PRINCIPAL, ST. ALOYSIUS COLLEGE LIGHT HOUSE vs HARSHARAJ GATTY

Two of the complainants / respondent took admission in the MS (Communication) course of the petitioner college in May, 2008, whereas the remaining two complainants took admission in Master of Communications & Media Studies course in May, 2009. The complainants who took admission in May, 2009, paid Rs.1,14,000/- each, whereas the other two complainants paid Rs.80,000/- each as the course fee to the petitioner. The aforesaid courses, according to the complainants, were started by the petitioner college without approval of the Mangalore University, which was the University that could have granted degree to the complainants on completion of the course. As a result, the University did not award degree to the complainants when they passed out from the college. Being aggrieved, they approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate complaints, seeking appropriate compensation.

The complaints were opposed by the petitioner, denying any misrepresentation to the complainants. It was stated in the reply, that being an autonomous Institution, the college could have started a new course with the approval of its Academic Council, subject to its fulfilling the minimum standards prescribed by the University / UGC, in terms of number of hours, curricular and standard, and it was only required to inform the University of starting the new course. It was further stated that the course was started from the Academic year 2008-09 under the nomenclature MS (Communications) with the approval of the bodies of college and the University was requested, much before starting the course, to accord the necessary approval. The Academic Council of the University approved the course as MA in Communications. The students however, wanted the nomenclature to be either MS (Communications) or Master of Communication & Media Studies. The college also felt that the change in the nomenclature made by the University was not justified. A request therefore was made to the University to change the nomenclature. The college was informed by the University that its request to change the nomenclature had been forwarded to the Chairman, PG Board of the Studies in Mass Communications for his opinion and he had informed that majority of the members were in favour of changing the nomenclature. The petitioner was requested to place the matter before the Board of Studies and Academic Council of the college and communicate the decision of the said authorities to the University. The proposal was then accepted by the Academic Council of the University in its meeting held on 30.09.2009 and the same was sent to the Government for approval. The Mangalore University however, went back on the decision of its Academic Council approving the course as MA Communications vide its order dated 02.12.2010. It was also stated in the reply that college did not anticipate that even the nomenclature to the course will be subject to scrutiny of the University. It had admitted the students to MS (Communication) and later Master of Communication & Media Studies course. The University, on the other hand took the stand that even an autonomous college could start the course only after a nomenclature is approved by the University. As a result, the students including the complainant could not get certificate with the nomenclature stated in the Prospectus. The University approval for the course came to be granted in June, 2011. The University maintained that the said approval was prospective from the Academic year 2011-12.

Vide its order dated 25.3.2013, the concerned District Forum directed the petitioner to pay compensation quantified at Rs.2,28,000/- each to the complainant who had paid Rs.1,14,000/- each as the course fee and Rs.1,60,000/- each as compensation to the complainant who had paid Rs.80,000/- each as the course fee. The college was also directed to issue Post Graduate Degree certificates and pay Rs.2,000/- each as the cost of litigation to the complainants. It was further directed that in case, the petitioner fails to award Post Graduate Degree certificates, in the Convocation to be held in April-May, 2013, it would pay further damages of Rs.2,00,000/- each to the complainants.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of four separate appeals. Vide impugned order dated 02.6.2014, the State Commission partly allowed the appeals filed by the petitioner and directed the petitioner to pay compensation quantified at Rs.2,00,000/- each to the complainants, besides issuing Post Graduate certificates to them, along with cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2,000/- in each appeal. Being dissatisfied by the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before us by way of these revision petitions.

It is an admitted position that the Mangalore University has since approved the course in which the complainants were admitted on 31.01.2013 with retrospective effect and degree certificates have accordingly been issued to the complainants. Therefore, the only question which requires our consideration in these petitions is as to whether despite having been issued the degrees, though late, the complainants are entitled to any compensation from the petitioner and if so, what would be fair compensation to be granted to them.

During the course of hearing, the Prospectus on the basis of which admissions were taken by the complainants were produced before us and the authenticity of the aforesaid documents was not disputed. It was expressly stated in the Prospectus that degree shall be awarded by the University. It would therefore be difficult to dispute that the complainants had taken admission in the belief that on successful completion of the course, the University degree will be awarded to them. The said belief came to be formed on the basis of the representation made in the Prospectus. Admittedly, the petitioner had not taken approval of the University to start the aforesaid course before admitting students in the Academic Year 2008-09 and 2009-10. Though, it had applied to the University way back on 23.2.2008 for according approval inter-alia to MS (Communications) Course, the said approval had actually not been granted before the students were admitted in the year 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Though, the case of the petitioner is that no previous approval of the University was required before starting the course, so long as the petitioner was complying with the norms and standards prescribed by the university and UGC and mere intimation to the university was sufficient, considering that the petitioner admittedly had applied for the requisite approval of the university, we cannot accept the aforesaid contention. Moreover, in case no previous approval of the university was required and the petitioner had complied with all the prescribed norms and standards as regard number of hours, curricular, faculty etc., the petitioner ought to have challenged the decision of the university to accord approval only with effect from the Academic year 2011-12, and got the said decision quashed in appropriate proceedings. That, admittedly, was not done and the petitioner only pursued the matter with the university till it challenged its stand on 31.01.2013 and granted retrospective approval to the course. As far as the students are concerned, the petitioner having represented to them, in the Prospectus, that on completion of the course they shall be awarded degree by the university, they were entitled to grant a degree from Mangalore University and the failure of the petitioner to obtain the requisite approval in time, would constitute a deficiency on its part in the services rendered to the students, including the complainants herein. In fact, the petitioner, in our opinion, ought not to have started the course before obtaining the requisite approval of the university. Alternatively, it should have disclosed to the candidates, seeking to take admission in the course that though it had applied to the university for granting approval to the course, it was yet to receive the said approval from the university. That however, was not done, meaning thereby that the true state of affairs as regards approval of the university was not disclosed to the candidates, including the complainants herein.

Since the complainants were issued university degrees only in the year 2013, though two of them should have been issued degree in the year 2010 and the remaining two in the year 2011, they were deprived of an effective and adequate use of the degree obtained by them for the intervening period. Though, there is no direct evidence of the complainants having been refused employment on the ground that they did not possess university degree for the course passed by them, it can hardly be disputed that no employer is likely to give appropriate employment to a technical person on the strength of a course passed by him, unless he is given a degree or at least a provisional certificate by the university or he knows that the course passed by the candidates has been duly approved / recognized by the university and issue of a formal degree to the candidate was only a matter of time. In fact, admitting the students to a course on the representations that on passing the course they would be awarded a university degree, without university having approved the course, would also constitute unfair trade practice, besides constituting deficiency in the services rendered to the students. Therefore, we have no hesitation in upholding the view taken by the Fora below as regards the liability of the petitioner college.

The next question which arises for our consideration in this case is as to whether the compensation awarded to the complainants was reasonable or it was on the higher side. It is not in dispute that even before starting the course in which admission was taken by the complainants, the petitioner had already applied to the university, seeking its approval to the said course. It is also an admitted position that the application of the petitioner college for grant of the requisite approval was never rejected by the university. It is also not in dispute that the course in which admission was taken by the complainants was approved not only by the college authorities but also by the Academic Council of the university. There is no material on record to show that the said course did not conform to the norms prescribed by the university and / or UGC as regards curriculum, course hours, faculty etc. Therefore, we see no reason to reject the case of the petitioner college that they had complied with the prescribed norms of the university and UGC in this regard. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the college could not have anticipated that despite the course sought to be started by it conform to the prescribed norms and requisite standards, the approval from the university will not be forthcoming in time. This is more so when even the Academic Council of the University had approved the said course. The very fact that on 31.1.2013, the university approved the course clearly shows that the petitioner college had confirmed to the requirement of the prescribed norms and standards. Presumably, it is for this reason that the university eventually made the approval retrospective, resulting in the complainants getting the requisite degrees of the university though after delay of 2-3 years.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the fora below to the complainants is on the higher side. We therefore, modify the order passed by the foras below by directing the petitioner to refund only the principal amount paid to it by the complainants within four weeks from today, along with Rs.2500/- as the cost of litigation to them. If the aforesaid payment is made within four weeks from today, it shall not carry any interest. However, in case of failure of the petitioner to make payment, in terms of this order, within four weeks from today, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of the payment. The revision petitions stands disposed of.