AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IA/2053/2016
The delay of two days'' in filing the revision petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of. RP/183/2016
Mr. Rajnikant Srivastava, Advocate accepts notice for the respondent. Heard.
The petitioner / complainant applied for admission to Diploma Course in Elementary Education for the Academic year 2011-2012. Her name appeared in the select list of the candidates at serial No.10 under the heading ''General'', though she had qualified from a Vocational Stream. The petitioner / complainant deposited one installment of the course fee, amounting to Rs.6350/-, with the respondent. According to her, when she went to attend the classes, she was not allowed to do so and was informed that her enrolment has been cancelled. Being aggrieved, she approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
The complaint was resisted by the respondent. It was pointed out in the reply that the complainant / petitioner had scored 81.8% marks in the Higher Secondary Examination, from a vocational stream, but on account of a clerical error, she was treated as a candidate from the regular stream and accordingly considering the percentage of 81.8%, her name was shown in the list as a general candidate. However, when the mistake was detected, the candidature was cancelled. It was also pointed that that there were only two seats available to the candidature for the vocational stream. The candidate with the lowest marks from the vocational stream in the qualifying examination had 82.27% marks. Therefore the complainant on her merit could not have got admission under the category of the vocational candidates. It was for this reason that her candidature was cancelled.
The District forum vide its order dated 28.6.2013, allowed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 05.10.2015, the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved the complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
It is not in dispute that the complainant / petitioner had passed the qualifying examination from a vocational stream. It is also not in dispute that she had secured 81.8% marks in her qualifying examination. The list filed by the petitioner herself shows that the first candidate whose name appeared in the select list had secured 95% marks from the vocational stream. In the third merit list, there were 20 candidates from the vocational stream and candidate at the bottom of the list in vocational category had secured 82.27% marks. Thus the marks of the complainant / petitioner were lower than the last candidate from vocational category in the select list. It is thus obvious, that the name of the complainant came to be included in the select list on account of clerical mistake taking her to be a candidate form the regular stream, whereas in fact, she was from the vocational stream. Therefore, the direction of the District Forum for payment of compensation was not justified. However, the respondent ought to have immediately refunded the money which the complainant had deposited, without insisting upon any application since, the refund became due on account of mistake of the respondent itself and not on account of any request made or mistake committed by the complainant. Therefore, the respondent is directed to refund the principal amount of Rs.6350/-, along with interest on that amount @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund. The payment, in terms of this order, shall be made within six weeks from today. The fee of Amicus Curiae be paid as per rules of this Commission. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.