RAJNISH KUMAR SHARMA vs Punjabi University

THE complainant is a student of Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management (1990-92) of Punjabi University, Patiala, through correspondence. In the examination held in December, 1992 he could not clear in Paper II and Paper VI. It appears that in Paper II he secured pass marks in an examination held in June, 1994 and the dispute remained regarding Paper VI. He approached Punjab & Haryana High Court and has specifically mentioned in para 7 of the complaint that there was direction from the High Court that petitioner shall be entitled to reappear in Paper VI within a period of one year and be declared pass if he secured 50% marks in the said paper. THE complainant has further alleged that he has been declared fail on 21.12.1994 (Annexure P-l) and required to reappear in the whole examination, if otherwise eligible. It shall be useful to reproduce the relevant facts of the complaint, which are as under: "8. That despite the directions of the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana respondent had not taken the exam of the complainant. Moreover respondent had also sent a letter for granting the complainant a special chance. Copy of letter is annexed as annexure P-III. 9. That by not taking the exam of the complainant, the complainant could not get the certificate of Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management with the result he has suffered an irreparable loss. 10. That it is pertinent to mention here that complainant is a professional Engineer and is working in Pfizer Limited, a multi-national company and is a regular income tax payer. Had this diploma exam would have completed in the stipulated two year period complainant market value would have gone substantially high not to talk about the missed chance within the present company even complainant could have joined overseas appointment. This can be verified from any of the job consultants. But due to the negligence of the respondent the carrier of the complainant has been ruined."

THE complainant has sought a relief that since the respondents have not obeyed the direction of the Hon''ble High Court by granting the complainant a special chance, the respondents had been negligent and the complainant should be awarded damages.

AFTER perusal of the complaint and hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant, we find that the complainant is a student of Punjabi University, which is located at Patiala and not at Chandigarh. The Vice-chancellor and Registrar of the aforesaid University have been imp leaded as the two respondents. Several questions of fact, rules and regulations of the Punjabi University and allied matters are involved. If the complainant wants execution of an order of Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 30.1.96, the complainant was not required to approach this Commission. The learned Counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to Parvesh Kumar v. Institute of Correspondence Studies, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, 1993 CPC 66 decided on 14.12.1992, wherein though the Institute was located in Hyderabad, the complaint was entertained at Chandigarh by the then Commission. A perusal of the judgment indicates that in the rules of the aforesaid Institute there was a provision for conducting the examination at Chandigarh and the execution of an order of the High Court was not involved therein. Thus in these circumstances the complaint is hereby returned for taking such step as the complainant now deems appropriate. Complaint returned.