SUMANT S.KARNAD vs DEAN, M.P.SHAH MEDICAL COLLEGE

THIS is an unfortunate case of a complainant who has been asked to go from pillar to post. He applied for Post Graduation Course to the Opponent - M.P. Shah Medical College, Jamnagar after obtaining the application form from some other source. The form has reached in time for the year i.e. on 18.7.89. The University Notification which is put on Notice Board at M.P. Shah Medical College, Jamnapur, all Medical Colleges of Gujarat and at the State hospitals in term states that "the eligible candidate-should appear personally himself before the college council for the interview on 31.7.89 at 11.30 A.M. at their own cost." It appears that the name of the complainant No. 1 for that year was at serial number 10 in the merit list and was pasted on the notice board of the Medical College. The complainant No.l was staying at Nagpur and he had no knowledge of this notification. He therefore did not appear for the interview. In these circumstances he was not considered for admission to the Post Graduate course. Being aggrieved by this the complainant No.l has filed this complaint on 27.9.91 after a period of two years.

FOR the next year also the Medical College unilaterally sent the application form to Complainant No.2 who was corresponding on behalf of the Complainant No.l - Dr. Karnad. The application form appears to have been sent with the letter dated 7.8.90 which specifically states the last date for making the application. That letter appears to have been received by the Complainant No. 2 on 10.8.90 and the some appears to have been sent to the Complainant No.l Dr. Karnad. Unfortunately, Dr. Karnad could not send the application to the Medical College so as to reach on 22.8.90, the last date for receipt of the application. We are not sure whether the delay was on account of the Complainant No. 2 in sending the application form or by the candidate himself. In any view the candidate could not make the application in time and, therefore, he was not considered for admission. Mr. Champaneri, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the M.P. Shah Medical College raised preliminary contention that: (1) the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Act, (2) the complaint is not a complaint as described in Section 2(l)(f) and Section 2(l)(o) of the Act, (3) the complainant is not entitled for any relief since there was no concluded contract of hiring; and (4) even on merits, the complainant had remained absent on the date of interview for the year 1989 and has not made an application for admission for the year 1990.

We feel that it is not necessary to decide the preliminary objections raised by Mr. Champaneri since we are convinced that there is no merit in the complaint itself.

We have perused the Notification as well as the merit list. The complainant has not appeared because he had no information regarding the interview i.e. he might not have seen the Notification which was pasted on the notice board of the College. University as well as the State hospitals. The submission of the College is that this is the procedure followed by them since many years. They are putting the notification and in the Notification they are mentioning the date of interview. All the eligible candidates are supposed to appear for the interview and, therefore, the names of those candidates who are eligible for the interview are shown in the merit list. The complainant No.l had remained absent and, therefore, he was not considered for admission.

TO this Dr. Saraf has contended that a candidate who is residing outside Gujarat cannot have any occasion to see the notice board. The rules of natural justice demand that candidates should be informed regarding the date of interview. In this case the same having not been done the rejection of the name of the complainant was bad in law and is liable for the damages. We are not very happy about the procedure which is adopted by the Medical College and it could have been much better if the candidates who are applying from outside the State are either sent the Notification or informed by post. However, though we are of this opinion, it is for the University to lay down proper procedure. From the merit list it appears that there are so many candidates who have remained absent either because they had no desire to come or they might have no information. We therefore recommend that the University may follow the procedure so far the outside applicants are concerned to give information in writing regarding the date of interview. In the instant case, since this is a policy procedure followed by the University, we cannot come to the conclusion that there is any deficiency in service because they are catering the services on the norms laid down by the University. We have therefore a very limited jurisdiction. Unless there is a specific stipulation we cannot say that there is a deficiency in service if the norms settled by the University are followed.

WE have not decided any preliminary issue since we were not convinced regarding the matter. With the above observation we dismiss the complaint. ORDER The complaint is dismissed. With no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.