Order no. 5               Date: 19.06.2023

The complainant is present in person.

The case is taken up for admission hearing.

It appears from the record that Misc. Application 132/2023 on the prayer of condo nation of delay has been dismissed by the commission.

Heard Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

It is the case of the complainant/petitioner that he joined the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur as Ph. D. scholar on 03.08.1992 and was accorded approval by the Doctoral Scrutiny Committee to submit thesis supplicating Ph. D. degree. Accordingly, he submitted his thesis in the department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering and paid Ph. D. thesis submission fee a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only vide receipt dated 09.07.1996. The Institute under its Ph. D. Regulations appointed external examiners and forwarded the thesis to them. The examiners by separate report recommended to institute acceptance of thesis for Ph. D. degree but the opposite party no.1 falsely vide letter dated 10.06.2002 informed the complainant that the examiners rejected his thesis. Thereafter, series of communications were made by the complainant vide letter dated 16.04.2013 and 08.08.2013. The opposite parties vide letter dated 30.08.2013 informed that out of two external examiners at least one is to be a foreign examiner and the supervisor will be the internal examiner. It is the case of the complainant that such information was not sought for by the complainant vide his letter dated 16.04.2013 and 08.08.2013. Subsequently, the complainant filed an application dated 12.04.2017 under RTI to which the opposite parties gave reply on 17.04.2017 and send the three reports dated 17.04.1997, 30.09.1997 and 16.10.1997 of Indian External, Foreign External and Internal Examiner from where it revealed that in his case the external Examiners were unanimously recommended his thesis in 1997. None of the external Examiners have rejected his thesis. Therefore the letter of opposite party dated 10.06.2002 was false. As per report of the Examiners, the opposite parties are duty bound to call him for viva voce under the Ph. D. regulations. The complainant/petitioner had no option but to wait for the viva voce call. The complainant/petitioner further state there is no time limit for viva voce in the institute Ph. D. regulations. Therefore, the cause of action will be continuing as the complainant waits for the viva voce call.

It is apparent from the complaint application as well as the Misc. Application dated 22.05.2023 that the opposite parties vide letter dated 10.06.2022 informed the complainant/petitioner that the examiners rejected his thesis.

The complaint case is barred by limitation. Moreover educational matters do not come under the per-view of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the case is not maintainable in law.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed without cost.