KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY Vs. VINAY PARKASH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The territorial jurisdiction for all disputes relating to examinations conducted by the Kurukshetra University, is the significant question in this appeal. Equally at issue is the question whether the said University renders a "service" to its students within the consumer jurisdiction?

(2.) The facts are not in serious dispute and may be noticed with relevance to the issue aforesaid. Vinay Parkash, respondent had averred in his complaint that he was a regular student of the LL. B. (professional) semester system course run by the appellant-University from the year 1988 to 1991. It was pleaded that he had taken the examination in all the six semesters and he cleared the fifth semester with good marks. However, in the sixth semester he was directed to re-appear in the fourth paper (Equity ). Dissatisfied therewith, the Complainant applied for re-evaluation of the said paper and deposited the requisite re-evaluation fees which were duly accepted. However, the University failed to provide the re-evaluation of the paper even after the lapse of four months. In the given circumstances, the complainant-respondent had no alternative but to re-appear in the said paper in the forthcoming examination.

(3.) It is further the case that after four months of his previous result, the complainant was then informed that the direction to reappear was due to some discrepancy noticed in the said paper and on the removal thereof, marks of the complainant were revised from 36 to 45 and he was declared pass. It was forcefully alleged in the complaint that because of the admitted negligence of the appellant he had to unnecessarily take on the burden of reappearing in an examination which he had already cleared. Not only that, the delay in securing the LL. B. Degree prevented the complainant from applying for the post of "judge Advocate" in the Army and other service opportunities. Further he could not apply to the Bar Council to obtain a license to start legal practice. It was averred that he suffered grave mental harassment and loss in terms of money, seniority and reputation due to the patent deficiency in the service undertaken to be rendered by the University. A relief to the tune of rupees One lakh as compensation alongwith the refund of reevaluation fees with interest etc. was sought.