YADVINDRA PUBLIC SCHOOL Vs. GUNJAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The National Commission in "chairman, Board of Examinations, Madras V/s. Mohideen Abdul Keder,1997 2 CPJ 49 national Commission on Consumer Law Cases 170, held that in the case of taking examinations even on payment of fee is not a case of hiring services for consideration to be covered under the definition of services as defined under Sec.2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act. Ignoring the aforesaid law, the District Forum, Patiala passed the impugned order on May 5,1997 in the Complaint Case No.158 of 1997 - Ms. Gunjan Gupta V/s. Yadvindra Public School, giving direction to the school to promote the complainant to class 10th Standard, which order is challenged by the school in this appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant relying upon the decision of the National Commission as referred to above, has argued that the District Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint wherein allegations with regard to conduct of examination of 9th Class by the school were levelled as it is not a case of hiring services on consideration as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that the decision of the National Commission related to Statutory Bodies like Universities or Boards and it cannot be applied to private schools or un- aided schools. There is fallacy in this argument. When the statute is to be interpreted, it is not to be interpreted keeping in view the parties or their status. Hiring services for consideration is necessary ingredient of the services as defined under the Act. It will apply to all such examinations conducted by the Statutory Bodies or by the private schools. By taking admission in a school getting Government aid or otherwise services are hired on consideration to attend classes for acquiring knowledge/education. By payment of fee for taking the examinations, it cannot be said services are hired as held by the National Commission. By not passing in five subjects including English out of six subjects, as per rules and regulations of the school, the complainant cannot be promoted, in other words, no direction can be given by the Fora to give promotions.

(2.) Even on merit, we find no force in the complaint. As per rules of ISCE as adopted by the school for which ultimately Class 10th examinations are taken, a person passing in five subjects including English was to be promoted. A perusal of the record indicates that when final examination was taken in six subjects- (i) English, (ii) Pbi/hindi (2nd Lang.), (iii) Social Studies, (iv) Maths, (v) Gen. Sci. , (vi) Eco. , the complainant had failed in three subjects. Subsequently on re- evaluation, she was declared pass in English subject also, but the position remained that she had not cleared five subjects including English. Thus she had no right to be promoted under the rules as followed by the school.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that the action of the school in not promoting the complainant, even if she had failed in some of the papers is arbitrary as the school has promoted some other failed students. Even if this argument is accepted as alleged though for which no evidence has been placed on the record, the Fora established under the Consumer Protection Act cannot grant any relief. It may be open to the complainant to approach the Civil Court or the High Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Be that as it may, the Agency established under the Consumer Protection Act cannot entertain such a complaint and cannot give a direction to the school to promote the students on the basis of result of the examinations,.