MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY Vs. SANTHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Original Petitions have come before us on a reference .made by a learned Single Judge. Petitioner in these Original Petitions is the Mahatma Gandhi University. Students, who appeared in the examinations held by the University, have approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum alleging deficiency in service rendered by the University. The Forum issued notices to the University and its officers on those petitions. On receipt of that notice, University has approached this Court by filing these Original Petitions, challenging the competence of the Forum to entertain the petitions filed by the students.

(2.) From the averments in O.P. 4631/1991, we see the circumstances under which the student approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The student appeared for the Final year LL.B. Degree Examination (5 year course) in 1989. The result of that examination was published in January, 1990. As per the result, he failed in two out of six papers, namely in Law of Criminal Procedure and Legal Drafting and Conveyancing. The total marks secured by him in the final year examination was assessed as 284 marks, while the marks required for the pass is 300. The student then applied for revaluation of the two papers on remitting the requisite fee. Since there was delay in knowing the result of the re-valuation, he took the Supplementary examination held in may, 1990. Its result was published on 13-8-1990. He passed in the two papers. provisional Degree Certificate was issued by the University on 19-9-1990, and he got enrolled as an advocate. On 23-10-1990, he was informed by the university that on revaluation of his papers he has secured 26 more marks in the two papers, .namely Law of Criminal Procedure and legal Drafting and Conveyancing. Therefore, the student urged that there was no proper valuation of his paper written in the examination held in October, 1989 and that there was laches and negligence in delaying the re-valuation. On account of this deficiency in service, he has claimed a sum of Rs. 95,900/- as compensation from the University. Similar claims have been put forth by the students who approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which have given rise to O.P. 5037/1991 and O.P. 5140/1991.

(3.) In O.P. 4847/1991 and connected matters, the Central Board of Secondary Education contended that its activities are outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986and that the proceedings before the Forum initiated by the students, who took the examinations conducted by it, are to be quashed. By the common judgment rendered by us on 6-10-1993, we declined jurisdiction. In arriving at that conclusion, we took note of the decision rendered by the Kerala State Commission holding that the Kerala University is rendering services to the students and complaints filed by them against the University are maintainable under the Act. In Manisha Samal v. Sambalpur University, (1992) 1 CPR 215, the National Commission held that negligence committed by the University in the conduct of examination will amount to deficiency in service coming under the Act. It was observed by us in the common judgment rendered on 6-10-1993: