VICE CHANCELLOR, PUNJABI UNIVERSITY PATIALA vs ASHUTOSH

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum where the complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners. The complaint of the complainant was that after completing his Post-Graduation and being desirous of doing M. Phil, he, following due procedure, registered himself with the petitioner University for the said purpose in 1991. He also passed the entrance examination for the prescribed purpose. After completing the necessary formalities, submitted the synopsis in June, 1993 to which response was received in April, 1994 by way of seeking certain corrections. In December, 1994 case of the complainant was sent to Head of Department of Economics of the petitioner University after he had attended a Seminar called by them. In March, 1995 the case of the complainant was returned on the ground that he has not passed the entrance test held in January, 1995, hence cannot be registered for Degree of M. Phil. Alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum who after hearing the parties dismissed it on the ground that the complainant could pursue his objective under the latest rules framed by the petitioner for the purpose. An appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by the State Commission and awarded relief in following terms : "A direction is given to the University to take steps for declaration of result of the complainant after granting registration on the synopsis already submitted. Since the complainant has been harassed, a notional compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is ordered to be paid by the University to the complainant along with Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation. Let these directions be complied within one month of receipt of copy of this order."

FEELING aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition before us. The order of the State Commission is assailed on the grounds : (1) that complainant is not a consumer, (2) entrance test for which the complainant qualified was valid for one year as also the minimum number of students required to start a class was five against which only two students qualifies for M. Phil in Economics, hence classes could not be started, (3) after the change of University Rules - the complainant was obliged to take up fresh entrance examination, and lastly State Commission could not direct the petitioner to declare the result of the complainant within two months as the complainant has not written his dissertation. We have heard the arguments and perused the material on record. First point raised has been very ably dealt in by the State Commission and we are in full agreement with them that the complainant is a consumer. On the second point no documents or material has been produced to rebut the point made in the complaint and held to be correct by the State Commission that qualification of having passed the entrance test in 1991 had a validity of three years. What has been brought on record by the petitioner is Rules of 1993-94, whereas we are concerned with the year 1991-92. Again, it is only in the new rules that a minimum figure of five has been shown to be the number of students to start a class - what was the status/rules on the subject for the valid period i.e. 1991-92, no material has been brought on record in support of their contention. The third point is the crux of the problem. It is not disputed that the complainant has passed the entrance examination for being registered for M. Phil in 1991 following which a synopsis on the topic was submitted in June, 1993, corrections in the synopsis are sought in April, 1994. Precious two years of one''s life are attempted to be wasted and in the meanwhile rules are changed to the detriment of the complainant and he is debarred on that ground. We see nothing on record what transpired for whole of 1992. Complainant had qualified in the entrance examination in 1991. Only episode of 1993 is to ask the complainant to submit synopsis, which is submitted in June, 1993 and again the petitioner, goes in hibernation. It is this unexplained delay which is at the root of ultimate deficiency in service. It is interesting to note that till March, 1995 he is not told of the necessity to retake the entrance examination. To us this appears to be an afterthought or late awakening or worse ''could not care-less'' attitude of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot escape its responsibility of being deficient in rendering service to the complainant. However on the last point we are in agreement with the petitioner that in the absence of dissertation the petitioner cannot be directed to declare the result. In the circumstances, we modify that direction and direct the petitioner to register the complainant for M. Phil Degree and take-up follow up action as per rules on the subject. Only to this extent the Revision Petition is allowed. Cost of this litigation is fixed at Rs. 5,000/- to be payable by the petitioner to complainant.