BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt. Case No :1449 of 2009

Date of Institution:   18.11.2009

Date of Decision  :   13.07.2010

Dheeraj Chawla son of Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Student of Mechanical Engineering In G.G.S. Polytechnic Kharar, Distt. Mohali. 

 ……Complainant

V E R S U S

1]       The Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Plot No.1A, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh through its Secretary.

2]       The GGS Polytechnic College, Kharar, District Mohali through its Principal.

3]          Board of School Education, Haryana, Bhiwani, through its Secretary. 

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                         PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI            MEMBER

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

PRESENT:     Sh.Raman Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.

Sh.Atul Nehra, Adv. for OP No.1.

Sh.Avinash Chander Arora, Auth. Agent of OP No.2

Sh.G.P.S.Bal, Adv. for OP No.3.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                This complaint has been filed by a student Dheraj Chawla, who was given provisional admission by the OPs.  He has demanded compensation against the OPs by alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for his wrong admission.

1]             A brief perusal of the facts is as under:-

                The complainant completed Matric from P.C.Senior Secondary School, Pinjor (Panchkula) in 2005-2006, with Grade 6.40 on the basis of best five grades.  He did not pass in one subject i.e. Science and Technology.  Thereafter, the complainant joined D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh to pursue his studies further. He passed Class-XI.  When he was pursuing class XII, he was granted admission by OP No.2 under Management Quota Seat, for Diploma in Mechanical Engineering.  The required qualification laid down in the brochure by OP No.2 was Matric.  OP No.2 granted provisional admission to the complainant with a condition to clear the Science subject in the supplementary examination.  This was not a requirement laid down in the brochure.  The eligibility, according to the brochure, was as under:-

                        “ELIGIBILITY

a)         Matric passed from any recognized board.

b)         Direct admission to 3^rd Semester/2 year: ITI-1 year/10+2 with vocational courses passed from recognized board.”

The complainant accordingly appeared in the supplementary examination held on 10.9.2008 by the Board of School Education, Haryana, Bhiwani (OP No.3).  The result according to schedule was to be declared within a month.  But the result was declared by OP No.3 on the internet only on 20.12.2008. The complainant passed the examination. The complainant then approached OP No.2 with his result to permit him to appear in the first semester examination starting from 2.1.2009, but OP No.2 refused to accept his application on the plea that the last date of filing examination form was over.  The complainant was thus constrained to file Civil Writ Petition No.21607 of 2008 – Dheeraj Chawla Vs. Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training and Another, before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.  The Hon’ble High Court passed the following order on 24.12.2008:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter-alia, contends that the minimum eligibility for admission to the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering Course was Matric.  The petitioner has qualified in Matriculation Examination in May 2006 and thus, being eligible was admitted to the Course.  But, the petitioner was admitted provisionally, so as to qualify the science subject.  The petitioner appeared in a supplementary examination for a Science subject.  But the result of the petitioner was declared late.  It is contended that in terms of the conditions of the Prospectus, the petitioner cannot be debarred from appearing in the 1st Semester Examination.

                                Notice of motion for 16.01.2009.

In the meantime, the petitioner shall be permitted to appear in the First Semester Diploma in Mechanical Engineering Examination, subject to the final decision of the petition.  The appearance in the Examination shall not give rise to any legal or equitable right to the petitioner. “

The complainant was allowed to appear in the first Semester Examination.

                The Writ Petition was finally decided by the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 7.7.2009. It was held that though the brochure issued by OP No.2 did not specifically provide that the candidate should have passed Science as a compulsory subject in Matric, yet the norms notified in the JET Prospectus for year 2008 could not be diluted or altered by OP No.2.  The admission to the course is itself bad and illegal as the Hon’ble High Court has held that since the complainant was ineligible at the time of admission under the prescribed norms and he had no right to continue with the course. 

                Though the Writ Petition of the complainant was eventually dismissed, yet he was left to claim damages and compensation from OP No.2 for the loss suffered by him due to the fault of OPs.  The relevant portion of the said judgment, appended along with the complaint, is as under:-

“It appears that the respondent no.2 has misrepresented in the information brochure and correct and true information regarding eligibility has not been published.  This might have persuaded the petitioner to seek admission in the course, but that does not help the petitioner in continuing with the course.  The petitioner is entitled to claim damages and compensation from the respondent No.2 for the loss suffered and also the expenses incurred for admission and pursuing the course.  The petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in this regard….”

 After dismissal of his Writ Petition, the complainant has approached this Forum for compensation against the OPs.

2]             Notices were sent to all the parties.  OP No.1 in the reply has submitted that the cut off date for admission to the Mechanical Engineering Diploma Course was 31.10.2008.  The petitioner did not have the requisite educational qualification on this date therefore, he was ineligible for admission as per notification dated 24.3.2008.  The relevant extract of eligibility criteria is as under:-

“…………The admission of such candidates to the Entrance Test shall be purely provisional and shall stand cancelled, if they fail to qualify themselves in the aforesaid qualifying examination and such candidates shall have no claim, whatsoever, for admission to these courses.”

Though the petitioner was not eligible for admission, OP No.2 on its own provisionally admitted  the petitioner under Management Quota Seat in July, 2008.  However, since he failed to clear the condition by the proper date, his admission could not be treated as valid.

3]             OP No.2 in their reply have referred to the notification of AICTE as well as eligibility criteria for JET. They state that the petitioner chose to get admission in the Management Quota Seat of his own free will and he was aware that his admission was provisional only.  As the result of the complainant in the Science subject of Matriculation Class held by OP No.3 was declared after the last date of filing examination form, no fault could be attributed to Op No.2 for refusing to allow the petitioner to sit in the examination.  The admission to the complainant was only provisional with a condition to clear Science subject and submit the pass result before the close of admission (30.10.2008), and allotment of registration number by Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training.  Since, the complainant could not submit his result on time his provisional admission stood automatically cancelled.  The Hon’ble High Court vide its judgment dated 7.7.2009 also held the petitioner ineligible for the course on the date of close of the admission, though he had acquired the desired qualification after the due date.  With these submission they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4]             OP No.3 in their reply have submitted that the complaint is not maintainable against them as the board is a statutory authority. 

                Further the OP No.3 has contended that the complaint against them is totally misconceived and needs dismissal in light of the fact that the Writ filed by the complainant before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court was dismissed on 7.7.2009 and the student was not allowed to continue in the course.  Also they had never given any schedule for declaration of result.  The result was declared on 20.12.2008.

5]             We have gone through the evidence led by all the parties.  This is a very unfortunate case of a student, who was trying to save a year and also secure admission in a course desired by him.  Unfortunately, all his efforts and intentions backfired as he was not able to clear all the conditions required to retain his admission, which was only provisional in nature.

6]             The student may have acted rashly, but what about the college granting him admission (OP No.2).  Their prospectus does not contain requirement of any particular subject for confirmation of the admission.  They granted admission to the candidate in the management seat to fill their seat.  Why did they not realize that the candidate may not be able to fulfill the requirement laid down by AICTE.  In such a situation, we can only hold the OP No.2 liable for the money and time loss of a young student. 

7]             The Hon’ble High Court while dismissing the Writ Petition of the student also held that Respondent No.2 had misrepresented their information brochure and correct and true information regarding eligibility had not been published.  This incorrect information might have persuaded the petitioner to seek admission in the course, but it does not help the petitioner in continuing with the course.  The Hon’ble High Court has already stated :-

 “The petitioner is entitled to claim damages and compensation from the respondent no.2 for the loss suffered and also the expenses incurred for admission and pursuing the course. The petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in this regard.”

                Laying reliance on the above judgment and also the facts and circumstances of the case put-forth by all the parties, we are of the view that the student needs to be compensated for the action of OP No.2 in granting him admission for a course where he was not eligible.  They must pay  compensation for the monetary loss to the student as well as time lost in pursuing the course. 

                With these findings, we allow the complaint with a direction to the OP No.2 to pay Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation to the  complainant for the time and money loss suffered by him in taking admission in their College. 

                OP No.2 will also pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation. 

                The aforesaid amount be paid by the OP No.2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the OP No.2 shall pay a sum of Rs.2.00 lacs to the complainant along with interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till realization besides paying litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

8]             Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

13.07.2010                                                                      Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                          Sd/-

                                       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                             (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Om’