1) This is a complaint filed by one Mirza Firoz Nabi Alhadi against opp.party No. (i) The State of Assam through the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Higher Education Department, Dispur,Guwahati-06, (ii) Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Science and Technology (PRIST) represented by the Controller of Examination, Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Nagar, Vallam, Thanjavur, Tamilnadu, India, Pin-613403 (iii) Assam Education & Management Academy (AEMA), Hatigaon, near SBI building ,Guwahati- 38, represented by its Director Abu Motiur Rahman, Hatigaoh, Guwahati-38 (iv) Abu Motiur Rahman , S/Abdul Mozid, Hatigaoh,Guwahati-38.
2) The brief fact of the case is that petitioner working as a assistant teacher of Dr. Zakir Hussain H.S.School, Alopati who joined in the service of 1.4.1992 and was serving there . During his service period he received an advertisement published by opp.party No.4 and met him at his office and took admission of M.A in Mathematical Economics 2010-11 and he passed M.A. examination from there. In few years later in the year 2017 by a letter dtd. 6.7.2017, the opp.party No. 1 , commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, directed the Director of Secondary Education for starting the selection process for the post of principal of the Provincialized Higher Secondary School and the guidelines for the selection of the principal and for awarding marks in the interview. At that time the petitioner being eligible for the post having M.A. & B.Ed applied for the said post along with others. The interview was held on 21.9.2017 and at that time a complaint was filed before the selection committee alleging that M.A.degree of the complainant was fake and not valid for which selection board did not award to any mark to the petitioner.
3) For the aforesaid grievances of not selecting the complainant by the school level selection committee held an opinion that PRIST University from where the complainant obtained the Master degree in the year 2012 was black listed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development in the year 2010-2014 and for that reason committee resolved not to award any mark to the complainant . The M.A. degree of the complainant was suspected and fake and one junior teacher was appointed by the Director of Secondary Education of Assam as In-charge Principal of School with financial power, for which he is for humiliated before the school staff and student.
4) With the above fact and under prevailing circumstances the complainant approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court under Writ Jurisdiction . After disposal of the matter by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court the petitioner preferred appeal before the Division Bench and order was passed directing the authorities to complete the process of appointment of regular Principal in terms of the direction contained in order dtd. 27.8.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court and directed the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt.of Assam, Education department to examine the acceptability of his qualification. The authority concerned appointed the regular principal of the school.
5) The complainant again challenged the order dtd. 30.7.19 which is still pending as indicated in the complaint petition. Under the above circumstances the petitioner met the opp.party no.4 for verification and alleged that opp.party No.4 committed fraud with the petitioner in a pre-planned manner knowing well that M.A.degree of the PRIST University is not valid , thereby cheated the complainant . The petitioner has also suffered huge mental agony and financial loss for this act of the opp.party. The complainant pursuing him for refund of money compensation etc.
6) It is further alleged that opp.aprty No.4 fraudulently offered the M.A.certificate knowing fully well that the degree is fake, and further alleged that this has destroyed his full career. It has been mentioned in the claim petition that he had filed several cases before the Hon’ble High Court for getting his promotion, but his degree is declared invalid by the Govt. of Assam and that for the above reason the complainant pray for relief before this forum for compensation, under the Consumer Protection Act along with interest etc.
7) We have gone through the complaint petition along with the documents submitted by the complainant . We have heard learned counsel of the complainant and found that the entire subject of disputes was relating to appointment and promotion of a teacher to the post of Principal of a Higher Secondary School. The matter of irregularity in selection of any other subject has been taken by the complainant to the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court and still one of the subject of dispute is stated to be pending before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court.
8) The question that come to our mind is whether education is a service under the Consumer Protection Act. The degree obtained by the complainant under the Institute of opp.party No.4 is allegedly fake and not valid for the state of Assam. Under the above situation we like to refer a reported case law “Maharshi Dayanand University –Vs- Surjeet Kaur of the Hon’ble Supreme Court”. The fact of the case is something different , but a relating to a degree conferred by University and dispute has come to the National Commission and thereafter it has reach the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the aforesaid judgment at para 13 it is recorded as under,
“The object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration . Any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or quasi-commercial activity). But the act does not intend 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.”
9) To counter the above learned counsel for the complainant placed a citation Buddhist Dental College & Hospital –vs- Khurana & others which was a case decided on 13.2.2009 ,but in Maharshi Dayanand University –vs- Sujeet Kour which was decided later then the case law cited by the complainant i.e. on 19.7.2010. As such, proposition of law of the aforesaid case placed by the complainant cannot be taken in favour of the complainant.
10) We have also considered a reported case law of the Hon’ble Apex Court P.T.Koshy & Another –vs- Elen Charitable Trust & other which was a case of 2012 in which it is held that Education is not a commodity. Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc, there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
11) Another case law referred by the member of this Commission is Manu Solanki-vs- Vinayaka Mission University Oct.2020 of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission . It was held that the institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities , swimming , sport, etc. except coaching Institutions will therefore , not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
12) After due consideration of the complaint petition and hearing to the learned counsel of the complainant it is found that the complainant had made an allegation against one of the educational Institution namely, P.R.I.S.T.University and its branch (AEMA) allegedly issuing fake certificate and causing mental agony and financial loss.
13) But in our humble opinion the fact and circumstances of the present case is specially relating to appointment of a teacher including grievances against the selection committee and others. The committee have not accepted the certificate of the complainant and we are of the view that issuing of certificate and providing education/ M.A. degree to the complainant in this context does not cover under the Consumer Protection Act.
In view of the discussion made here-in-above and in the light of the observation made in different case law we do not find any ground for admitting the petition . Hence it is dismissed.
(Shri T D Goswami) ( Smt A D Lahkar) (Shri A F A Bora)
Member Member President
