Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/138/2015

Ku. Avneet Kaur d/o Upkar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Seceandary Education Board Rajasthan Ajmer - Opp.Party(s)

Rajkumar Tongawat

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO:138 /2015

 

Km. Avneet Kaur c/o natural guardian & father Sh.Upkar Singh r/o Near Khel Maidan, Delhi Road, Teh.Ramgarh Distt. Alwar.

Vs.

 

Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer through Secretary & ors.

 

Date of Order 25.4.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr.R.K.Tongawat counsel for the complainant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

2

 

This complaint has been filed with the contention that the complainant appeared in secondary examination in session 2012-13. She secure 78.50% marks but to her surprise she could get only 10 marks out of 80 marks in third language 'Punjabi' . She applied for re-valuation but nothing has been done on her application. She filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court where it has been revealed that answer sheet of the complainant was misplaced. Thereafter on her representation she again appeared in the impugned paper and got 73 marks out of 80. Hence this complaint has been filed to compensate her for mental agony,fees etc.

 

Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the impugned complaint as well as documents submitted alongwith the complaint.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that due to misplacement of answer book retotalling of the marks was not possible and this fact has been admitted by the opposite party before the Hon'ble High Court and after the order of the High Court the complainant appeared in the examination of Punjabi language and secure 73 marks out of 80. Be that may be the case

 

3

 

 

but in view of the law laid down in IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC) Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The apex court in Bihar School Examination Board (supra) has held as under:

 

“ But the Act does not intended to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination,or evaluation of answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency does not convert the Board into a service provider for a consideration,nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. We are clearly of the view that the Board is not a 'service provider' and a student who takes an examination is not a 'consumer' and consequently,complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board.”

 

In view of the above an examination has been undertaken by Secondary Board, it was not a 'service provider' and student who has appeared in the examination is not a 'consumer'. Hence,

 

4

 

 

the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and liable to be rejected hence, rejected.

 

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm