RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.993 of 2002

Principal, District Institute of Education &

Training, D.M. Colony Road,

Bulandshahr.                                                    ...Appellant.

Versus

1- Pravesh Kumar Sharma,

    S/o Sri Kamal Kishore Sharma,

    Village: Ladana, Post: Khanpur,

    District: Bulandshahr.

2- Principal, Kendra Vyavasthapaka,

    B.T.C. Education Centre- D.A.V. College,

    Bulandshahr.                                          .Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Smt. Bal Kumari, Member.

For the appellant     : None.

For the respondent  : None.

Date   15.3.2016

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8.3.2002, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Bulandshahr in complaint case No.661 of 1998, the appellant Principal, District Institute of Education & Training, Bulandshahr has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjectures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in

(2)

the interest of justice, otherwise the appellant will suffer irreparable loss.

From perusal of the complaint case, it transpires that the respondent/complainant Sri Pravesh Kumar Sharma had applied for admission in BTC Course, run by the appellant in Academic Session 1998-99. He was allotted Roll no.119750 by the Principal, District Institute of Education & Training, Bulandshahr. The date and time fixed for the Admission Test was 8.11.1998 at 9 a.m. at Gandhi Bal Niketan, Bulandshahr. Consequently, the respondent reached the Examination Centre in time where he was informed by the appellant Examination In-Charge that his Centre had been wrongly mentioned in the Admission Card which was actually DAV College, Bulandshahr. Accordingly, correction was made by him in the Admission Card. Upon this, he went to DAV College but there also, he was not allowed to appear in the Examination on the ground that there was an over-writing in the Admission Card which did not bear the signature and the seal of the Examination Incharge. Thereafter, he again met the appellant Principal, District Institute of Education & Training, Bulandshahr for removing the objection but the appellant refused to oblige. As a result, he could not appear in the BTC Examination for the session 1998-99 and his one year was lost for no rhyme or reason. Aggrieved by this serious deficiency in service, the respondent/complainant Sri Pravesh Kumar Sharma filed complaint case no.661 of 1998 before the Ld. DCDRF, Bulandshahr. The Forum below, after hearing the parties

(3)

and on the basis of facts, circumstances and documentary evidence on record held that the Centre for BTC Examination of the respondent/ complainant was DAV College, Bulandshahr but his Admission Card wrongly indicated that it was at Gandhi Bal Niketan. The appellant, during the course of hearing before the Forum below, admitted that Centre for Examination was wrongly mentioned in the Admission Card as Gandhi Bal Niketan. The entire confusion arose due to this wrong mentioning of the Examination Centre in the Admission CArd by the appellant. There is no denial of the fact that the Centre for Examination was corrected and thereafter, the respondent reached DAV College in time. Yet he was not allowed to appear in the examination on a lame, bogus and untenable excuse that there was a cutting in the Admission Card which did not bear the seal and signature of the Examination Incharge. The problem could have been solved had they allowed him to appear in the examination provisionally. The conduct amounted to serious misfeasance/non-feasance in public office. The Forum below held that the remiss on the part of the appellant amounted to serious deficiency in service. Wrong mentioning of the Examination Centre in the Admission Card is not a statutory function. Similarly, not allowing a candidate to appear in the examination on the ground that the corrections made in the Admission Card did not bear the signature or seal of the Authority who corrected the same is again a serious misfeasance on the part of the appellant. Such activities do not fall within the ambit of

(4)

statutory functions of educational institutions and, therefore, the rulings laid down in Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC) and Addl. Joint Secretary/Commissioner of Government Examinations vs. V. Srinivasulu and Anr., 2011(1) CPR 124 (NC) are not applicable in the appeal in hand. There is no irregularity and illegality in the order and, therefore, there is no scope for any interference in it. The Forum below has taken a very lenient view in the matter and has awarded a meagre amount of Rs.2000.00 as compensation and Rs.500.00 towards cost of litigation. We are not inclined to interfere in this matter as well.

Consequently, the  appeal, being meritless, is liable to be dismissed.  

ORDER

          The appeal, being meritless, is dismissed and the judgment and order of the Ld. Forum below is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (A.K. Bose)                                (Bal Kumari)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA-II

Court No.3