DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 298 of 9-07-2010<br /> Decided on : 22-07-2010 <br /> <br /> 1.Manjit Singh S/o Sh. Pala Singh R/o Near Mahatama Gandhi Middle School, Nandeana Gate, Faridkot, Tehsil & District Faridkot.<br /> 2.Madan Gopal S/o Jani Ram R/o Mohalla Khokhran, Faridkot, Tehsil & District Faridkot.<br /> 3.Narinder Singh Roop, Advoate, S/o Sh. Harbhajan Singh R/o New Green Avenue, Street No. 4, Backside Dashmesh Dental College, Chahal Road, Faridkot, Tehsil & District Faridkot.<br /> .... Complainants<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Dashmesh Public School, Talwandi Road, Faridkot through its Principal.<br /> 2.Sangat Sahib Bhai Pheru Sikh Educational Society, Faridkot through its President.<br /> <br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Neeraj Kumar Meheshwari, counsel for complainant No. 2.<br /> None for complainants No. 1 & 3. <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Hardeep Singh, A.R. of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. In brief the case of the complainants is that their wards namely Paramdeep Kaur, Sahil Arora and Roopambir Kaur were got admitted in Dashmesh Public School being run by opposite party No. 2. The wards of the complainant appeared in matriculation examination through opposite parties and got marks as Paramdeep Kaur – 78.6%, Sunil Aora – 73% and Roopambir Kaur – 69.4%. As per rules the said wards were to step into automatically as regular students in the 10+1 standard and no formality was required but the wards of the complainants were not allowed to sit in 10+1 classes on the pretext that they have not got 80% marks. A legal notice was also got issued on 12-06-2009 to the opposite parties requesting them to readmit the wards of the complainants. The complainants alleged that the opposite parties admitted the students of other schools in 10+1 class. They have no legal and valid right to throw out the wards of the complainants from the school and deny them joining 10+1 class as a regular student.<br /> 2. The opposite parties filed written reply and submitted that complainants demanded the migration certificates and detailed marks certificates from the opposite parties as they were interested to leave the school at their own level and wanted to take admission in some other Institute. There is no restriction ever imposed by the CBSE regarding the admission of the students from other school in 10+1. The only condition as imposed by the CBSE is that the students should have cleared their 10th examination or equivalent examination from any Educational Board in India. All the admission have been done as per the rules and regulations. The applications were duly called from the students interested in seeking admission to 10+1 Class. After seeking the applications forms, the merit list was prepared and the students/ candidates higher in rank, who scored more marks than the present students/petitioners were given admission to 10+1 class. The opposite parties have pleaded that they have got only limited seats and all the present seats have been filled up by the students/candidates who have scored more than 80% marks in agreegate in their 10th examination. The admission has been made purely on merit and without any preference.<br /> 3. Parties have led evidence in support of their pleadings. <br /> 4. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused. <br /> 5. None appeared on behalf of complainant Nos. 1 & 3. The wards of complainant Nos. 1 & 3 have not taken admission in the concerned school even after direction of the District Consumer Forum, Faridkot. Hence, it is presumed that do not press to pursue the complaint.<br /> 6. The objection taken by the opposite parties in their written reply that complainant is not consumer is without any merit as he has been paying regular fee of his ward from class nursery till class 10th for pursing his studies in the said Institution. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi , in Revision Petition No. 658 of 1997 in case titled M. Ravindranath & Anr. Vs. The Principal, Mercy College, Palakkad & Anr. wherein it has been observed that :-<br /> “.....In this connection, reliance was placed on a judgement of this Commission in the case Bhupesh Khurana & Ors Vs. Vishwa Buddha Parishad and Ors. 2000 CTRJ 801 (CP) where the National Commission was relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court reported AIR 1978 SC-548 held as under “Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit 'service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institution. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The complainants had hired the services of the Respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in Consumer Protection Act.” <br /> 7. The ward of complainant No. 2, namely Sahil Arora, got admission in the institution of opposite parties as per directions of District Consumer Forum, Faridkot. He joined the classes and for which he deposited Rs. 8600/- on 03-09-2009. Sahil Arora had scored 73% marks in class 10th examination but the opposite parties denied him the admission on account that his marks are below 80% and their cut off merit is 80%. The opposite parties pleaded in their written reply that application were duly called from the students interested in seeking admission to 10+1 class. After seeking the application Forms, the merit list was prepared and the students/candidates higher in rank, who scored more marks than the present students/petitioners were given admission to 10+1 class. The opposite parties have got only limited seats and all the present seats have been filled up by the students/candidates who have scored more than 80% marks in agreegate in their 10th examination. The admission has been made purely on merit and without any preference. The opposite parties pleaded that guidelines as issued by the Assistant Solicitor General of India P. Wilson are unwarranted and not related to the instant complaint. The court directions to CBSE for class XI are as per Ex . C-12 which is reproduced hereunder :-<br /> “Court Directive to CBSE Schools on Class XI Admission<br /> ...... Making it clear that Class XI should be treated as a continuation of the original admission done by the school, the guidelines stipulate that no admission tests be conducted by schools for their own students.”<br /> Sahil Arora, ward of complainant No. 2 was studying in the institution of the opposite parties since 1997 from Nursery class onwards. He was regular student upto 26-05-2009 when he passed 10th examination, as 10+1 was continuous class, being regular student, as per above guidelines, the opposite parties cannot deny admission to such students. The opposite parties have pleaded that the student was average. This plea is not tenable as it was due to the school only as he has been studying in the same school since nursery class. The school must have worked hard on the student if he was considered weak whereas according to the percentage, he has scored 73% marks that shows that he is not weak/average in the studies. The opposite parties to make its result 100% , prepared a merit list in which it had admitted the students above 80% and invited the students who have passed their matriculation examination from the other institutions and ignored their regular students. The opposite parties have produced Senior School Curriculum 2009 Main Subjects Volume 1 CB.S.E. Delhi, Ex. R-2 on file. It Clause 1.6 reads as under :-<br /> “Admission : Specific Requirements<br /> Admission to Class XI in a school shall be open only to such a student who has passed :<br /> (a) Secondary School Examination (Class X Examination) conducted by this Board ; or<br /> (b) An equivalent examination conducted by any other recognized Board of Secondary Education/Indian University and recognized by this Board as equivalent to its Secondary School Examination.”<br /> In the case in hand, Sahil Arora has passed his class 10th examination from the same school. The opposite parties have produced the list of 80 students who have got admission in their school. As per rules of C.B.S.E., this merit list of the candidates is not applicable upon the ward of complainant No. 2 as he is a continuous student for the last so many years and his academic record was also good.<br /> An application dated 29-01-2010 was moved by Sh. Madan Gopal, complainant No. 2 guardian of Sahil Arora. Para Nos. 2 & 3 of this application which is reproduced as under :-<br /> “2. That the official of opposite party No. 1 are giving threats to the applicant that if he does not withdraw the complaint, the complainant/student shall not be allowed to succeed and will be failed.<br /> 3. That the applicant/complainant does not want to continue his study in the school of opposite party No. 1 due to above threats and want to get his school leaving certificate from the school, so that the student may study peacefully and without pressure or fear of failing him by the school intentionally.”<br /> Under these circumstances, complainant No. 2 did not want to continue studies of his son in the institution of the opposite parties and due to above threats wanted to get his school leaving certificate from the school. This shows that the complainant has applied for school leaving certificate because of threats from the opposite parties. Moreover the judicial view can be taken if a student takes admission in an Institution with direction of the court, the student remains under threat of the teacher for loosing his marks. So, under the compelled circumstances, complainant No. 2 himself applied for the school leaving certificate and the opposite parties issued the same. <br /> 8. The opposite parties cannot deny an admission to a student who has been studying continuously in that school and also having a good record for not being failed even in a single class. He cannot be denied admission on the mere ground that he has scored less than 80% marks in his 10th class. The support can be sought from AIR 1996 Supreme Court 118 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled The principal, Cambridge School and another Vs. Ms Payal Gupta and others that :-<br /> “Delhi School Education Act (1973, Ss. 15(2)28 Delhi School Education Rules (1973), R.145 – Unaided recognised school – Student passing public examination – Continuance of further studies in higher class in same school – Head of educational institution – Not authorised to prescribe cut off level of marks for such continuance of studies in higher class. <br /> 7. ....Therefore, in a Higher Secondary School such as the one in question, the examination of tenth class cannot be regarded as a terminal examination for those who want to continue their study in eleventh and twelfth classes of the said school. No separate criteria has been laid down in the rules for the students passing class X and wishing to continue their studies in eleventh and twelfth classes.<br /> 8. Now coming to the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rules 145 which is the sheet anchor of the appellant's case, we do not find anything in the said rule which contemplates or requires fresh or readmission of a student in the same school after he passes an examination from the said school. That the class X examination is a public examination does not make any difference. The question of an admission test or the result in a particular class or school for purpose of admission would arise only if a student of one institution goes for admission in some other institution.” <br /> 9. Hence, in the present case, the opposite parties have denied the admission of Sahil Arora, ward of complainant No. 2 in 10+1 class. He was their continuous student since class Nursery to 10th. The denial of admission to Sahil Arora amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties which is also breach of directions of CBSE regarding 10+1 admission.<br /> 10. In the result, the complaint of complainant No. 2 is accepted with Rs. 20,000/- as cost and compensation for mental harassment as the student was not given admission in class 10+1 and due to this act of the opposite parties, he remained disturbed and could not start his studies for long time. As the complainant No. 2 has himself withdrew the name of his ward from the school and obtained School Leaving Certificate, although under compelled circumstances, no direction can be given regarding his readmission.<br /> Hence, this complaint is accepted with the view to stop unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant Nos. 1 & 3 have failed to pursue their complaints. Therefore, the compensation and cost of Rs. 20,000/- will be paid only to complainant No. 2 by the opposite parties.<br /> 11. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced : <br /> 22-07-2010 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) Member