DEPUTY REGISTRAR COLLEGES Vs. RUCHIKA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEPUTY Registrar (Colleges), M.D. University and Controller of Examinations, M.D. University, Rohtak appellants -opposite parties Nos. 2 and 4 have filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986) against the order dated 29.3.2005 passed by District Forum, Faridabad in Complaint No. 536 of 2004, whereby while accepting the complaint filed by the respondent -complainant, the following directions have been issued to the appellant -opposite parties. '(1) The respondents are ordered to withdraw the letter by which they have cancelled the admission of the complainant to the B.D.S. class. This letter is declared to be null, void and invalid. The respondents are further ordered to treat the complainant as regular student of B.D.S. class from the date of her admission treating her to be a regular student to B.D.S. class as the other qualified candidates of B.D.S. class are being treated. The respondents are also ordered to pay Rs. 50,000 on account of mental agony, harassment to the complainant. The respondents are also ordered to pay Rs. 5,000 on account of litigation expenses. The respondents are also ordered to comply with the order of the Forum within 30 days after the receipt of the copy of the present order. Copy of the present order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs.'

(2.) THE essential facts for deciding the present appeal need to be focused briefly. Ruchika Jain complainant had taken admission in B.D.S. course for the first year against the management quota in Sudha Rustogi Dental Science Research, Kheri Modh, Village Bhopani, Faridabad which is recognized and affiliated by M.D. University. The criteria for admission to the B.D.S. course as well as other courses of M.B.B.S. and BAMS has been prescribed for common entrance examination for the session 2003 -04 in the prospectus issued by the M.D. University. The case of the complainant is that she secured 60% marks in English whereas her total aggregated marks in Chemistry, Physics and Biology were 50% of the total aggregated and in this manner she fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the admission to the B.D.S. course for the first year as laid down in the prospectus. She was accordingly given admission in the said course for the session 2003 -04 by the college. Thereafter, she attended the College and her attendance was complete in all respect and for that reason opposite party No. 3 was required to send her name to the opposite party No. 2 for lodging the roll number so as to enable her to take the examination which was to commence on 2.8.2004 and paper of Anatomy was to be held at 2.00 p.m. on that day at the examination centre of the aforesaid Sudha College. However, the complainant did not receive the roll number for the said examination, rather, she came to know from the letter received from the college wherein it was maintained that the college has made admission in accordance with the rules contained in the prospectus and were under obligation to inform the university in this regard and it had received a letter bearing endorsement No. 3207 -9 dated 19.7.2004 from the university regarding her ineligibility to take the examination in B.D.S. course for the first year. Claiming that her career could not be put to loss at the hands of the college as the college has failed to inform the university in time and she could not be made to suffer on this account. Alleging that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and she being a consumer filed the present complaint on 2.8.2004 with the prayer that the opposite parties be directed to allow her to appear in the examination of B.D.S. course for the first year for the session 2003 -04 which was to be commenced at 2.00 p.m. on that day at the examination centre located at the college aforesaid. The District Forum on the same day without going to the merits of the controversy raised, directed the appellants to provisionally allow the complaint to sit in the examination of B.D.S. course for the first year which was to be held on that day after issuing the roll number. It appears that during the pendency of the complaint a letter bearing No. R & S/R - 21/6920 dated 9.12.2004 was communicated to the complainant whereby her admission to the B.D.S. course was cancelled. Accordingly, she prayed that cancellation of the admission being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and against the public policy, the same be declared illegal and null and void. She also claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 11 lacs against the appellants.

(3.) FILED their joint written reply wherein they refuted the stand of the complainant. It was pleaded by them that the complainant has not passed the paper of Physics and had been declared failed in the theory and for that reason she was ineligible to take entrance examination for the session 2003 -04 for the B.D.S. first year course as detailed in the prospectus and the conditions laid down for eligibility of the admission are binding on all the parties concerned. The admission has been granted to her illegally by the college under the management quota which is not binding on the university. They justified the action of the university for not issuing roll number to the complainant for taking first year B.D.S. examination. It was further stated that they informed the college about the ineligibility of the complainant before the commencement of the examination vide letter Nos. R & S/R -21/2004/1610 dated 20.3.2004 and R & S/R -21/2004/2202 dated 29.4.2004. They also supported the cancellation of the admission of B.D.S. first year course granted by opposite party No. 3 to the complainant. They further challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant was not a consumer and the university has not hired any service to the complainant and for that reason the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Additionally, it was pleaded that the complaint is bad for non -joinder and mis -joinder of parties as no relief can be claimed without impleading the university as party to the complaint. It was further stated that the university could be sued through its Registrar/Vice Chancellor and Centre Superintendent Examination, Deputy Registrar and Controller of Examinations of M.D. University are not juristic persons and have wrongly been arrayed as opposite parties. 4. On the appraisal of the pleadings and documents produced by the parties, the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued the directions as noticed in the earlier part of the order. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal has been filed by the appellants.