SECRETARY, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION vs M. SURESH

THE complainant is student. His allegation is that he paid the fee and when his name was not found in the C.N.R. on a representation made by him the Superintendent of the examination i.e. the Principal issued a separate registration number and he sat for the Intermediate II year examination in March, 1992. But he was not issued with any pass certificate and he was also not communicated the memo of marks. But when he wanted to appear for the supplemental examination in October, 1992, the 1st Opposite Party did not permit him to appear for the examination on the ground that he has to pay some penalty and additional amount. He, therefore, filed the complaint to direct the Opposite Party to deliver the marks list and also to publish his result and to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards damages.

THE first Opposite Party opposed the application mainly on the ground that they have not received from the Principal the amount paid by the complainant for appearing for the II year intermediate examination and his name was also not included by the Principal in the list of candidates sent by him and therefore his name was not included in C.N.R. pertaining to 1992 March examination. Since his name was not found in the C.N.R., it must be deemed that he has not appeared for the examination and question of issuing a pass certificate and communicating the result does not arise. It is also their contention that he has to pay Rs. 75/- to- wards examination fee and Rs. 300/- as penal fee as per Board rules and as the said sum was not paid, the result of the complainant was withheld. The second Opposite Party in his version stated that the student paid the fee and due to typographical mistake of the clerk the complainant''s name was not included in the list sent to the intermediate board of the eligible candidates of that centre. Since the complainant has paid the fee according to the regulations he issued a registration number and the complainant was permitted to appear for the examination. It is his further case that after the completion of the examination in March, 1992 he wrote to the Intermediate Board in April, 1992 informing them that the complainant paid the amount towards fee and appeared for the examination with registration number and that his paper may be valued and the results be communicated. But he did not receive any communication from the Intermediate Board. It is, therefore, his submission that due to mistake the name of the complainant was not included in the list but he subsequently requested the first Opposite Party to correct the mistake in April, 1992 itself.

On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the District Forum held that for no fault of the complainant, there was a delay in communicating the result of the examination and in view of the statement made by the Principal in the counter that he did receive the examination fee and did allow him to sit for the examination, the first Opposite Party should have communicated the result and issued a pass certificate. Hence the District Forum directed the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- to be shared in proportion of 75% and 25% respectively and/awarded costs of Rs. 100/-.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, the first Opposite Party i.e. Board of Intermediate Education preferred this appeal. It is firstly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that acceptance of examination fee, correction of examination papers by the Educational authorities and publication of the results by the Educational authorities cannot be termed as service rendered by them as it cannot be said that the complainant i.e. the students hired the services of the University for a consideration. Reliance is placed on a decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka Sri K. Ravi v. The Vice Chancellor, Mysore University in 1994 (1) Consumer Protection Reporter page 894. In the said case, the State Commission Karnataka relied on a decision of the National Commission. In First Appeal No. 245/92 i.e. Registrar, Evaluation, University of Karnataka v. Ms. Poornima G. Bhandari wherein the National Commission held :- "We are clearly of the view that in carrying its function of conducting the examinations, valuing the answer papers and publishing the results of candidates, the University was not performing any service for consideration and a candidate who appears for the examination cannot be regarded as a person who had hired or availed of the services of the University for consideration. The complainant was not, therefore, a consumer entitled to seek any relief under the Consumer Protection Act., 1986".

Since the grievance of the complainant relates to the conducting of the examination, publication of results of the candidate, it is submitted that this case is covered squarely by the decision of the National Commission. Hence we are of the view that the complainant is not a consumer and not entitled to seek any relief.

IT is next submitted that the observation of the District Forum referring to Merchant of Venice and also Shylock are not called for. IT Is not for us to go into that question, as we have held that the complaint is not maintainable. During the pendency of the appeal, an interim order was passed granting interim stay on condition of depositing Rs. 500/- to the credit of the CD. the respondent is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. It is submitted that the aforesaid sum was deposited and the respondent withdrew the amount. In these circumstances, we direct the appellant not to recover the said amount of Rs. 600/- from the complainant irrespective of the result in the appeal.

IT is next submitted by the learned Counsel for the first respondent that even as on today no pass certificate was issued and no marks memo was communicated to the student. We therefore direct the Intermediate Board to communicate the memo of marks and also issue a certificate whether he failed or passed the examination within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, if it was not already done by the Intermediate Board.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside. No. costs. Appeal allowed.