been hired or availed of for consideration and that hence no consumer dispute can be said to arise when a complaint is made by a candidate that the revaluation or rechecking or publication of results had not been properly and promptly done, the order passed by the State Commission in this case granting relief to the respondent herein on the ground'' of delay on the part of the University in publication of his results is illegal and without jurisdiction."

COPY of the order of the District Forum has been produced during arguments in this case, the contention of learned Counsel for the University is that in view of the settled law as above, the District Forum could not entertain the complaint and decide the same on merits having no jurisdiction to do so. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the complainant has referred to the decision of the National Commission in Ravinder Singh v. Maharishi Dayanand University, III (1997) CPJ 36 (NC), holding that conduct of examination and declaration of result would be a service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. At this stage, it may be observed that the case reported as above is of the minority view. As per majority view, the Revision Petition was dismissed which was filed by the complainant against the University. The majority judgment is not reported. Only conclusion is reported, whereas minority judgment is reported. Learned Counsel for the complainant further referred to the decision of this Commission in Indira Gandhi National Open University v. Surinder Paul Ahir, I (1998) CPJ 446,. to support his contention that conduct of examination and declaration of result would be a consumer dispute. On perusal of the judgment, we find that this was not so held. Rather non-providing of the study material for education was the grouse which was held to be a consumer dispute. This would appear that the view expressed by the National Commission as reproduced above, still holds the fields and the dispute relating to conduct of examination and declaration of result cannot be held to be consumer disputes that the District Forum could entertain the complaint. Learned Counsel for the complainant has referred to the decision of Jammu and Kashmir State Commission in Brinder Nath v. Vice Chancellor, University of Jammu & Ors., III (1996) CPJ 384, and argued that conduct of examination would be a consumer dispute. In view of the National Commission''s judgment referred to above, the aforesaid decision cannot be given precedent. Likewise, Haryana State Commission''s decision in Tilak Raj of Chandigarh v. Haryana School Education Board, Bhiwani, I (1992) CPJ 76, cannot be given precedent. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. Order of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint stands dismissed. We leave it to the complainant to seek remedy in the Civil Court, if so advised. Appeal allowed. ________________