EXAMINATIONS, HYDERABAD-/ vs KANDUKURI UMA DEVI

THE respondent in this appeal, who is student studying intermediate, filed the C.D. No. 565 of 1991 in the District Forum Prakasham. Her grievance was that she passed intermediate second year, but her marks list was withheld by the respondent on the ground that she is not having sufficient attendance, is not correct and, therefore, there must be a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to issue the second year marks sheet as early as possible.

SHORTLY stated, the complainant studied first year intermediate in Inkollu Junior College during the academic year 1987-88 by paying the examination fee. After passing first year, for the second year course, the complainant got transfer to V.R.S. & Y.R.N. College Chirala. She paid the examination fee and received the hall-ticket for the second year examination to be conducted in March 1989. The results were also published on 7.5.1989 wherein she was shown to have passed the examination in the second division. When she wanted her marks list, she was informed by the Principal of the college that the marks list could not be given to her as there was short of required attendance in the second year intermediate and she was also given a show cause notice as to why the complainant''s examination should not be cancelled, as she did not have the required attendance. But according to the complainant, she paid the necessary amount for condoning the shortage of attendance and the said amount was accepted and hall-ticket was issued. It was only much later after her appearing the examination and passing she was informed that the authorities are not inclined to condone the shortage of attendance. But by that time, she already appeared for the examination and her results have been declared to have passed and only marks list has to be communicated. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, the District Forum directed the respondent to give marks list to the complainant, the respondent herein with in thirty days from the date of the order and the Principal is directed to take necessary action to produce the marks list of the respondent herein by corresponding with the second respondent herein. Aggrieved by the said direction, the Controller of Examinations, Board of Intermediate Examinations, Hyderabad, that is, second opposite party preferred the above appeal. Shri Shankar Rao appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that this Commission or the District Forum have no jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged complaint, as in the instant case, no service was agreed to be rendered to the complainant. But since there was no stay during the pendency of the appeal, it is submitted by the learned Counsel that the appellant might have already sent the marks list through the Principal to be handed over to the complainant, that is the respondent herein.

Having regard to the facts of the instant case, as the complainant has paid the condonation fee and it was accepted by the authorities and as the authorities have not communicated any order rejecting the said request for condonation prior to the sitting for the examination and declaration of results, we consider that the direction given by the District Forum equitable and just. We are not inclined to interfere with the said order. If the appellant has not already sent the marks list, the appellant shall take necessary steps for sending the same within a period of two weeks from today. In view of the peculiar facts of this case, it is not necessary for us to go into the contention raised by Mr. Shankara Rao, the learned Counsel, that there is no Consumer Dispute and that the appellant has not agreed to render any service and that, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable in the State Commission or District Forum. This will not preclude the appellant to raise the objection regarding the jurisdiction in any other case.

THE appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.