Amit Kumar Jangde vs Iias Bhilai

THIS revision petition seeks to challenge the order dated 03.02.2011 passed by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission'') in appeal no. 373/2010. The appeal before the State Commission was filed respondent herein against the order dated 10.05.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg in complaint case no. 119 / 2009, whereby the said District Forum had allowed the complaint. In appeal the State Commission had modified the order of the District Forum thereby restricting compensation to Rs.25,000/- with the stipulation that the. amount shall be paid-within 2 months from the date of passing the order failing which it shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. besides a cost of Rs.2,000/-.

WE have heard Mr. Brijesh Chandra Mishra, Advocate, counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. Adab Singh Kapoor, Advocate, counsel representing the respondents and have considered their submissions. The facts and circumstances which led to filing of the complaint and the defence plea put-forth are amply noted in the orders passed by the Fora below and need repetition at our end. The twin grievance raised in the complaint were firstly with regard to the respondent Institute being not authorised to impart distant education for the hotel management course and secondly that as per the assurance given to the complainant at the time of his taking admission, 100% placement after successful completion of the course was not adhered to. The District Forum found the opposite party guilty on both the counts and, therefore, allowed the complaint but the State Commission after a thorough examination of the matter and more particularly, document placed at page 120-121 has found that the institute had the requisite recognition for imparting the distant education. Counsel for the petitioner would assail the finding and order of the State Commission as recorded in para 11 and 18 of primarily on the'' ground that it is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and material brought on record. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that document referred to in para 11 of the impugned order (page 120 - 121 of the paper-book) was not supplied to the petitioner and, therefore, he presumes that no such letter exists on the record. We must reject this contention straightway because the State Commission has taken pains to refer to the entire material including the said letter by observing as under: - "11. On the basis of aforesaid material it may appear that the center at Bhilai is unauthorized. However, there are some more very important documents that go to the root of the matter and clarify the position. Minutes of third Meeting of the Joint Committee of UGC, AICTE and DEC held on 7th August 2007 have been placed on record of District Forum from pages 120-121. It clearly appears from the aforesaid document that IASE Deemed University was one of the institutions that had applied for ex-post facto approval and the Joint Committee accepted the recommendations of the committee appointed by DEC for examining the institutions that had applied for ex-post facto approval to DEC. It accepted the recommendations of granting ex-post facto approval to all the four institutions, that had applied, upto 2007. Provisional recognition was granted for the current academic year i.e. 2007-08 and for coming years fresh applications by the institutes were required to be made.

So far as other job opportunity at Jodhpur is concerned, we do not find any material to show that the complainant was appointed at Hotel Park Plaza, '' Jodhpur. At the appellate stage the appellant has filed copy of e-mail communication between Rohit Sarin, Sr. Manager Administration and Communication, IIAS Goa and Meenu from HR Deptt. Park Plaza, Jodhpur. Rohit Sarin had enquired regarding details of appointment of the complainant who had joined at Park Plaza around ''September or October, 2008 and had left the job in 4-5 days. In response Meenu has stated-''We have got his resume from our record in which his date of joining has been mentioned and signed on it. In future any help, we will give co-operate it.'' A copy of the said resume as referred in e-mail has also been filed. On top side the words ''To be taken as DOJ'' are mentioned and someone has signed under it. Near it ''DOJ'' (probably abbreviation used for date of joining) is mentioned as ''24.4.08''. Signatures of the complainant are only at the bottom where normally the resume is signed while sending the same for placement and the date mentioned under the signature of the complainant is 23.4.2008. Learned counsel for complainant / respondent No.1 submitted that on the date mentioned in the document as date of joining, the course was not yet complete. Examinations were held in the month of July, 2008 so the plea taken by the appellant regarding joining at Jodhpur is false. The argument of learned counsel for complainant is well supported by Admit Card of the complainant. In the circumstances no one can be expected to have joined. In case it was so the OP-1 ought to have taken such plea from the very beginning. It is a matter of common knowledge that a candidate sends resume to various institutions but he is not appointed at each and every place and appointment at a particular place cannot be proved by making endorsement ''DOS on the resume itself There are various other documents to prove appointment and joining. Hence the plea of the present appellant regarding placement of the complainant cannot be accepted. However, prior to starting arguments learned counsel for appellant did propose to provide the complainant employment in 3 Star Hotel but he refused on the ground that appellants institute at Bhilai has been already closed down and presently the centre is being run at Kolkata. In the circumstances and in view of the conduct of the party he cannot rely on the appellant. "

We, therefore, reject the contention of the petitioner that the institute was not recognised for imparting distant education under the University under which it was registered. We have no reason to take any other view in the matter so far as the award of compensation of Rs.25,000/- with regard to non-placement. We can simply say that the petitioner should thank his stars that even such a relief has been granted to him. No institute can guarantee of 100% placement to it''s the candidates passing out from its institute and it can only make efforts and approach the prospective employers in that behalf. Moreover, it is stated that such a job was provided to the complainant at Hotel Park Plaza, Jodhpur, which he left after four days. In our view, the order passed by the State Commission is based on correct and proper appreciation of the material brought on record and it gives valid reasons why the said order was made. We find no illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error in the impugned order which warrants interference of this Commission. Dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.