DATE OF FILING- 27.6.2007

                                                                                                DATE OF DISPOSAL-4.3.2014

                                                                                             O R D E R

Mrs.Minati Pradhan,Member

            The complainant alleges that he passed LL.B. in the year 2004 and took admission for LL.M course in the Lingaraj Law College, Berhampur in the month of  November,2004.  Thereafter, the College in the academic sessions conducted  four Semester Examinations and out of four semesters, result for  three semesters were  declared by the Opposite Parties.  But the last semester which was conducted belatedly in the month of February,2007 and the result was not declared.  In fact, the LL.M course of the complainant was required to commences from June,2004 and ends on May,2006.  Inspite of request  and written representation of the students of LL.M course7, the Opposite Parties failed to declare the results of the forth semester.  Due to non-declaration of the results, the complainant had to lose opportunities to prosecute in Ph.D in Law.  He was also deprived of employment for his future prospects.  In this regard the complainant issued a notice dt. 31.5.2007 for immediate declaration of the result, but the Opposite Parties remained adamant and silent.   Hence, this case for a direction to the Opposite Parties for declaration of results of 4^th Semester and Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakhs) as compensation for the loss and damaged caused to him due to negligence and deficiency in service of the Opposite Parties.

2-         The Opposite Parties entered their appearance through learned counsel and filed the written version jointly.  In their written version it is submitted that the complainant was a student of LL.M  Part-I during the session 2004-05 and Part-II during the session 2005-06 at Lingaraj Law College,Berhampur.  On 18.10.2004 he had submitted an undertaking regarding non-practicing at any Bar to the college.    As per the letter No.7067(2) dt. 21.11.2006 of the University, for the LL.M 4^th Semester Examination of 2004-05 it is required for submission of Dissertation  and was fixed on 30.12.22006 without fine and 17.1.2007 with fine.    However, as per the representation of the students, the submission of Dissertation was extended from 30.1.2.2006 to 17.1.2007 without fine  and 31.1.2007 with fine of Rs.100/-.  Again on the representation of some P.G. students of the University, the submission of Dissertation was further extended and refixed to 13.2.2007 without fine and 14.2.2007 with fine.  After submission of all the Dissertations by the Principal  (Opposite Party No.3), the Board of Studies was contacted for submission of Examiners list which was submitted by the Chairman on 24.2.2007 and, thereafter, the Internal and External Examiners were contacted by the University for acceptance of Dissertation for valuation on 27.2.2007.  The consent of the Examiner was received by the University on 5..3.2007 and accordingly the Dissertations were sent to External Examiner  for valuation on 17.2.2007 and the valued marks were sent to the University on 19.3.2007 and the Internal Examiner submitted the valued marks on 17.4.2007.    However, on 26.4.2007 some ex-students of Lingaraj Law College made a complaint that many students of Lingaraj Law College, Berhampur persuing LL.M. as a regular course are practicing at the Bar as an Advocate simultaneously which is against the U.G.C.Rules and Bar Council of India regulation.  It is also brought to their notice that there were certain irregularities in submission of Dissertations for which the genuineness of Dissertations was not scrupulously adhered to vide University letter No.2290(2) dt. 28.4.2007 and No.2446 dt. 7.5.2007.  Under such circumstances, the Principal, Lingaraj Law College made personal visits to the Bar and submitted his compliance vide letter No.76 dt. 11.5.2007 wherein a report of the Ganjam Bar Association dt.10.5.2007 was submitted.   Further, it is stated that the matter was placed before the  Syndicate and it was decided vide Syndicate Resolution No.299 dt. 21.5.2007 to sought from Odisha State Bar Council about the names of students who have taken admission in to LL.M. during the session 2005-06  & 2006-07 and simultaneously practicing law . In the meantime, the  Board of Conducting Examiners met on 18.5.2007 and resolved that the result of the 4^th Semester LL.M. Examination 2006 may be  placed before the Syndicate for publication.  As per the resolution of the Syndicate No.365, the results of LL.M. 4^th Semester  Examination,2006 be published subject to the condition that the Degree certificate to be granted to the students would stand cancelled, if after enquiry in future allegation against any student practicing in the Bar at the time of prosecuting LL.M course is detected  and accordingly the results were published on 28.6.2007.   It is stated that the complainant was one of the students who had got license from the State Bar Council for practicing before he joined the LL.M. course and thus  delay in publication of his result due to non-receipt of reply from the Secretary, Odisha  State Bar Council, Cuttack.  Regarding the allegation of the complainant for loss of opportunities in admission into Ph.D in Law due to non-publication of last Semester results, it is clearly submitted that as per notification of the University vide Notification No.6067 dt. 7.7.2007, applications were invited from prospective candidates for Ph.D registration for the Session 2007-08 on or before 11.8.2007.   And the results were published on 28.6.2007 and the complainant was having sufficient time to get registered for Ph.D in Law.  It is thus contended by the Opposite Parties that there is no deficiency of service or negligence on their part in declaration of results and the petition of complaint filed by the complainant has no merit which is certainly deserved for dismissal.

3-         In support of the case of the complainant, he has filed certain documents which are placed on record.  The complainant has also filed citations in support of his case which are in the case of  Deputy Registrar(Colleges) & Another Vrs. Ruchika Jain & Others of Hon’ble National Commission,New Delhi reported in III(2006)CPJ 343 (NC)  and  in the case of All India Institute of Medical Technologists Vrs.Ku.Rashmi Joseph & others of Hon’ble State Commission, Chhatisgarh reported in II(2006) CPJ 269 and  in the case of Bihar School Examination Board, Patna Vrs. Mamta of Hon’ble State Commission,Bihar reported in IV (2006) CPJ 2 respectively.

4-         Likely, the Opposite Parties in support of their cases have filed certain documents which are marked as Annexure-1 to 20 respectively .  They have also filed certain decisions which are reported in AIR 1992 Calacutta-95 in the case of Smt N.Taneja & another Vrs. Calcutta Distt.Forum and others of the High Court of West Bengal, Calcutta and in the case reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court  -2519 in Civil Appeal No.7092 of 1996 and in the case of Civil Appeal No.3911 of 2003 between Bihar School Examination Board Vrs. Suresh Prasad Sinha reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 93.

5-         On the date of hearing both the parties were absent on call.  This case is pertaining to the year 2007 and, therefore, the case is taken up on merit as per Section 13(2)© of the C.P.Act,1986 and the order is passed taking into consideration the complaint petition of the complainant, written version filed by the Opposite Parties and written arguments supported by relevant documents and citations filed by the respective parties in support of their cases.  Admittedly, the complainant was a student of LL.M under the Opposite Party No.3 for the Session 2004-05 and 2005-06.    It is the case of the complainant that his result for the 4^th Semester was not declared as a result he could not able to apply for Ph.D in Law as well as he was deprived of many opportunities he was likely to obtain basing on his final result of LL.M.  The Opposite Parties have elaborated the reasons for non-publishing of results supported by a number of documents.  On perusal of the documents filed on record in Annexure-1 to 18 respectively, filed by the Opposite Parties, we are clear that the delay in declaration of results in respect of 4^th Semester of LL.M. examination was neither intentional nor deliberate.  The Opposite Parties have discharged their duties diligently keeping in view the official rules and regulations.

6-         On perusal of the case record, we find that the complainant in his petition dated 17.11.2008 has raised objection and challenged the documents filed by the Opposite Parties.   It is categorically averted that the documents filed by the Opposite Parties are manipulated and procured for the purpose of defending the case.  If we accept such allegations of the complainant, then this Forum is not the appropriate Forum to deal with such allegations of the complainant which require thorough examination of documents through experts.  The complainant would be required to take the shelter of appropriate court of law.  Therefore, we are not in a position to accept such allegations of the complainant at this juncture. 

7-         It is admitted by the Opposite Parties that the results of the 4^th Semester was declared on 28.6.2007 wherein the complainant was one of the students who appeared 4^th Semester.  The complainant, on the other hand, alleged that due to delay in publication of result he could not registered under Ph.D in Law.  While going through the  Notification No.6067 dated 7.7.2007 filed on record in Annexure-20, we see that the applications were invited for Ph.D registration on or before 11.8.2007 whereas the results were published on 28.6.2007.    There was sufficient time for applying registration for Ph.D in Law.  Therefore, the allegation of the complainant that he was deprived of Ph.D. registration due to delay in publication of results is not to be accepted.

8-         In view of the above and considered to the facts of the case, we are clear that there is no negligence in duties or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties in declaration of 4^th Semester results of the complainant.  Moreover, while referring the land mark decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi reported in AIR-2010 S.C.-93, in the case of  Bihar School Examination Board Vrs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, we are at par with the views taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.   It is clearly held that “Discharging statutory functions  involves  holding of periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates.  The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function.  It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative.  When the Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its ‘service’ to any candidate.  Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, hires or avails of any service from the Board for a consideration.”   

9-         In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in the petition of complaint filed by the complainant.  Hence, the instant consumer complaint stands dismissed.  Parties are to bear their own cost.

            Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.

            Dictated and corrected by me on this 4^th day of March,,2014.

               (Dr.N.Tuna Sahu)                                           (Mrs.M.Pradhan)

           I AGREE(MEMBER)                                            (MEMBER)