RAJINDER SINGH vs New Age Foundations (Institute of Public Health Trainings)

-WE have heard Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for appellant, Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for respondent and carefully gone through the file.

THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 15.6.2001 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mukatsar (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which his complaint was dismissed. Briefly stated the facts are that appellant (complainant) passed his matriculation examination from Punjab School Education Board in March,1991 under roll No. 695103 in third division obtaining 273 marks out of 800 marks, which fact is also mentioned in the copy of the matriculation examination certificate Ex. R-4. He took admission in the Multi Purpose Health Worker Course for which minimum qualification was matriculation along with science subjects. Ex. R-3 is admission form for the year 1996-97 for taking admission in the first year class in New Age Foundations (respondent) and he was recommended for provisional admission subject to the production of detailed marks certificate of matriculation examination. He had submitted the boarder area certificate showing that he belongs to village Fazilka, District Ferozepur, whose copy is Ex. R-5. He had paid Rs. 8,700 on 2.11.1996 for taking admission. Notices were pasted on the notice board on 5.12.1996 and 18.6.1997 requesting students to provide detailed marks certificate and even on 25.6.1997 a letter was sent to the appellant under certificate of posting along with other students to provide detailed marks certificate but at last three students including appellant did not provide detailed marks certificate. Thereafter, last notice was pasted on 18.5.1997 on the board requesting three students including appellant to provide detailed marks certificate at the earliest as the letter from the Directorate of Health Services was received in the institution and even letter under certificate of posting was sent on 21.5.98 but the appellant and other students did not provide detailed marks certificate. Result of the course was declared on 26.8.98 and since, the appellant and two other students did not provide the detailed marks certificate, so, their result was withheld. Even a letter was received by the respondent from the Directorate directing the institution on 28.12.1998 to provide detailed marks certificate immediately and consequently letter under certificate of posting was sent to the appellant but no reply was received. The appellant however paid Rs. 4,800 on 22.7.1997, Rs. 4,800 on 10.2.1998 and no other amount was paid by him.

The contention of appellant is that it was not in his knowledge that detailed marks certificate had to be supplied which could show that he had passed matriculation examination with science subjects. This fact cannot be believed because respondent had sent several letters under postal certificate and besides it, notices were put on the notice board asking the appellant and other students to furnish detailed marks certificate. Obviously the appellant did not submit the detailed marks certificate as he had not passed the matriculation examination with science subjects and as such was not competent to get admission.

EX. R-7 is letter dated 25.6.1997 issued by the respondent under postal certificate to the appellant and other 9 students in all to send detailed marks certificate of matriculation examination. Then another letter Annexure R-8 under certificate of posting was issued to the appellant and other students but to no effect. A perusal of result sheet EX. R-9 dated 26.8.1998 shows that the result of the appellant was shown as ''RL'' i.e. result later on by the Directorate Health Services and Family Welfare as the detailed marks certificate was not provided. Even letter EX. R11 shows that the principal of respondent had written letter to the appellant along with two other students to send detailed marks certificate of matriculation. EX. R.13 is reminder dated 28.12.1998 form the Director, Health Services & Family Welfare, Punjab to the principal of respondent institution asking the principal to supply detailed marks certificate of appellant and two other students namely Rupinder Singh and Dharwinder Singh before the declaration of result but the same had not been sent. Consequently, respondent wrote letter dated 15.1.1999 to the appellant and other students, whose copy is Annexure R-14 under certificate of posting but to no effect. A perusal of brochure Mark-A of respondent shows that it is mentioned under the heading ''admission'' that the candidate will be eligible for admission if he had passed his high school from the recognized Board/University with Science, Chemistry, Physics and Biology as subjects. The very fact that appellant did not supply the detailed marks certificate only shows that he had not passed matriculation examination with science subjects and as such was not eligible for admission. Statement of Sh. M.R. Anand, Principal of New Age Foundation, Muktsar which was recorded on 1.6.2001 also proves that appellant had submitted matriculation examination certificate but not the detailed marks certificate and he was also asked to submit detailed marks certificate which he promised to submit and on this condition, he was granted provisional admission to Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) course but later on he did not submit the detailed marks certificate in spite of repeated letters sent under certificate of posting. Therefore, appellant is at fault and there is no fault of respondent. If appellant had wasted two years or had spent some money for taking admission, then he was entirely to blame and not the opposite party (respondent).

WE concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 500. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.