Saint Theresas Convent School vs Paul Samuel

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 1.8.2002 passed by District Forum, Karnal in Complaint Case No. 594 of 2002, whereby while partially accepting the complaint filed by the respondent -complainant, the following directions have been given to the appellant -opposite party: ''(A) That O.P. shall issue DMC to the complainant within a period of 15 days of the receipt of copy of this order against proper receipt. (B) That O.P. shall get the complainant admitted in 8th class within a week of the receipt of copy of this order, if so desired by him. However, the complainant shall be liable to deposit all the requisite fees with O.P. as per rules of the school. The period from April 2002 till the date of admission as directed above shall be treated as leave period for the complainant. (C) That the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment due to non -issuance of DMC by O.P. Therefore, we direct O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500 as compensation to the complainant within 15 days of the receipt of copy of this order.''

IN order to focus the controversy involved, the essential facts need to be noticed. Paul Samuel -minor was a student of appellants school of class VIII -B. He appeared in the final examination for the said class in the month of February, 2002 and result was declared on 27.3.2002. The complainant along with his father visited the school premises and found that the result of the complainant has been withheld on the ground that the complainant has not cleared dues and for that reason the DMC was not issued to him. The father of the complainant visited the school premises on 3.4.2002 and insisted upon the Principal of the school to permit his son to the 9th class but he was informed to clear the dues before the complainant could be permitted to sit in 9th class. Thereafter Rs. 600 were deposited by the father of the complainant on 6.4.2002 and he was asked to come to the school on 8.4.2002. Accordingly, the father of the complainant visited the school on 8.4.2002 and requested for issuance of DMC of the complainant and also to allow him to sit in the 9th class but his request was not acceded to by the Principal of the school, rather he was informed that he should get his son admitted in some school at Nilokheri and his DMC will be sent by post. The father of the complainant approached sister B.S. Nora, Provincial Superior, Provincial House of the School through letter to get his son admitted in the school but finding no response to the request made, the complainant, who is a minor through his father instituted the present complaint seeking direction against the appellant to admit his son in the 9th class after treating him as a regular student and further claimed compensation of Rs. 2 lac for mental agony, pain and harassment suffered by the complainant and his father besides other family members. On notice, the appellant filed appearance. In the written statement filed, it did not deny that result of 8th class was declared on 27.3.2002 and as the complainant had not cleared his outstanding dues for the month of April - June, 2001 and October - November, 2001 his result was withheld and he was asked to clear the arrears. The same were deposited on 6.4.2002 and thereafter the result of the complainant was declared in which he was shown to have failed. They maintained that the complainant had passed his classes in two years and in 8th class he had failed twice and thus he does not come under the Rules 8, 4, 7 and 6 of the school and for that reason he could not be promoted to 9th class. They justified the action taken about the striking off the name of the complainant from the school rolls. They further maintained that the DMC was offered to the complainant but the father of the complainant refused to accept the same. In these circumstances, they denied any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

ON appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum partially accepted the complaint vide order dated 1.8.2002 and issued directions noticed earlier. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

NONE has appeared on behalf of the appellant during the course of arguments. The father of the complainant has been heard in person at length. Factually, it was not disputed by the parties that initially result of the complainant for 8th class was withheld because outstanding dues were not paid by him. It is admitted by the father of the complainant that he deposited the outstanding dues on 6.4.2002. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the non -issuance of the DMC. It has been pleaded by the appellant that offer was made to hand over the DMC to the father of the complainant after he deposited the outstanding dues but he refused to accept the same, while assertion of the complainant is that it was not offered to him. There is also no dispute between the parties that the appellant has refused to admit the complainant in 9th class because the complainant has failed in 8th class. Therefore, under the circumstances, the promotion of the complainant to the 9th class in the school did not arise. The District Forum also took notice of the fact that the performance of the complainant was not upto the mark as is spelled out from the following observations made in para 7 of the order: ''The complainant has sought admission in 9th class on the basis of DMC pertaining to 8th class. Ex. O4 is the progress report of the complainant. As per this report, the complainant has obtained 25% marks in Mathematics, 16.6% marks in Science and 26% marks in Social Science in aggregate. As per Rule 2.4.1 (ii) issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education as application to the school, in order to be declared as having passed the examination, a candidate shall have to obtain a grade higher than E (i.e., at least 33% marks) in all the five subjects of external examination in the main or at the compartmental examinations. The pass marks in each subject of external examination shall be 33%. Therefore, on the basis of progress report Ex. O4, the complainant cannot be declared ''pass'' as he has obtained less than 33% marks in three subjects mentioned above. The complainant can also not be placed in compartment category because he has failed in three subjects. As per Rule 2.4.2, a candidate failing in two subjects out of the five subjects in external examination shall be placed under compartment in those subjects provided he/she qualifies in all the subjects of internal assessment. Therefore, refusal of O.P. to promote the complainant to 9th class does not amount to deficiency in service on his part. Otherwise also, from the previous record of the complainant placed on record by O.P., as Ex. O 12 to Ex. O 17, the complainant is not upto the mark and to be promoted to the next class.''

THE above finding of the District Forum cannot be faulted under the circumstances of the case. In this case, action of the appellant having struck off the name of the complainant from the rolls was not justified because he has continuously studied in the school of the appellant upto 8th class. He cannot be driven to seek admission in 9th class in another school as has been sought to be done by the appellant. It is for that reason, the District Forum had also issued directions to the appellant to admit the complainant in 8th class and had also awarded compensation for non -issuance of the DMC in time to the complainant. Finding no infirmity in the order of the District Forum, we uphold the same.

FOR the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -