Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/86/2016

V.C.Akhil Abhijith, S/o. V.Madan Mohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Principal, Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College - Opp.Party(s)

Kanchi Syamala

01 Jun 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 16.09.2016

Order Date:01.06.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

THURSDAY THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.86/2016

 

 

Between

 

 

V.C.Akhil Abhijith,

S/o. V.Madan Mohan,

Hindu, aged about 20 years,

D.No.9-66/2, Amaravathi Nagar,

Tirupati.                                                                                                         … Complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

And

 

 

The Principal,

Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College,

A. Rangampet,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                              …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 11.05.17 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Kanchi Syamala, A.Madhavi, counsel for complainant, and Sri.A.Surendra Naidu, counsel for the opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section –12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant  against the opposite party for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party to return all the certificates and academic prudential pertaining to the complainant, 2) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.15,00,000/- towards mental agony caused to the complainant, and 3) to direct the opposite party to pay costs of the complaint, and pass such other orders as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

            2.  The averments of the complaint in brief are:-  that the complainant has completed his intermediate with A-grade, got through EAMCET and secured seat in the college of opposite party. He joined in the 1^st year B.Tech (E.C.E) course in the year 2014 with roll No.1412A04N6. During the months of January and February 2015, his ailment got aggravated since he was suffering from “congenial myopia” since long time due to blood hemorrhage in his left eye. As per medical advice he has taken bed rest, which resulted in not attending the college.

            3. That the complainant and his parents when brought the ailment of the complainant to the notice of the opposite party, the opposite party has given assurance that he will be permitted to write the 1^st year examination to be held in the month of May 2015. On that the complainant paid Rs.1,530/- towards examination fee to the opposite party through Andhra Bank vide receipt No.47426 on 20.04.2015. The opposite party received the examination fee without raising any objection. The complainant also submitted his examination application satisfying all the requirements, to the opposite party, who issued acknowledgement.  

            4.  While the complainant is expecting that he will appear for the examination, surprisingly he found his name in the detained list vide proceedings SVEC/detained/   I B.Tech/2014-15 dt:02.05.2015, showing against the name of the complainant aggregate percentage of attendance as 53.89% and the complainant was not allowed to appear for the examination. On coming to know about his detention, he approached the opposite party and requested to allow him to attend the examination, but the opposite party refused his request. Therefore, the parents of the complainant approached the authorities of JNTU, Ananthapur, narrated the facts regarding the absence of the complainant to his classes in the months of January and February 2015 with all necessary certificates. JNTU University also not considered their request. Under the above circumstances, as there was no option, complainant filed Writ Petition No.14539/2015 before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh along with W.P.M.P.No.19037/2015, in which the Hon’ble High Court granted interim relief directing the opposite party, JNTU Ananthapur, and the Chief Controller of Examinations, Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College, to permit the complainant to write the 1^st year B.Tech examination, but the opposite party did not allow the complainant to write the internal examinations on the ground that the opposite party did not receive the copy of the order from the Hon’ble High Court, however, after receiving the copy of the order, the complainant is allowed to write the external examination.

            5.  But the opposite party did not announce the results of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant filed W.P.M.P.No.31121/2015 seeking direction to the opposite party to declare the results of the complainant. Though the Hon’ble High Court, given direction to all the respondents, the opposite party alone sent a letter to the complainant stating that due to shortage of attendance, he was detained and no one has power to condone the attendance if it is below 65%, that after receiving the said letter from the opposite party, complainant attended the classes of 1^st year B.Tech, but he was neither allotted a new roll number nor called with old number. The complainant and his parents made several representations orally and in writing. The opposite party did not give even reply till today. That the complainant was humiliated by the opposite party and their staff members. The complainant was threatened by the opposite party to withdraw the writ petition. Though his friends and relatives of same age group were advancing their career, complainant is sitting idle in home in a sorrow state.

            6.  That the complainant wants to pursue his studies, his continuing in the institution of the opposite party has no meaning. Therefore, he wants all his certificates, for pursuing his education. He holds good academic record and prospecting future. As already stated he is suffering from myopia and due to obstruction caused by the opposite party in pursuing his studies, his health become worsened, he is facing psychological and sociological problems. He is not in a position to mingle with other people. He got gap in his academics. He is lagging behind his batch-mates, which may not be compensated with money. The opposite party is liable to pay Rs.15,00,000/- towards damages. The complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite party and JNTU Ananthapur on 23.03.2016 calling upon them to return all his certificates and academic prudentials within a week from the date of receipt of the notice. Though notices were received by the opposite party and JNTU Ananthapur, the opposite party neither gave reply nor complied with. The JNTU Ananthapur gave vague, dubious and evasive reply. Hence the complaint.   

            7.  The opposite party filed its written version contending that the complainant joined the college of the opposite party, his Roll No. is 14121A04N6 but not No.1412A04N6. The complainant paid the examination fee of Rs.1,530/- to the opposite party through Andhra Bank vide receipt No.47426 dt:20.04.2015, and he also submitted his examination application for which opposite party issued acknowledgement. Later, his name was found in ‘detained list’ vide proceedings No.SVEC/detained/I BTech/2014-15 dt:02.05.2015. In that detained list, against the name of the complainant aggregate attendance is shown as 53.89%, based on that list, the complainant was not allowed to appear for examination. There is no relationship of consumer with the opposite party. At the time of counseling the opposite party has given application along with academic regulations, course structure and detailed syllabi of Electronics and Communication Engineering for 1^st year B.Tech regular       4 year degree course for the batches admitted from 2014-15.

            8. That the opposite party college is an autonomous body affiliated to JNTU Ananthapur, approved by AICTE accredited by NBA.NAAC with A.grade. The opposite party college was followed by the rules and regulations and guidelines of JNTU Ananthapur and University Grants Commission (UGC). As per the academic regulations and course structure and syllabi, Rule No.8.3 –

8.3.1	A student shall be eligible to appear for year-end/semester/ end examinations if he acquires a minimum of 75% of attendance in aggregate  of all the courses in a year / semester.
8.3.2	Condonation of shortage of attendance in aggregate upto 10% (65% and above and below 75%) in first year or each semester may be granted by the College Academic Committee.
8.3.3	Shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate shall be in no case be codoned.
*8.3.4	Students whose shortage of attendance is not condoned in first year / any semester are not eligible to take their end examination of that class and their registration shall stand cancelled.
*8.3.5	A student shall not be promoted to the next semester unless he satisfies the attendance requirements of the current year / semester, As applicable. The student may seek readmission for the year / semester when offered next. He will not be allowed to the register for the courses of the year / semester while he is in detention. A student detained due to shortage of attendance will have to repeat that year / semester when offered next.

 

            All these guidelines are framed by the opposite party as per the rules and regulations of JNTU Ananthapur. At the time of admission, the complainant was well known about his health, even though, he joined at his own risk. Admittedly, the complainant took treatment during his intermediate course, as clots were developed in the blood vessels of both the eyes in Vishnu Clinic, Chennai and Tirupati, but he produced the medical certificate issued by Sri Lakshmi Gayathri Eye Hospital (document No.1) instead of Vishnu Clinic. The complainant did not attend the college regularly from November 2014 to February 2015. As monthly accumulated attendance of all the students is submitted to JNTU Ananthapur every month besides displaying the same in the notice board of the college for information of the students, the complainant cannot plead ignorance in this regard. The complainant, who has got 53.89% of aggregate attendance in 1^st year B.Tech is detained and, will have to repeat 1^st B.Tech, when offered next as per the regulations. The complainant did not submit the medical record to the college authorities before applying for examinations. That the complainant was informed well in advance through notification dt:02.04.2015, to register and appear for 1^st year B.Tech regular examinations of May 2015, stating that hall tickets will be issued to only eligible candidates, who fulfilled the attendance and academic requirements of the college, and he also informed well in advance by the Principal of the College that he is not having the required attendance of 75% by registered letter. The parents of the complainant were also informed about the shortage of attendance of the complainant in the parents meet held on 03.04.2015. In addition, the complainant was also informed about the status of his attendance at the counseling meetings held by the mentor concerned. The WPMP No.19037/2015 in WP No.14953/2015, the complainant got interim directions to allow the student for taking the examination (document No.5), on that interim directions copy submitted by the complainant, the opposite party did not consider the complainant, but on receipt of order from the Hon’ble High Court by due procedure, the opposite party allowed the complainant to write the examination.

            9.  That the WP No.14593/2015 was disposed on 17.08.2015 as follows – “without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent herein to consider the representation dt:07.07.2015 said to have been submitted by the petitioner herein and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petition, if any, shall stands closed. No costs”.

            10.  According to this, the opposite party addressed a letter dt:22.08.2015 to the complainant (vide document No.9) stating that the representation of the complainant is carefully examined and as per the regulation- 5 of the academic regulations of JNTU Ananthapur, a student should have minimum of 65% of the attendance to be promoted to next semester, but the complainant got only 53.89% of attendance, hence his representation cannot be accepted, as it amounts to violation of JNTU regulations. The opposite party did not announce the result.

            11.  That the opposite party has no right to allot a seat to the first semester. When the complainant gave request letter for re-admission and pay necessary fee, then the opposite party shall forward the same to JNTU and get permission for admission. But the complainant did not give such re-admission request or did not pay re-admission fee. On the other hand, the parents of the complainant create lot of chaos and gave so many representations without proper way. Thus the opposite party has no right to re-admit the complainant without due process. Roll number cannot be allotted to the complainant by simply sitting in the class room of 1^st year B.Tech again. He was also not allowed new or old number. When the complainant raised new plea for all the original documents, as per the guidelines of UGC, whoever wants to leave the college or seek documents, he shall pay all future fees. This was intimated to the complainant. All the guidelines are mentioned in the prospectus along with the application.

            12.  The opposite party further submit that as per the Public Notice of UGC dt:23.04.2007, the Commission is of the view that the Institutions / Universities by way of retaining the certificates in original, force relation of admitted students which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. However, it would not be permissible for Institutions and Universities to retain the school / institution leaving certificate, mark sheet, caste certificate and other documents in original. The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission (UGC), have considered the issue and decided that the Institutions and Universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students / candidates. In the event of a student / candidate  withdrawing before the starting of the course, the waitlisted candidate should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student after a deduction of processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- shall be refunded and returned by the Institution / University to the student / candidate withdrawing from the programme, should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, which applicable. In this case, the complainant was not leaving the college within the prescribed time as per the above terms. He was completed one year course also. While he was leaving the institution and when the seat is kept blank, there is no need to refund the fees. The complainant has to pay the future fees also. In this connection, the Hon’ble Madras High Court at Madurai gave finding that if any student leaves the institution in the middle of          2^nd year, the seat will remain vacant and such vacancy will adversely affect the financial position of the college, with regard to the refund of tuition fee of the candidate, who leaves the college within two months of joining the course. In the said decision, it was also observed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, that the complainant joined 4^th respondent college during the academic year 2007-08 in B.E. (EEE) course. After attending the course for 1^st year and the 3^rd semester in the second year, the petitioner had left the college on 03.10.2008 to join MBBS course. When the petitioner sought for transfer certificate, the 4^th respondent college insisted for payment of fees towards the 3^rd and 4^th year also. It is seen that the said fees towards the 3^rd and 4^th years were paid by petitioner on 03.10.2008 and got back all his certificates, if any student leaves the institution in the middle of 2^nd year, the said seat will remain vacant and such vacancy will adversely affect the financial position of the college.

            13. In this case, the opposite party is self-financing college depending upon the fees collected from the students. Hence, the complainant has to pay and seek return of the certificates. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and there is no need to pay any damages to the complainant, without paying fee by the complainant for future period i.e. for 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th year, he cannot seek the certificates. In another Writ Appeal No.1200/2006, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that Court cannot issue judicial fiat to the respondents to admit the appellant in 1^st semester examination of 4^th year and thereby violate the mandate of Regulation.5 of Academic Regulations. We are further of the view that even if the benefit of Regulation-5 was to be extended, he would not be able to achieve the minimum of 75% attendance in aggregate. Therefore, the order of the single judge was upheld. Under the above circumstances, the opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            14.  In support of his case, P.W.1 filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A24. For the opposite party R.W.1 filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B30. Both the parties have filed their respective written arguments, and the learned counsels have advanced oral arguments.

            15. Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i)  Whether the complainant is entitled for return of his original certificates

      and academic prudentials as prayed for?                

(ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs of damages and costs of

       the complaint?

(iii) To what relief? 

16. Point No.(i):-  in this regard, it is pertinent to sum-up the case of the complainant. That the complainant has succeeded in intermediate in A-Grade, got through EAMCET counseling for the 1^st year B.Tech (E.C.E) group, in the college of the opposite party, to join in the month of September 2014. The complainant himself admitted that he was suffering from ‘congenial myopia’ since long time due to blood hemorrhage in his left eye. As per the medical advice, he has taken bed rest during the months of January and February 2015. Later, he has informed the authorities of the opposite party about his ill-health, for which the opposite party assured that he will be allowed to write the examinations of the 1^st year semester. On that assurance, he paid the examination fee of Rs.1,530/- to the opposite party, which was received by the opposite party without any hesitation under Ex.A2. Thereafter, when he was expecting that he will be attending for the 1^st year B.Tech semester examinations, his name was found in the detained list, on the ground of shortage of attendance. That the complainant and his parents made representations to the opposite party, as well as the JNTU authorities, but his request was not considered by both of them, as such he was forced to approach the Hon’ble High Court for a direction against the opposite parties, to permit the complainant to write the examinations. Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass interim orders under Ex.A5 directing the opposite party, to permit the complainant to write the examinations. Accordingly, he was allowed to write the examinations, as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in WPMP No.19037/2015 in WP No.14593/2015. But the opposite party did not announce the results of the complainant despite the representations made by the complainant. Consequently, the complainant again approached the Hon’ble High Court in WPMP No.31121/2015, through which their Lordships of Hon’ble High Court pleased to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation of the complainant dt:07.07.2015 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Inspite of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, the results of the complainant for the 1^st year B.Tech during the period 2014-15 were not announced, consequently, the complainant lost the academic year, as he was not allowed to continue B.Tech 1^st year or promoted to 2^nd year B.Tech, though he was willing to continue the 1^st year B.Tech, in view of his detention, the opposite party did not allow the candidate / complainant even to continue the 1^st year B.Tech and that some pressures imposed on the complainant to withdraw the writ petition. Whether the opposite party has pressurized the complainant to withdraw the case or not, is not the aspect, but the fact is that the complainant was not promoted to 2^nd year B.Tech nor allowed to continue the 1^st year B.Tech, as a consequence of his detention on the ground of shortage of attendance.   

17.  So far as the attendance is concerned, the complainant himself admitted that because of his ‘congenial myopia’, doctors advised him to take bed rest, consequently, he could not attend the college for the months of January and February 2015. The examinations were held in month of May 2015. So, even assuming for a moment that there is shortage of attendance for the complainant, what are the remedial aspects available to the complainant and what are the guidelines prescribed by the JNTU, to which the college of the opposite party affiliated, in case of shortage of attendance. Ex.B1 Academic Regulations, Course Structure and Detailed Syllabi of Electronics and Communication Engineering for 1^st B.Tech Regular Four Year Degree Course. At instruction No.8, clearly mentioned at 8.3 Eligibility to appear for the year-end / semester-end examination, under instruction 8.3.1- it is mentioned as follows – A student shall be eligible to appear for year-end / semester-end examinations if he acquires a minimum of 75% of attendance in aggregate of all the courses in a year / semester. Instruction 8.3.2 - condonation of shortage of attendance in aggregate up to 10% (65% and above and below 75%) in 1^st year or each semester may be granted by the College Academic Committee. Instruction 8.3.3 – shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate shall in no case be condoned. Instruction 8.3.4 – students whose shortage of attendance is not condoned in first year / any semester are not eligible to take their end examination of that class and their registration shall stand cancelled. Instruction 8.3.5 – a student shall not be promoted to the next semester unless he satisfies the attendance requirements of the current year / semester, as applicable. The student may seek readmission for the year / semester when offered next. He will not be allowed to register for the courses of the year / semester while he is in detention. A student detained due to shortage of attendance will have to repeat that year / semester when offered next. Instruction 8.3.6 -  a stipulated fee shall be payable to the college towards condonation of shortage of attendance. So the options that were available for the candidate / student, who was detained for want of attendance / shortage of attendance, he will have to repeat that year / semester, when offered next. So, the complainant herein has to repeat the 1^st year B.Tech, first semester because he was detained due to shortage of attendance that too when the college / opposite party offered next. Therefore, the instructions issued by the opposite party under Ex.B1 itself made the complainant eligible to repeat the 1^st year B.Tech course, when the opposite party offered next, by paying proper required fee. When the opposite party did not offer the complainant to repeat the 1^st year B.Tech course, we cannot expect that the complainant himself voluntarily continue or repeat the B.Tech 1^st year course without any such offer from the opposite party. The opposite party having detained the complainant on the ground of shortage of attendance, and the opposite party has accepted the 1^st year B.Tech course fee at the time of admission itself and also received the examination fee, it is the duty of the opposite party atleast to allow the candidate for the 1^st year B.Tech, but it was not done so. Consequently, the complainant was forced to approach the Hon’ble High Court, wherein the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to issue directions to the opposite party to allow the complainant to write the examination. Accordingly, though the complainant was allowed to write the examination for the year-end / semester-end of 1^st year B.Tech, for the reasons best known to the opposite party, it did not announce the results, admittedly those results of the complainant “withheld”. When it is so, what is the other option left to the complainant. The complainant has no other option except either to continue the 1^st year B.Tech or to leave the college. But it is apparent on record that the complainant was neither allowed to repeat the 1^st year B.Tech course nor allowed to leave the college. Consequently, the complainant lost his academic career for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17 i.e. two academic years, for which the opposite party certainly responsible.   

18.  It is admitted fact that the opposite party has retained the original certificates and testimonials of the complainant in the institutions itself, by taking those certificates and testimonials / credentials at the time of admission, where the opposite party has no such right to retain those original certificates and testimonials of the complainant, at any time during the course of B.Tech or at the time of admission of B.Tech course. In this regard Exs.A15 and A24 coupled with Exs.B1, B2 and B3 are the criteria. Under Ex.A15 UGC notification dt:06.12.2016, Instruction No.4.1 denotes - “Verification and Non-retention of Students Academic and Personal Testimonials, Instruction No.4.1.1 – No institution of higher education shall insist upon a student to submit the original academic and personal certificates and testimonials like mark-sheets, school leaving certificates and other such documents at the time of submitting admission form. Instruction No.4.1.2 – In line with instructions issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Administrative Reforms, PG & Pension, the Commission has already written to HEIs about allowing self-attestation of documents such as mark-sheets, birth certificates etc. by the applicant where there is a system of verification of the original certificates and testimonials at any stage before the finalization of the process of admission. Instruction No.4.1.3 – HEIs (Higher Educational Institutions) shall physically verify the originals at the time of admission of the student in his / her presence and return them immediately after satisfying themselves about their authenticity and veracity, keeping the attested copies for their record. Instruction No.4.1.4 – The self-attested testimonials of students shall be held valid and authentic by institution concerned and / or the affiliating university for all purposes and administrative requirements and should there be a need for physical verification at any time during the course of program of study, such verification shall be undertaken in the presence of the student and certificates and testimonials thus verified shall be returned immediately to the student. Another important instruction is under 4.1.5 – Taking the certificates and testimonials into institutional custody under any circumstances or pretexts is strictly prohibited for it is a coercive tactic which can be misused for blackmailing students who wish to withdraw admission from the institution for better prospects or other compulsions. In case of any suspicion about the authenticity  or genuineness of the testimonials, the reference may be made to the university or the Board which issued certificates to the student and the admission be subjected to the authentication, but original certificates shall not be retained under any circumstances.                          

            19.   When the guidelines issued by the UGC on 06.12.2016 under D.O.No.1-3/2007 (CPP-II), all the Higher Educational Institutions shall abide by the institutions given by the UGC. The above referred instructions are mandatory, inspite of it, the opposite party has received the original certificates and testimonials of the complainant and took them into the institutional custody, which is quite against the instruction No.4.1.5. issued by the UGC. The reasons for issuing such instructions by UGC are that it is a coercive tactic, which can be misused for blackmailing students, who wish to withdraw from the institution for better prospects or other compulsions. When UGC is clear and specific and instructed all the higher educational institutions not to take the original certificates and testimonials of the students into institution custody, immediately after verification of original certificates and testimonials, with the attested or self-attested documents of the candidate, as instructed the original certificates and testimonials are to be returned immediately after verification is over at the time of admission, contrary to it, the opposite party has retained the original certificates and testimonials of the complainant with institution and shown the complainant in the detained list. He was neither allowed to repeat the 1^st year B.Tech nor allowed to leave the institution, but intentionally two prospective years of the student were swallowed mercilessly by the opposite party. The complainant was not offered to repeat the 1^st year B.Tech course. That the complainant himself went and sits into the 1^st year B.Tech class. He was neither called with the old admission No.14121A04N6 or any new number was assigned to him. Thus the opposite party has done a great injustice to the complainant.

            20. The learned counsel for the complainant relied on a decision reported in 2009 SAR (Civil) 344 Supreme Court – Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital Vs. Bhupesh Khurana and Ors – This judgment is in respect of appellant college (Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital), which is neither affiliated to any University nor recognized by the Dental Council of India. Therefore, the facts of the above decision are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

            21. The learned counsel for the opposite party relied on a decision in 2008 (2) ALT529, Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.1200/2006 – B.Yugandhar Vs. Principal, Kuppam Engineering College and Anr. – In this case, the question is whether the appellant, who failed to achieve the requirement of minimum 75% attendance prescribed under the academic regulations framed by JNTU, Hyderabad, can seek a direction for being allowed to take examination of 1^st semester of 4^th year of B.E. course, is the question which arises for determination in the appeal. The brief facts of the case are – that the appellant took admission in B.E. (ECE) in the year 2003-04 in Kuppam Engineering College, Chittoor.  After completing 3 years of the course, he was admitted to 4^th year. From 26.06.2006 to 15.08.2006, he is said to have suffered from viral fever and on that account he could not attend the classes, as a result, he failed to achieve the minimum target of 75% attendance. The Principal of the College declined to entertain his candidature for 1^st semester examination scheduled to be held in November 2006. The appellant then filed writ petition for issue of mandamus to the respondents to allow him to appear in the examination. The Hon’ble Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing that even if the academic committee was to condone the shortage of attendance in aggregate upto 10%, the petitioner (appellant herein) will not be able to fulfill the requirement of minimum of 75% attendance necessary for becoming eligible to appear in the examination. It is further held that Court cannot issue a mandatory direction to the respondents to act in violation of the statutory regulations. The Division Bench was pleased to dismiss the appeal and judgment of the single judge was upheld. In this decision, the student has admitted in B.E. 4^th year course in ECE. After completing 3 years, he was admitted to 4^th year.  From 26.06.2006 to 15.08.2006 for about 50 days, he was suffered from viral fever, due to which he could not attend the classes. Thus he failed to achieve the minimum target of 75% attendance. Therefore, the Principal of the College declined to entertain his candidature for 1^st semester examination scheduled to be held in November 2006. In the case on hand, the subject matter is quite different. The issue of shortage of attendance was the subject matter before the Hon’ble High Court in WP No.14593/2015 and it was also disposed by the Hon’ble High Court. The relief sought for by the complainant herein is to return his original certificates and the academic prudentials that were taken and retained by the opposite party / institution. Hence, the question involved in the above decision is different from the question involved in the case on hand.

            22. The learned counsel for the opposite party also relied on a decision in W.P(MD) No.1 of 2009 Madurai Bench of Madras High Court – Gowthami Vs. The Regional Officer, All India Council for Technical Education, Southern Regional Office, Shastri Bhavan, 26 Haddows Road, Numgambakkam, Chennai – 600 006 and 3 others. The facts of the case in brief are – that the petitioner joined in the 4^th respondent college during the academic year 2007-08 in B.E(EEE) course. After attending the course for 1^st year and the 3^rd semester in 2^nd year, the petitioner left the college on 03.10.2008, to join in MBBS course. When the petitioner sought for Transfer Certificate, the 4^th respondent college insisted for payment of the fees towards 3^rd and 4^th year also, that the petitioner paid the fee for 3^rd and 4^th year also without any protest on 03.10.2008 and taken away the certificates. Therefore, it should be treated that the said payment was made by the petitioner after accepting the demand made by the 4^th respondent college for issuing Transfer Certificate. After making the payment towards the 3^rd and 4^th years without any protest, the petitioner had subsequently, made the claim for refund after some time based on certain information obtained from the Directorate of Technical Education. As the petitioner had paid the fees without any protest and got the Transfer Certificate from the 4^th respondent college, she is estopped from claiming the refund of the said sum even assuming that the college is not entitled to collect the said fee. Under the above circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench, pleased to dismiss the writ petition. In the case on hand, the complainant V.C.Akhil Abhijith, joined in the college of the opposite party in the 1^st year B.Tech (ECE) course in the year 2014-15. But he was not allowed to take the examination of the year-end on the ground that he failed to achieve required minimum attendance of 75%. The complainant also admitted that during the months of January and February 2015, he could not attend the college and took bed rest as per the medical advice, as he was suffered from congenial myopia. Thereafter, he approached the college authorities and narrated his grievances. The complainant stated that the authorities of the opposite party said that he will be allowed to write the examination to be held in the month of May 2015, on that the complainant has paid the examination fee of Rs.1,530/- and submitted his examination application also. Subsequently, he was not allowed to write the examination, consequently, he approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of writ petition No.14593/2015 along with WPMP No.19037/2015 in which the opposite party was directed to allow the complainant to write the examinations, he was permitted to allow the examination, but his result was not announced and kept withheld, inspite of his repeated requests and representations in oral. The opposite party is competent either to allow the student or not to allow him to write the examination for the year-end / semester-end. It is also the obligation on the part of the opposite party either to allow him to continue the 1^st year B.Tech again or to allow him to take away his certificates to join in other college at his option, but the opposite party did not do either of them. Consequently, the student lost two academic years i.e. 2015-16 and 2016-17. It appears that the opposite party itself intentionally made the student not to pursue his studies for the last 2 years. The facts of the above decisions therefore are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.    

23. In view of the instructions issued by the UGC under Ex.A15, which is equivalent to Ex.B2 in Public Notice F.No.1-3/2007 (CPP-II) dt:23.04.2007, in which UGC specifically and categorically mentioned that “Commission is of the view that the Institutions / Universities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining in other institutions of their choice. However, it would not be permissible for Institutions and Universities to retain the School / Institution Leaving Certificate, mark sheet, caste certificate and other documents in original”. Specifically on 11.01.2016 also the UGC in D.O.No.F. 1-3/2007(CPP-II) mentioned that “the Commission is still receiving complaints from students / parents regarding non-refund of fees by universities / colleges / institutions which are collecting full fee from the admitted students, retaining their schools / institutions leaving certificates in original, confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join within specified date. That you are requested to kindly abide by the instructions issued by UGC in the Public Notice referred to above and ensure compliance of these instructions by your University as well as all the colleges / institutions affiliated to your university. This may be treated as Important”. So, by virtue of Exs.B2 and B3 also the institutions are not supposed to retain the original certificates of the students admitted in any institutions. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the opposite party Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College, which is Higher Education Institution / Autonomous body affiliated to JNTU, Ananthapur, has willfully violated the instructions issued by the UGC under Exs.A15, B2 and B3, and the opposite party has no right to retain the original certificates and other testimonials of the complainant, and the opposite party also has no right to swallowed two progressive academic years of the complainant by retaining his original certificates with the institution and thus caused great loss to the complainant. Accordingly this point is answered.

            24. Point No.(ii):- in view of our discussion held on point No.1, though admittedly there is shortage of attendance for the complainant for the 1^st year B.Tech, the complainant pleaded that he has submitted the medical certificate also to condone the absence, but the opposite party has contended that the medical certificate produced by the complainant is not from the institution from where he has taken treatment but some other hospital. That so far as attendance is concerned, it is the discretion of the opposite party either to condone the absence or not to condone as per the guidelines framed. If the attendance is condoned, the candidate future will be protected, if his representation and medical certificate were not considered, his future academic years will be intentionally and willfully spoiled. The opposite party has produced some attendance registers, which were 14 in number. In those attendance registers the dates and also absent marks were found corrected, whitener applied and manipulations were took place. It shows that the opposite party / institution has intentionally reduced the percentage of attendance to the complainant with an intention to detain the candidate and spoil his future for the reasons best known to it, by doing so, the opposite party not only committed deficiency in service and also adopted unfair trade practice. The Educational Institutions, which are expected to built-up the careers of the students and create bright future for them but they are not supposed to spoil the students with any grudge or ulterior motto. The opposite party / institution being a reputed institution committed deficiency of service and also adopted unfair trade practice towards the complainant, consequently, the complainant was forced to stay at home for two years leaving his bright future and loosing progressive career for the lost of two academic years. The opposite party is totally responsible for it, as it has not only violated the instructions issued by the UGC and also violated the instructions created by the opposite party / institution under Ex.B1. Under those circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            25. Point No.(iii):- in view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the opposite party Sree Vidyanikethan Enginering College, has no right to retain the original certificates and testimonials of the complainant, as instructed by the UGC, that the complainant is entitled to take back his original certificates and academic prudentials, that the complainant is also entitled for compensation for the mental agony caused by the opposite party and also for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and for loss of two academic years, and that the complainant is also entitled for the costs of the complaint. Accordingly this complaint is to be allowed.

            In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party on behalf of the Management of Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College, to return all the original certificates and academic prudentials of the complainant, to the complainant, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, so as to enable the complainant to pursue his academic studies at his option and file compliance report. The opposite party is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) per each academic year (two years in total) lost by the complainant and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards damages for mental agony caused to the complainant, for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and also for adopting unfair trade practice. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. The opposite party is further directed to comply with the orders within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization.       

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 1^st day of June, 2017.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  V.C. Akhil Abhijith (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Dr. P.C. Krishnamachary (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Medical Certificate in Original. Dt: 02.01.2015.
	Andhra Bank Pay Slip for Examination Fee for Rs. 1530/- in Original.  Dt: 20.04.2015.
	Examination Application Acknowledgement in Original given by Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College, A.Rangampet, Tirupati. Date of Submission: 27.04.2015.
	Representation of the parents of the complainant with acknowledgement cards 2 in number. Dt: 12.05.2014.
	True copy of interim orders in WP MP No.19037 of 2015 in WP No.14593 of 2015 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
	Representation of the parents of the complainant requesting the 2nd opposite party to allow the complainant to appear for exams. Dt: 16.05.2015.
	Representation of the parents of the complainant to the 2nd opposite party with postal acknowledgement. Dt: 07.07.2015.
	True copy of the orders in WP No.14593/2015 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
	Photo copy of letter issued by the opposite party. Dt: 22.08.2015.
	Representation of the parents of the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. Dt: 21.08.2015.
	Office copy of the Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party along with postal receipts. Dt: 23.03.2016.
	Acknowledgement Cards 2 in Number.
	Served copy of the reply notice issued by the 1st opposite party in Original. Dt: 04.04.2016.
	Photo copy of Fees Reimbursement Certificate. Dt: 26.02.2015.
	Photo copy of Public Notification of UGC, New Delhi. Dt: 06.12.2016.
	Photo copy of Representation of the parents of the complainant. Dt: 09.05.2015.
	Photo copy of Representation of the parents of the complainant. Dt: 09.07.2015.
	Photo copy of Admission letter of the complainant issued by the opposite party. Dt: 16.09.2014.
	Chemistry Internal Record in Original.
	English Internal Record in Original.
	I.T. Workshop Lab Internal Record in Original.
	Engineering Workshop Lab Record in Original.
	HDFC Bank cheque signed by the complainant’s uncle Giridhar Babu Kattula for comparison purpose.  Cheque No.000061.
	Guidelines for students entitlement issued by UGC on 23.04.2007.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Academic regulations course structure and detailed syllabi of ECE forI B.Tech regular four year degree course (for the batches admitted from 2014-15) catalog in Original.
	Photo copy of Public Notice issued by UGC, New Delhi. Dt: 23.04.2007.
	Photo copy of Letter (D.O.No. F. 1-3/2007(CPP-II) of UGC addressing to the Vice Chancellors of All Universities. Dt: 11.01.2016.
	Photo copy of Order in WP(MD) No.3977/2009 by the Hon’ble Justice K. Ravi Chandra Baabu at Hon’ble High Court of Madras Madurai Bench.
	Photo copy of Order in Writ Appeal No.1200/2006 of Hon’ble C.J. G.S. Singhvi & Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy. Dt: 10.11.2006.
	Re-admitted students list issued by the principal Sree Vidya Nikethan Engineering College in Original.
	Re-Admission orders issued by the Principal, Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College in the way of photo copy. Dt: 14.07.2015.
	Re-Admission orders issued by the Principal, Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College in the way of photo copy. Dt: 20.07.2015.
	Re-Admission orders issued by the Principal, Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College in the way of photo copy. Dt: 22.07.2015.
	Re-Admission orders issued by the Principal, Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College in the way of photo copy. Dt: 24.08.2015.
	Re-Admission orders issued by the Principal, Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College in the way of photo copy. Dt: 09.09.2016.
	Photo copy of Request letter from detained students for rejoin the same years/Admission orders of the Detained Students. Dt: 13.07.2015.
	Photo copy of Notice to detained students. Dt: 02.05.2015.
	Office copy(Photo copy) of list to intimate the attendance to the parents of the all students through book post & Regd. post.
	Photo copy of detained notice of students in 2nd, 3rd, 4th year B.Tech. Dt: 11.04.2015, 02.04.2015.
	Photo copy of Notification I B.Tech Regular(SVEC14) Examinations May, 2015.(For 2014 Admitted Batch only).
	Parents Meeting Registrations copy in Original. Dt: 02.04.2015.
	Parents meet counseling on various dates copy in original.
	Photo copy of Fee Pay Slip. Dt: 16.09.2014.
	The details regarding Student Progress Report in the way of the attendance upto 28th Feb, 2015 of the complainant to inform the father of the complainant (True Copy).
	Daily Attendance & Evaluation Record Book of the All students in ECE- D, I B.Tech in the academic year 2014-15 in Original.
	Monthly Attendance Report of I Year B.Tech, ECE-D in the academic year 2014-2015 from December, 2014 to May, 2015 in Original.
	Application for B.Tech cum under taking from student and parent. Dt: 13.09.2014 in Original.
	Student Profile B.Tech in Original.
	Registered Post Receipts (Original) 2 in Number.
	True copy of Minutes of Meeting. Dt: 03.04.2015.
	Parents Meeting (Dt: 03.04.2015) photos of the complainant Father and Maternal Uncle with C.D in Original.
	Details of SMS sent to parent of the complainant through VOICE GATE SMS Server (Attested photo copy).
	Monthly Attendance and Cumulative Attendance Report  of the complainant and other students of the I B.Tech in JNTU, Format send to JNTU by the opposite party through E-Mail from December, 14  to May, 15 ( 5 copies) (Photo copy).
	Time table of the I B.Tech ECE-SEC-D 2014-2015. Dt: 30.01.2015 in Original.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                     Sd/-  

                                                                                                                      President

 

      // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

    

              

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.