Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President— Whether Section 27 of the Maharshi Dayanand University Act provides a blanket immunity to the University itself against all legal proceedings including those under the Consumer Protection Act is one of the significant issues arising in this case.

2. The appellant University, Rohtak has preferred the appeal against the order of the District Forum, Hisar awarding Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent Shukantla Chaudhary as compensation for publishing the result of the later with materially incorrect particulars.

3. The facts lie in a narrow compass and indeed are not in serious dispute. The complainant/respondent had appeared in the 1990B.(Part I) supplementary examination (conducted by the University) in the paper of Geography Vide Roll No. 41516. When the result was later declared on 4.2.1991 in the University Gazette, the particulars of the respondent against the aforesaid Roll Number were incorrectly recorded. Her own surname Chaudhary was omitted and instead of her father’s name Sh. Ram Phal More the name of Des Raj was printed and the marks 167 shown against her name were also incorrect. Aggrieved thereby the complaint was preferred on 8.2.1991 wherein the primal grievance was that this declaration of her result with materially wrong particulars was of no use or value for securing admission etc. in any Institution and otherwise caused great mental shock and inconvenience to her apart from financial loss. The correction of the result and awarding of compensation was thus prayed for.

4. In their reply the appellant University conceded all or most of the allegations. It was stated that through an oversight the particulars of the complainant namely the Surname and father’s name were printed wrongly. However, this clerical mistake was expeditiously rectified and her result was declared with correct particulars which were published vide notification No. 14, dated 19th of February, 1991. The fresh detailed marks card was also undertaken to be issued to her after she had returned the old one for which the complainant was being advised separately. The inconvenience caused to the complainant was regretted.

5. The District Forum has noticed that even though the University has tendered regrets, the complainant was adamant to relent on the ground that the officials of the University deliberately indulge in mal-practices by withholding or declaring incorrect result of young students as a modus- operandi. The District Forum took the view that the material errors and omission in the declaration of the complainant’s result were of a serious nature which could mar the career of a young student. Consequently, it awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- on pain of invoking Section 27 of the Act in the event of default in the payment thereof.

6. Mr. R.M. Hooda, the learned counsel for the appellant in a impassioned argument had first attempted to take shelter under Section 27 of the Maharshi Dayanand University Act. It was submitted that the said provision provided complete immunity to the University including any redress being granted under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act).

7. We regret our inability to agreed to the aforesaid submission. Section 27 of the University Act aforementioned is in the terms following :—

“No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against any officer or employee of the University for anything which is in goodfaith done or intended to be done in pursuance of any provision of this Act the statutes or ordinance.”

8. Even a plain reading of the aforesaid provision would show that it is intended to safeguard the interests of the Officers or employees of the University for acts done in the course of their duty in goodfaith. It is not and cannot provide any blanket or absolute bar against any suit or legal proceedings against the University itself. Herein the complaint and proceedings have been preferred not against any particular Officer or employee of the Univers