West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/72/2015

Sri Chandan Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Netaji School of Education for PPTTI - Opp.Party(s)

Swapan Kr. Dasmal

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

&

  Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member

   

Complaint Case No.72/2015

                                                       

                    Sri Chandan Das,  S/o Sri Benudhar Das., Vill. & P.O. Brahman Khalisa,  

                    P.S. Belda, Dist- Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721443……….……Complainant.

Versus

1. Netaji School of Education for PPTTI (Turka) P.O. Turka, P.S. Dantan, Dist Paschim Medinipur service through its Director, Mr. Badal Chandra Jana, Vill. Dhaneswarpur, P.O. Khakurda, P.S. Belda,Dist. Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721445.
2. All India Early Childhood Care and Education Service through the Director having its office at 55, II Floor, Harsh Vihar, Road no.44, Gurdeep Mehata Tent house,  Building Opp. Near Bank, Pitampar, Delhi-110034.………..…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Swapan Kumar Dasmal, Advocate.

              For the O.Ps.             : Mr. Rabindra Nath Singha, Advocate.

                                                 

Decided on: -29/11/2016

 

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –   Briefly stated, the case of the   complainant is as follows:-

                           The complainant is an unemployed youth and he passed Higher Secondary Examination under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. For getting a service in teaching line, he was seeking an employment oriented training

Contd……………….P/2

 

( 2 )

course.  The Opposite party no.2 is an institution registered under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India having registration no.L-25438/2005 and  allegedly created and registered according to the provision of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 and the said institution has started Nursery Teacher’s Training Course all over India with the help and active              co-operation of education experts with a view to train unemployed and educated boys and girls so that said person may import education based in modern lines to Primary School Children and opposite party no.1 is one of the training centre under the direct control and supervision of the opposite party no.2.  Being assured and influenced about the education structure  of Nursery Teacher’s Training Course of the said institution is equivalent and similar to the Basic Training Course (Primary) approved by the Director of School Education (Primary), West Bengal, the  complainant and many other students were admitted in the said Netaji School of Education for P.P.T.T.I., Turka, i.e. the opposite party no.1in the said Nursery Teachers Training Course for the academic session of 2007-2008 and he paid total sum of Rs.41.100/-in the office of the opposite party no.1 time to time under due receipts for the session fees and charges of the said course.  The complainant passed the said  Nursery Teachers Training examination said to be affiliated by the NCTE  and as such he should be treated as per of Basic Training Course, West Bengal.  After passing the said examination, the complainant went to the office of the Employment Exchange office at Belda for recording the said Nursery Teachers Training qualification but it was told that such qualification has not been recognized by the  Director of School Education (Primary), West Bengal and the complainant also came to know that the said course conducted by the opposite party for the purpose of recruitment in Government establishment has not been approved  by the Government of West Bengal. In the mean time, some other successful candidates who faced the same situation filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta seeking relief for reorganization of the said Nursery Teachers Training Course at par or equivalent to Basic Training Course. Vide order dated 08/07/2013, Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta dismissed the said writ petitions.  Thereafter the complainant and other candidates sent applications by registered post with A.D. on 03/09/2013 to the Director of the opposite party no.1 namely Sri Badal Chandra Jana demanding return of money taken as admission fees and charges from the complainant but he paid no heed to such request which tantamount to deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint, praying for an award of Rs.1.00.000/- only against

Contd……………….P/3

 

( 3 )

 the opposite party no.1 which includes loss of Rs.41,100/- as payment of admission fees and charges as well as  Rs.58,900/- for damages, compensation and cost.

       Both the opposite parties have contested the case by filing separate written objection. 

      Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party no.1 that the opposite party no.1 started  a Institution named and styled as Netaji School of Education for PTTI at Turka under P.S. Dantan for Nursery Teacher Training Diploma Course in Child Education, Montessori Teachers training, Pre Primary Teachers Training   affiliated  to All India Early Childhood Care and Education, New Delhi, vide registration no.S-43128 of the Ministry of HRD, Government of India,  New Delhi. For that purpose, All India Early Childhood Care and Education issued authorization certificated on 25/09/2007. The complainant after knowing and verifying well about the institution of the opposite party no.1 duly admitted himself in the said course and after completion of the course, the opposite party no.1 issued certificate to the complainant on 05/08/2005.  It is stated that the opposite party has no deficiency in service in rendering the above mentioned course to the complainant.

                     Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party no.2 that they started Nursery Teacher Training (I.C.C.E.) course with the three categories namely Diploma in Child Education and Psychology (1 year), Advanced Diploma in Child Education and Applied Psychology (2years), Pre-Primary Teachers Training (It’s a job oriented self-employed course). In the prospectus of those courses it has been clearly mentioned in Rules clause-7 “there is no job responsibility of Institutions after the training”.  In the said prospectus, it has also been mentioned in Clause-9 that the Nursery Teachers Training is applicable in English Medium, Pre-Primary & Public school only and also in Clause 10 of in the prospectus, it has been clearly mentioned that the Nursery Teacher Training is conducted by all India Early Childhood Care  and Educations, New Delhi. Opposite party no.2 is running it’s course which is equivalent to Pre-Primary Teachers Training (P.P.T.T.) and not to Primary Teachers Training (P.T.T.) as claimed by the complainant. The authorized study centre i.e. the opposite party no.1 is an authorized Pre-Primary Teacher Training Institute and not Primary Teachers Training Institute.  After knowing about the general rules of the prospectus as mentioned in the prospectus, the complainant got himself admitted in the said course.  It is therefore claimed that the petition of complaint may be dismissed.

Contd……………….P/4

 

( 4 )

 To prove their respective cases, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering an examination-in-chief supported by affidavit and another witness namely Debabrata Samanta as O.P.W.-2 by way of tendering a written examination-in- chief,  supported by affidavit.  Few documents, so filed  by the complainant, were marked as exhibit 1 to 20 respectively.

On the other hand, the opposite party no.1 has examined himself as OPW-1 and during his evidence, few document were marked as exhibit D to K/2 respectively.

Points for Decision

1) Is the case is maintainable in its present form and Prayer ?

2) Is their any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?

3) Is the complainant is entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for ?

Decision with Reasons

    For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

   Admittedly, opposite party no.2 is an institution under the named and styled as All India Early Childhood Care and Education registered under the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India having registration no.L-25438/2005 and opposite party no.1 is the study centre of opposite party no.2 named and styled as Netaji School of Education for P.P.T.T.I.  It is also admitted that the complainant got himself admitted in the said education centre of opposite party no.1 for Nursing Teachers Training Course for the academic sessions of 2007-2008 and after passing the said examination, he was given mark sheet certificate of the said examination by the opposite party no.1.  Grievance of the complainant is that after passing the said examination he went to the Employment Exchange Office at Belda for registering his said Nursing Teachers Training qualification but he was told by the Employment Exchange that such qualification has not been recognized by the Director of School Education (Primary), West Bengal and the complainant came to know that the said training course conducted by the opposite party has not been approved by the Government of West Bengal and not to be accepted and they told that the said certificate cannot be accepted for registration and as such for such non acceptance the said certificate virtually has been given a total go-bye of the said qualification. It is alleged by the complainant that being assured and influenced about the education structure of Nursery Teachers Training course of the said institution that the same is equivalent and similar to the

Contd……………….P/5

 

( 5 )

Basic Training Course (Primary) approved by the Director  of  School Education (Primary), West Bengal , the complainant like many other candidates got themselves admitted in the said course.  So according to the complainant that he had the impression that the said course is equivalent and similar to Basic Training Course (Primary) approved by Director of School Education (Primary), West Bengal and upon that impression he got himself admitted in the said course but finally he came to know from the Employment Exchange Office that the said qualification has not been recognized by the Director of School Education (Primary), West Bengal.

    Now the question arises as to whether the opposite party made such impression upon the complainant before his admission in the said course that the said course is equivalent to Primary Teachers Training Course recognized by Director of School Education (Primary), Government of West Bengal.  No where in his petition of complaint, the complainant has stated that he was impressed by the opposite party that the said course was equivalent to Primary Teachers Training course recognized by the Director of School Education (Primary), Government of West Bengal.  On the contrary, we find from the cross-examination of PW-1 that he has admitted that before taking admission, he gone through the contents of the prospectus of that course and seeing the said prospectus, he signed on the admission form. He has further admitted in his cross-examination that he enrolled  his name in that  Employment Exchange Office relating to his degree of PPTTI course.  Said prospectus of that course has been marked as exhibit-F in this case along with the specimen of photo copy of admission registration form.  From that prospectus, we find that the course admitted by the complainant in the institution of the opposite parties is Nursery Teachers Training and not Primary Teachers Training Course.  We further find from the prospectus and admission registration form that in general rules of that prospectus in column 7 it has been clearly mentioned that there is no job responsibility of the institution after the training.

 In the above facts and circumstances and since admittedly the complainant, after knowing the nature of the course and on going through the prospectus, got himself admitted in the said course, so we find that there is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  The petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.    

Contd……………….P/6

 

( 6 )

 

                                               Hence, it is,

                                                Ordered,

                              that the complaint case no.72/2015  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

            Dictated & Corrected by me

                              Sd/-                                           Sd/-                                       Sd/-    

                         President                                    Member                                President

                                                                                                                     District Forum

                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur