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 w