BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION Vs. SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cross-appeals arise out of the order dated 24.2.1995 whereby the D. F. , Sikar partly allowed the complaint of Sunil Kumar Sharma respondent and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- to him as compensation for mental agony caused to him by rendering deficient services in the matter of permitting him to appear at the examination.

(2.) Relevant facts are that the complainant had passed the secondary examination from the appellant Board in the year 1976. His performance at the examination was not up to his expectation and satisfaction. In the year 1992 he decided to improve over his performance in the said examination and, therefore, applied to the appellant Board through his application, submitted to Shri Kalyan Govt. Senior Secondary School, Sikar, respondent No.2, as private candidate. He had expressed his desire to appear at the said examination in a school at Beebepur, District Sikar as the centre. His application form was duly forwarded by respondent No.2 to the appellant Board. It is alleged that the appellant Board changed the centre of examination, as was mentioned by the complainant in his application form and allotted a school in Fatehpur, Distt. Sikar as his centre. The case of the complainant however was that since he was not intimated of the name of the institution in Fatehpur, Distt. Sikar whereat he was required to appear at the said examination, he went to Beebepur School, in Sikar but was not permitted to appear at the examination at that centre. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and respondent No.2 he filed his complaint before the D. F. at Sikar. The D. F. , Sikar, vide its order under appeal, held the appellant guilty of rendering deficient services to the complainant and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- with interest @ 18% p. a. as compensation for mental agony to the complainant. The D. F. further directed the appellant Board to return the original mark-sheet submitted by the complainant along with his application, or in case such original mark-sheet was not available then a duplicate thereof without charging any fees from him, to the complainant. Aggrieved against such order of the D. F. the appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant could not show that in the permission letter issued by the appellant to respondent No.2 at Sikar, the name of the institution at Fatehpur, whereat the respondent was required to appear at the examination, was mentioned. That clearly amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.