MONISA SAMAL Vs. SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant was a student of III year Degree course in Rourkela Science College affiliated to Sambalpur University. Her complaint is that she was not assigned one and same roll number in her examinations as per University rule. She was assigned 87-SH-17 R6 2 in Part II and Part III and 87-SH-17 R 111 in Part I examination. Furthermore, the roll number assigned to her in Part I examination was assigned to another student Shri S. K. Gupta for the same examination.87-SH-17 R 62 was assigned to Shri P. K. Roul, another student of the college. Thus, two roll numbers were assigned to three students. Inspite of her repeated requests and of her father, University authority did not rectify the mistake. Part I examination of the III year Degree Course held later than II year. So she appeared in different roll numbers in Part I and her back paper examinations. Complainant apprehends that marks awarded to both students have been exchanged, because of identical roll numbers of the examinees. She has been given different mark sheets of College authority which enhances her apprehension. She produced true copy of mark sheets with identical roll number and some marks in back paper (electronics ). Her final result was withheld due to non-clearance of back paper, although she appeared in that subject. Letter to Vice Chancellor on 4.5.1989, to Chancellor on 28.8.1989 endorsing a copy thereof to the Controller of Examinations had turned into deaf ears. Due to non publication of her results she was deprived of higher studies.

(2.) Opposite party in its answer in written statement says that complaint is not maintainable in this Commission as the function of the University are not covered by the definition of 'service' under Sec.2 (o) of the Act. This dispute is not a consumer dispute as defined under Sec.2 (e ). So this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As the University statute empowers the syndicate to look after the examinations and publish results with statutory provision as to when the examinations would be held, it is duty of opposite party to adhere to the same unless the same is beyond control. Opposite party simply mentions that due to 'oversight' identical roll numbers had been assigned to both students and claims that as there was no difficulty in appearing in Part II examinations, there might have been no difficulty in other examinations and as such, the "oversight' has in no way affected her adversely.

(3.) Opposite party denied any communication from the Principal of the college regarding her difference in roll numbers and does not accept that complaint had suffered due to the assignment of identical roll numbers to other candidates as she had not appeared in the same examinations. Opposite party submits that she awarded 31 in English in Part I and her result had been published accordingly on 2.12.1989 which was communicated to college in Memo No.980-/e Gr. II dated 8.12.1989. Opposite party denies its responsibility in late publication of results as the submission of marks by the examiner was delayed. It was not possible for the Controller of Examinations to answer individual letters due to his preoccupation. In case of students having back paper, 10 days time was given to apply for Post Graduate studies in the University. Her other marks do not place her in a high position so as to pursue to bright career. Opposite party says that the complainant has not disclosed the date of cause of action. Her claim is barred by the principles of estoppel and the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain it.