IMPORTANT POINT
An educational institution while imparting education and /or holding examination does render a service and would be liable for compensation for deficiency in declaring result after a delay of 5-1/2 years of examination.

Bhanwar Singh, President –This complaint has been filed by Sri Kaushal Mani Tripathi for recovery of Rs.30,00,000 as compensation and for Rs.50,000 as damages. According to him he had passed M.Sc.1st Year(Maths) examination in the year 1998 with the Roll No.3376. He was permitted to appear in the M.Sc. IInd Year examination with the Roll No.39460 in the year 1999 by the Principal of Maharani Lal Kunwari Mahavidyalaya, Balrampur. He was declared ‘failed’ in the IInd Year examination and on his request he was permitted to appear in the back-paper examination of third paper (Dynamics & Hydrodynamics) held on 29.10.1999. However, the result of the back-paper examination was not declared for a long time. His repeated requests did not yield any result, and his written representations fell on the deaf years of the authorities of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University and the aforesaid Mahavidyalaya. Feeling aggrieved of the inaction of the opposite parties he invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 2113(MS) of 2004. The High Court had issued an order on 24.5.2004 directing the opposite parties to declare the result of the complainant but this mandatory direction of the High Court was taken very lightly by the opposite parties. As a consequence the complainant was obliged to prefer a contempt petition (Criminal Misc. case No. 2201C of 2004. In that proceeding the Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. the Registrar of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, Faizabad was asked to appear before the Court and show cause why action be not taken against him. However in the mean time the result of the complainant’s back-paper was declared on 11.4.2004. With this development the contempt petition was finally dismissed by the High Court vide its order dated 9.9.2005 but in the whole process of pursuing his cause the complainant’s career was completely blocked and ruined. On account of the non declaration of the result, the complainant could not continue his academic career in Mathematics and was compelled to wander here and there. In case of the result having been declared in time he could have been appointed as a Lecturer in some Intermediate College but the non declaration of the result was a serious impediment in his way. Also he could not get a Government service at the appropriate age of 23-24 years. Had he been engaged in some Government job he would have served for a period ranging 30 to 34 years and during this period he would have easily earned Rs. 30,00,000 or so. Obviously, thus due to non-declaration of the result he suffered lot of mental pain, agony and distress. He has, thus, claimed Rs.30,00,000 as compensation and Rs.50,000 as litigation costs of filing this complaint, a writ petition and contempt proceeding etc.

2. The opposite parties No.1 i.e. the Vice Chancellor, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, Faizabad and No.2 the Registrar of the said University filed their joint written statement asserting therein that the issue raised by the complainant was not cognizable by a Consumer forum; nor the complainant could get any relief from the High Court. The complainant’s mark sheet has been issued to him on 31.3.2005 where after he had no cause of action to file a complaint for damages or compensation. As a matter of fact the complainant is misusing and abusing the process of law since the complainant obtained zero marks in the paper Functional Analysis M.Sc. Final Maths examination and was declared ‘Failed’. Moreover, the Roll No. 39460 of the complainant was not clearly legible on the attendance sheet of the concerned paper and also on his answer book and this created lot of confusion. A thorough vigilance enquiry was conducted which took considerable time to investigate. The principal of the college opposite party No.3 was also examined during the course of vigilance enquiry and his answer too was evasive. However, in the interest of the complainant’s career he was given optimum m