Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                  The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting a reliefs from the opposite parties.

                   2. The case of the complainant is stated as follows:  The case of the complainant is as follows:  The complainant is working at Kayamkulam Womens Polytechnic College as the lecturer in computer section.  The complainant joined for M.Tech Course at the opposite party’s college vide admission No.14495.  At the time of joining for this course he submitted the original of SSLC, B.Tech, T.C, Conduct, Course and mark list to the opposite parties institution.  He paid a semester fees of Rs.60,000/-, caution deposit Rs.10,000/-, Registration fees Rs.4,950/- and semester examination fees Rs.3,500/- to opposite parties.  According to the complainant, he joined for this course on the basis of an order issued by Govt. of Kerala as G.O.(Rt)3047/2014/H.Edn. dated 29.12.2014.  As per this notification, the  opposite parties college admitted the complainant for the said course.  In order to get the salary hike and other allowances M.Tech Degree is required for college lecturers, that is why the complainant joined the part-time course as stated above.  It is further stated that the opposite parties concerned made him to believe that the said M.Tech Course got the university approval that is why he joined the course.  It is further stated that at the time of 1^st semester exam, it revealed that the said course was not been sanctioned by the M.G. University.  In order to obtain the sanction from the M.G. University the opposite parties filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the same is also disposed with a direction to dispose the matter by M.G. University.  According to the complainant, the opposite parties purposefully and deliberately admit the complainant to the M.Tech course without receiving any approval from the M.G. University.  He further stated that at present all of his original certificates are in the custody of opposite parties and such a situation also prevented the complainant to join for this course in any other college.  He filed this complaint before this Forum to return the original certificates as stated earlier and for the return of the total fees, compensation etc. etc. 

                   3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issue notice to the opposite parties for their appearance.  The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version as follows:  According to the opposite parties, this complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is stated that this complaint is premature since the matter in issue is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.  According to the opposite parties, as per order dated 29.12.2014 they provided admission for the complainant and other students for the above said course.  According to them, the opposite parties college was permitted to fill up altogether 31 seats in the three specialties as per order dated 29.12.2014.  They admitted the students to this course with an expectation that the university would issue its consent.  According to them, when the issue stands like this, the Govt. itself issued an order making it clear that approval from AICTE is not required.  They contended that the seats for the M.Tech Course are sanctioned by the university and approved by AICTE.  The opposite parties filed a writ petition as WP(C) No.11230/2015 since the university was not inclined to issue hall ticket to these students.  The Hon’ble High Court directed the university to release the hall ticket to the admitted student including the petitioner herein as provisional basis with a direction not to release the result until the disposal of the writ petition.  According to them, now matter in issue is lispendens.  It is admitted that the complainant was admitted to the M.Tech Course and the prescribed fees were also received from the complainant.  It is further stated that the university is processing the steps to give approval of the said course and there is no doubt with regard to the genuineness of the course.  It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Therefore, opposite parties prayed to dismiss this case with cost to them. 

         4. When we peruse the complaint, the version and the records of both sides we frame the following issues.

1. Whether the petition is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

          5.  The evidence of this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the copy of receipt dated 31.12.2014 for Rs.60,000/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.  Ext.A2 is the copy of receipt dated 31.12.2014 for Rs.14,950/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. On the other side DW1 is examined and Exts.B1 to B14 were marked.  Ext.B1 is the copy of Govt. Order dated 29.12.2014.  Ext.B2 is the copy of Govt. Order dated 30.03.2015.  Ext.B3 is the copy of letter dated 09.02.2015 issued by the Registrar of M.G. University to the opposite parties.  Ext.B4 is the copy of reply letter dated 24.02.2015.  Ext.B4(a) is the copy of students list.  Ext.B5 is the copy of letter dated 03.03.2015 sent by the Registrar, M.G. University to the opposite parties.  Ext.B6 is the copy of Govt. Order dated 30.03.2015.  Ext.B7 is the copy of letter dated 16.03.2015 sent by the opposite parties to the Controller of Examinations, M.G. University, Kottayam.  Ext.B8 is the copy of W.P.(C)No.11230/15 Order from Hon’ble High Court, Kerala dated 7^th April 2015.  Ext.B9 is the copy of W.P.(C)No.25361/15 Order from Hon’ble High Court, Kerala dated 24.02.2016.  Ext.B10 is the             copy of W.P.(C)No.15786/16 Order from Hon’ble High Court, Kerala dated 26.04.2016.  Ext.B11 is the copy of Notification dated 21.05.2016 for M.G. University.  Ext.B12 is the Notification dated 01.06.2016 for M.G. University.  Ext.B13 is the copy of approval of AICTE.  Ext.A14 is the copy of Prospectus.    The evidence adduced by PW1 through his proof affidavit is more or less as per the tune of his complaint.  On the other side, DW1 also filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and the said proof affidavit is also as per the style and tune of the version of opposite parties.  The concerned counsels of either side cross-examined PW1 and DW1 in this case.  After the closure of evidence, we heard both sides. 

          6. Point No.1:- The opposite parties in this case raised a serious contention to the effect that the case is not maintainable before the Forum and a writ petition (WP(C) No.11230/2015) is pending before the Hon’ble High Court and this matter is a lispendens.  When we peruse the evidence adduced by both sides in this case it reveals that the complainant was admitted in opposite parties college as a student of M.Tech and he paid all the fees required for the 1^st year semester course.  The complainant is alleged that the above said course has not been approved by M.G. University.  The act of the opposite parties without obtaining approval for the M.G. University is a clear deficiency in service.  Considering the evidence discussed, we can safely arrived a conclusion to the effect that the complaint is maintainable before the Forum.  Hence Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant.

          7. Point Nos.2 & 3:-  For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together.  It is admitted fact that the opposite parties are an approved college under M.G. University.  The question to be considered is whether the M.Tech Course of the complainant has got approval or not by the M.G. University.  The complainant is pleaded that he has made to believe that the said M.Tech Course conducted by opposite parties have been approved by M.G. University and AICTE apart from the G.O.(Rt)3047/2014/H.Edn. dated 29.12.2014 and it is also proved that PW1 the complainant paid Rs.74,950/- as the semester fees, caution deposit and university registration fees.  It can be proved by Ext.A1 and Ext.A2.  It is also admitted that at the time of admission PW1 the complainant has given the originals SSLC, B.Tech, TC, Conduct, Course and mark list (certificates) to the opposite parties for this course.  This PW1 was examined and he answered in cross, “നിലവിലുള്ള Regular M.Tech seatþ- ലാണ് എന്നെ appoint ചെയ്ത് അദ്ധ്യാപകൻആയി work ചെയ്യുന്നതിനാൽ class attend ചെയ്യുന്നതിന് time adjust ചെയ്ത് class തുടരുന്നതിന് Govt.-þ- ഉം  AICTEþ ഉം അനുവദിച്ചിട്ടില്ല”.  He again answer in cross, “Courseþ ന് അംഗീകാരം Mahatma Gandhi University നൽകിയിരുന്നു. എന്നെ പറഞ്ഞു ധരിപ്പിച്ചിരുന്നു  Chairman ആണ് എന്നെ ഇപ്രകാരം പറഞ്ഞ് ധരിപ്പിച്ചത്.  University അംഗീകാരം ഇല്ലെന്ന് മനസ്സിലായത് course ന് ചേർന്ന ശേഷമാണ് 1^st semester പരീക്ഷ എഴുതിയിയില്ല.  Fees ഞാൻ അടച്ചിരുന്നു”.

        8. When we peruse the testimony of PW1, it reveals that there is no approval for his M.Tech Course by M.G. University and it is also evident that the 1^st opposite party the Chairman of the institution made it believe that the said course has not got M.G. University approval at the time of his admission.  It is true that the opposite party relied Ext.B1 for the M.Tech admission.  When we peruse Ext.B1, it reveals that the Govt. accorded sanction to the 1^st opposite party to admit students to 10 M.Tech vacant seats for computer science and engineering.  The extract of the order is, “Government have examined the matter and are pleased to accord sanction to the Chairman, Musaliar Education Trust to admit teachers of Government Polytechnic Colleges in the existing M.Tech courses in Musaliar College of Engineering and Technology, Pathanamthitta without detrimental to their normal duties by the re-arrangement in timings of the existing courses subject to the condition that there will not be any financial commitment on the part of Government and subject to the approval of the AICTE and the University concerned”. As per Ext.B1, it is clear that for the vacant 10 seats the Govt. accorded sanction to the 1^st opposite party to admit teachers of Govt. Polytechnic Colleges and approval was subject to the approval from the M.G. University.  We can inferred that even on the date of Ext.B2, i.e. 30.03.2015 the M.G. University has not been approved the said course.  The Ext.B3 is an explanation letter issued by the M.G. University to 2^nd opposite party in this case.  In Ext.B3 it is noted, “vide petition referred above, it has come to the notice of the University that you have obtained permission from the Government to conduct M.Tech course on Part-time basis in violation of AICTE norms and without getting prior approval from the University which is violation of University Statutes”.  As per Ext.B3, it reveals that the opposite parties conducted this M.Tech Course without getting the prior approval or sanction from the university and it is conducted in violation of AICTE direction.  The Ext.B4 dated 24.02.2015, which was issued by opposite party 2 in favour of the Registrar of M.G. University shows that the opposite parties conducted this course with the approval of Govt. of Kerala and he has stated the relevant orders to that effect also. It is also stated that, “as per letter dated 29.01.2015 (copy attached) Chairman, MCET had submitted the copies of Govt. orders and informed the Registrar that the courses are already approved by AICTE & M.G. University.  MCET had admitted students within the University sanctioned limit only”. When we look into the reply portion of opposite party 2, it is to be presumed that the opposite party 1 and 2 started this course with the approval of AICTE and M.G. University.  Ext.B4(a) is a list of polytechnic teachers provisionally joined for M.Tech Course in academic year 2015.  The complainant’s name is mention as 6^th number in Ext.B4(a).  The above said B4(a) shows that 31 students are admitted by opposite parties in their college for the course of M.Tech (Computer Science and Engineering).  Ext.B5 dated 03.03.2015 is a letter issued by the Registrar to opposite party 1.  In this letter, the Registrar of M.G. University directed the opposite party 2 to furnish AICTE approval order to him.  Ext.B6 is a Govt. Order dated 30.03.2015 issued by Higher Education Dept., Government of Kerala in favour of opposite party 2 through this letter Govt. intended to exclude the portion, “subject to the approval of AICTE” from the Govt. Order G.O.(Rt)No.3047/2014/H.Edn. dated 29.12.2014 (Ext.B1).  When we peruse Ext.B4 to B6, we can come to a conclusion that though the opposite parties furnished Ext.B4 letter, B4(a) list of students, Ext.B6 Govt. Order nowhere in these exhibits there is not even a whisper with regard to the approval of M.G., University or AICTE.  We do admit that as per Govt. order Ext.B6, the Govt. of Kerala modified Ext.B1 order excluding the clause, “subject to the approval of the AICTE”, from Ext.B1.  This Govt. order (Ext.B6) is also not helpful to the opposite party to abstain from the approval of M.G. University for the course in question.  When we peruse Ext.B2 and B6 we can find that Ext.B2 and B6 are one and the same.  Ext.B7 dated 16.03.2015 shows that the opposite party remitted the relevant examination fee to the controller of M.G. University and Ext.B8 is the order from Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C)No.11230/15.  The nut shell of the above order of Hon’ble High Court is only to permit the opposite party to participate in the examination of M.G. University, which was commenced on 08.04.2015 and it also ordered that the appearance shall be provisional and no result shall be declared unless and until the writ petition is disposed of.  The Ext.B9 is the final order of Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (C)No.25361/15 the order is, “the university shall take a decision on the question of granting concurrence for the conduct of the M.Tech students.  The same shall done with notice to the affected parties as per law within one month”.  Ext.B10 is the order of Hon’ble High Court in this writ petition is, “There shall be an interim order is provisionally publish the result of the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd semester examinations.  But the mark list shall not be released pending disposal of the writ petition.  Any failed candidates can also avail of the supplementary examination”.  Ext.B11 is the notification of result of 1^st semester M.Tech examination of April 2015 held by the M.G. University.  Ext.B12 is a self attested copy of the notification issued by the controller of examination on 01.06.2016, which shows that the M.G. University published the result of M.Tech II Semester Regular and Supplementary Degree Examination September 2015 which is published on 01.06.2016 and Ext.B13 is a Notification issued by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) in favour of opposite party 2.  In the light of this Ext.B13 it is clear that AICTE has approved the conduct of the following course of the academic year 2014-15.  As far as this case is concerned Engineering and Technology course for M.Tech (PG) in full time course was approved and 18 students were also allowed to admit in this course.  Here it is clear that the AICTE is only approved for full time Computer Science and Engineering Course of M.Tech consisting of 18 students under M.G. University.  The case of the complainant is that he was admitted in part time course specifically for polytechnic teachers working in the State of Kerala.  When we peruse the exhibits produced on the side of the opposite parties we can safely inferred that either the university or the AICTE has given any approval for conducting a part time course for M.Tech Computer Engineering Course as pleaded by the complainant in this case.  Ext.B14 dated 03.06.2016 is a prospectus for admission to P.G. Degree Course in Engineering for the year 2016, which was issued by the Dept. of Technical Education, Govt. of Kerala.  The Ext.B14 is clearly mentioning the fees structure, reservation of seat, remittance of fee and refund of fee liquidated damages etc. etc.  But nowhere in that exhibit also there is no explanation with regard to the part time course pleaded by the complainant. When we peruse the evidence adduced by DW1 in this case, it also reveals that the M.G. University or AICTE has not granted any approval or permission for M.Tech part time course as pleaded by the opposite parties.  In cross he answered, “Ext.B1 പ്രകാരം computer science-þ\v sanction sNbvXXv 18 seat BW”v.  He again adds, “Regular hnZymÀ°n-I-fpsS hnj-b-hp-ambn _Ô-s¸«v tImS-Xnsb kao-]n-t¡­n h¶n-«n-Ã.  Ext.B4(a)þ-bn ]d-bp¶ 11 BÄ¡mcpw kao-]s¯ poly technic collegeþse A²ym-]-IÀ BWv.  Ah-cpsS tPmen¡v XS-Ê-tam, Govt. A[nI _m²yX D­m-hm-¯-Xn-\mWv D¯-chv.  Ext.B1 {]Imcw University and AICTE AwKo-Imcw thW-sa-¶mWv \nÀt±iw”. In the light of this answer, it can be clearly inferred that the opposite parties admitted 11 polytechnic teachers to Regular M.Tech Course of M.G. University as per the approval (AICTE) of Ext.B13.  As we discussed earlier, Ext.B13 is the approval for the conduct of regular course for 18 students.  It is true that as per Ext.B2 it is stated, “Sanction is accorded to the Musaliar Education Trust to admit teachers of Government Polytechnic Colleges in the existing vacant seats available in M.Tech courses conducted in Musaliar College of Engineering and Technology, Pathanamthitta as specified in the above said Government Orders without determent to their normal duties by the rearrangement in goings of the existing courses subject to the condition that there will not be any financial commitment on the part of Government and also subject to the approval from the Mahatma Gandhi University”.  Though the Govt. is allowed the opposite party to take admission to the vacant seat of M.Tech Course of opposite parties by admitting teachers of Govt. Polytechnic Colleges in the existing vacant seat, it is to see that either the AICTE or the M.G. University has not given any approval for this kind of admission to M.Tech Course.  In cross DW1 again answered, “Ext.B3 {]Imcw M.G. Universityþ-bpsS I¯n M.Tech Course \S-¯p-¶Xv University bp-sS-bpw, AICTE bpsSbpw \nb-a-§Ä¡v hncp-²-amWv F¶mWv ]d-ªn-cn-¡p-¶Xv”.  He again answered for a question, “Ext.B4(a)þ ]d-bp¶ 11 Ip«n-IÄ ]Tn¨ course-þ\v University bpsStbm AICTE bpsStbm AwKo-Imcw Ds­¶p ImWn-¡m³ DÅ tcJ lmP-cm-¡n-bn-«p-­v.  Ext.B13 document BWv B tcJ”.  It is crystal clear to see that Ext.B13 is a document, which shows the approval for conducting regular course of M.Tech Course as we discussed earlier.  PW1 again answered to a question, “lÀPn-I£n DÄs¸-sS-bpÅ students ]Tn¨ courseþ\v AwKo-Imcw CÃm-¯-Xn-\m BWtÃm courtþ t]mbXv? (Q) AÃ.  AICTE AwKo-Imcw D­v.  University AwKo-Im-c-¯n-\mWv court-þs\ kao-]n-¨-Xv”.  This answer of the DW1 also shows that the opposite parties approach the Hon’ble High Court for obtaining approval from the M.G. University.  It is pertinent to see that the opposite parties failed to get any approval for part time M.Tech Course still this time.  When we consider the request of the complainant, it is to see that he discontinued this course knowing that there is no approval from AICTE or M.G. University for the conducts of this course hence he want to return the original certificate which were deposited at the time of admission before the opposite parties institution along with the return of the fees paid in different heads and for compensation.  As we discussed earlier, it is proved that the complainant paid Rs.60,000/- as the course fee and Rs.14,950/- as special fee and caution deposit.  It is admitted that opposite party 1 is the Chairman of the institution and opposite party 2 is the principal of the said institution.  Opposite party 1 and 2 are equally and severally liable to the complainant and on the basis of the evidence before us, we find that the opposite parties are liable to the complainant and they have committed deficiency in service as pleaded by the complainant in this case.  Hence Point No.2 and 3 are also found in favour of the complainant.

          9.  In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. Opposite parties are directed to return the originals of SSLC certificate, T.C, Course Certificate, Conduct Certificate, B.Tech Degree Certificate and Mark list to the complainant within one month of the date of receipt of this order.

2. The opposite parties are also directed to return Rs.74,950/- (Rupees Seventy Four Thousand Nine hundred and fifty only) (Course Fee, special Fee, Caution Deposit etc.) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.

3. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.

         Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th         day of July, 2016.

                                                                     (Sd/-)

                                                     P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                    (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)             :    (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member- II)                 :    (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  : Azhar. M.A 

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Copy of receipt dated 31.12.2014 for Rs.60,000/- issued by the

        opposite parties to the complainant. 

A2 :  Copy of receipt dated 31.12.2014 for Rs.14,950/- issued by the

        opposite parties to the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  : Dr. K. Geevarghese

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 :  Copy of Govt. Order dated 29.12.2014. 

B2 :  Copy of Govt. Order dated 30.03.2015. 

B3 :  Copy of letter dated 09.02.2015 issued by the Registrar of M.G. University 

        to the opposite parties. 

B4 :  Copy of reply letter dated 24.02.2015. 

B4(a) :  Copy of students list. 

B5 :    Copy of letter dated 03.03.2015 sent by the Registrar, M.G. University

          to the opposite parties. 

B6 :   Copy of Govt. Order dated 30.03.2015. 

B7 :   Copy of letter dated 16.03.2015 sent by the opposite parties

         to the Controller of Examinations, M.G. University, Kottayam. 

B8 :   Copy of W.P.(C)No.11230/15 Order from Hon’ble High Court, Kerala 

         dated 7^th April 2015. 

B9 :  Copy of W.P.(C)No.25361/15 Order from Hon’ble High Court, Kerala  

        dated 24.02.2016. 

B10 :  Copy of W.P.(C)No.15786/16 Order from Hon’ble High Court, Kerala  

          dated 26.04.2016. 

B11 :  Copy of Notification dated 21.05.2016 for M.G. University. 

B12 :  Notification dated 01.06.2016 for M.G. University. 

B13 :  Copy of approval of AICTE. 

A14 :  Copy of Prospectus.   

                                                                                          (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Azhar. M.A, Vilayil Veedu, Kanjavally.P.O.,

                    Kollam – 691 602.

2. The Chairman, Musaliar College of Engineering &

          Technology, Musaliar College.P.O.,

          Pathanamthitta – 689 652.

3. The Principal,     -do.  –do.
4. The Stock File.