- AT HYDERABAD.

CC.No.35/2008

Between-

S.Afrin Sulthana (Minor) rep. by her father

S.Mahammed Hayath,

C-4, BSNL Quarters, Vinoy Nagar, IS Sadan,

Hyderabad – 500059.

…Petitioner(Complainant).

And

1.The Asst.Secretary (AIEEE Unit),

   Central Board of Secondary Education,

   P.S. 1-2, Institutional Area,

   IP Extension, Patparganj,

   Delhi – 110 092.

2.National Institute of Technology (NIT),

   Warangla, A.P.

…Respondents (Opp.Parties)

For the complainant                    - Mr.S.Mahammed Hayath appeared in person.

For the respondents                   - Admn.stage.

QUORUM- THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral order (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

1.         The complainant, being a minor girl, is being represented by her father, who appeared in person and argued the matter. 

2.         The grievance of the complainant is that his daughter appeared for All India Engineering Entrance Examination (AIEEE 2008) and secured 77480 of all India rank and 11689 of State rank.  She was entitled to be called for an interview as per the notification dt.03.06.2008.  Later the National Institute of Technology introduced a major change in their admission criteria for students from States other than the State where the respective NIT is located.  They stated that from this academic year, seats reserved for students from other states will be on the basis of all India merit.    Since she had secured the rank entitled to be eligible for central counseling.  However, in view of  the change in policy, she was prevented from counseling.  The subsequent change of policy is illegal and contrary to Article 14, 15 and 29(2) of Constitution of India.  He requests issuance of a writ order or direction to declare the action of the AIEEE as illegal and improper against the provisions of the Constitution of India, besides compensation of Rs.20,20,000/-.

3.         We heard the party-in-person and perused the record.  We are of the opinion that the matter could be dismissed at the stage of admission. 

4.         At the outset, we may state that in the very communication issued to the complainant’s daughter, it was categorically mentioned under the column of remarks that only candidates with remark on their Score Card ‘ELIGIBLE FOR CENTRAL COUNSELLING……….’ are permitted for Central Counselling on their rank.  It is not the case of the complainant that the card sent to his daughter, bears such a remark.  It is his case that in view of the changed policy, she was denied counseling.  The complainant could not show as to how his daughter was entitled for counseling, even as per earlier criteria.  Apart from it since the National Institute of Technology has taken a policy decision, this Commission cannot determine the admission pattern.  It will have a far reaching consequence that would change the very pattern of admission for the entire India.  We do not think that this is a fit case where this Commission could resolve this sort of dispute under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.  We may not be able to extend the provisions of C.P.Act to cases of this nature.  If the complainant feels aggrieved, and in fact when he is seeking a writ, it is better for him to approach the High Court. 

5.         We do not see any merits in the complaint.  Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed at the threshold, at the stage of admission.  The court fee paid by the complainant be returned to him.  No costs.   

PRESIDENT                MALE MEMBER

Dt-04.07.2008.

Vvr.