RALLABHANDI NARASIMHAM vs Commissioner for Government Examinations

THE complainant''s son, Rallabhandi Nageswara Sastry studied in the Government Junior College at Yerragondapalem in which the High School studies are also conducted. According to the complainant, his son''s date of birth is 2.7.1976 and it was so mentioned in his application but in the S.S.C. Certificate issued, the date of birch was mentioned as 15.8.1975 instead of 2.7.1976. After receiving the S.S.C. Marks Memo, on 22.10.1992 the complainant requested the Principal to correct the mistake. THEreafter some correspondence was initiated between the Principal and the District Educational Officer, Ongole and the Dy. District Educational Officer, Markapuram and ultimately the date of birth was corrected and the correct certificate was issued on 19.12.1996. Alleging that, on account of the delay on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant''s son has lost chance of his name being registered in the Employment Exchange and also likelihood of getting a job and he has also lost the chance of getting the Scholarship, due to which he was compelled to pay Mess charges completely, the complaint was filed claiming compensation of Rs. 90,000/- and also for a direction to issue Memo of Marks with correct date of birth.

IN the affidavit filed by the complainant, it was admitted that during the pendency of the case before the District Forum, the authorities have issued original S.S.C. Marks Memo with the correct date of birth. So far as the delay in issuing the S.S.C. Marks Memo is concerned the District Forum held that the Principal took a longer time than so required for sending the correct particulars to the higher authorities and it therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- by way of compensation with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the order till the date of payment and Rs. 300/- towards costs. Dissatisfied with the said order, the appeal is preferred by the complainant. It is submitted by the complainant that the District Forum ought to have awarded higher amount of compensation, as the complainant''s son lost the opportunity of getting registered his name in the Employment Exchange, loss of stipendary benefits, job opportunities, etc.

It is true that had the S.S.C. Original Certificate been issued with the correct date of birth, the complainant''s son would have registered his name in the EmpIoyment Exchange earlier, but it cannot be said that the complainant''s son can get job opportunities so easily as now-a-days, seeking an employment is a herculian task and so it cannot be inferred that the complainant''s son has a chance of getting job and as admittedly the complainant''s son is continuing his studies, probably when he is studying he is not so keen of getting the name of his son registered in the Employment Exchange. There is no evidence adduced before the District Forum whether actually his son''s name has been registered in the Employment Exchange or the concerned authorities refused to do so for want of Marks Memo. There is also no evidence as to quantum of loss and the damage said to have been suffered by the complainant''s son on account of delay in issuing the Marks Memo.

FOR all the aforesaid reasons, we are satisfied that the District FORum rightly directed the opposite party No. 3 to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the Order of the District Forum is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.