Ramesh Bhardwaj vs BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

KM. Aruna Bhardwaj had appeared at the Supplementary Sr. Secondary Examination, 1993 from Govt. Maharaja Sr. Higher Secondary Girls School. The said examination was held by the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer.

THE result of the said examination was declared on 2.10.1993 and she was declared as passed. But she did not get the marksheet from respondentzx No. 2. It was after contacting the Education Board at Ajmer that she obtained a duplicate marksheet on 28.10.1993. Subsequently the original marksheet was also delivered to her by respondent No. 2 on 2.11.1993. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the complainant Sh. Ramesh Bhardwaj, who is father of Aruna Bhardwaj filed a complaint before the Forum. THE Forum dismissed such complaint on the ground of non-maintainability. THE Forum further held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the late delivery of the marksheet by the respondents to Aruna Bhardwaj would not amount to deficiency in service on their part. Aggrieved by such order of the Forum the appellant has preferred this appeal. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. There is evidence on record to prove that respondent No. 1 had forwarded the original marksheets of the students to respondent No. 2 on 12.10.1993. But it appears that the original marksheet was lost in the office of respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the same could not be delivered by respondent No. 2 to the appellant. The appellant appears to have contacted the office of respondent No. 2 on 27.10.1993 and thereafter he appears to have approached the office of respondent No. 1 at Ajmer and obtained the duplicate copy of the marksheet on 28.10.1993 itself. Thereafter the original marksheet, which was traced in the office of respondent No. 2 was also delivered to the appellant on 2.11.1993.

It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that over the years the number of students appearing at the Secondary or Hr. Secondary Examination had increased alarmingly and, therefore, some time is consumed by the staff in getting the marksheet of the successful and failed students prepared. It was submitted that a period of ten days in the preparation of the marksheet by the office of respondent No. 1 should be considered as reasonable period and, therefore, respondent No. 1 should not be held to have rendered any deficient services to the appellant. We find force in the submission. It cannot be overlooked that over the years and for compaign for literacy amongst our masses, that number of students appearing at the examinations, particularly at Secondary and Hr. Secondary level, has considerably increased. It may be possible that infrastructure and other facilities were not increased in proportion to the increase of the students. Viewed thus, a period of ten days for preparation of the marksheet of the students by the office of respondent No. 1 should be considered as reasonable period. We, therefore, hold that respondent No. 1 namely Raj. Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer did not render deficient services to the appellant in the matter of non-supply/delayed supply of the marksheet to Km. Aruna Bhardwaj.

IN so far as deficiency in service on the part of respondent No. 2 is concerned we find that respondent No. 1 had forwarded the marksheet to respondent No. 2 by regd. post on 12.10.1993. Since the original marksheet could be delivered to the appellant on 2.11.1993, it may be inferred that the original marksheet had been lost in the office of respondent No. 2. The reasons for delayed delivery of the marksheet may be the same as have been considered sufficient in the case of respondent No. 1. But after receipt of the original marksheet maintenance of the record in respect thereto was necessary in order to facilitate the students to receive the original marksheet enabling them to seek admission to higher class. IN the instant case the contention of the complainant is that she was deprived from getting admission to higher class for non-receipt/delayed receipt of the marksheet by her. There is no evidence in support of the fact that the appellant had ever tried to take transfer certificate from respondent No. 2 and to seek admission to higher class in some other institution. Therefore, whereas we consider the late delivery of the original marksheet by respondent No. 2 to Km. Aruna Bhardwaj as an act of deficiency of service on the part of respondent No. 2 such deficiency in our opinion and in the absence of any loss having been caused to the complainant or his daughter is technical deficiency which should not attract the relief clause under Section 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986. Therefore, we would dismiss the present appeal with the observation that such act should not be repeated by the institution concerned. Of course we have dictated this order on the basis that the matters relating to non-receipt/late receipt of marksheet by the students, is considered to be a consumer dispute within the term defined in the C.P. Act, 1986. Costs on parties. Appeal dismissed.