State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dashmesh Public School vs Manjit Singh Son Of Sh. Pala Singh on 27 August, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1623 of 2010
Date of institution : 13.9.2010
Date of Decision : 27.8.2012
1. Dashmesh Public School, Talwandi Road, Faridkot through its
Principal Sh. Gurcharan Singh.
2. Sangat Sahib Bhai Pheru Sikh Educational Society, Faridkot through
its Director Sh. Jasbir Singh.
....Appellants.
Versus
1. Manjit Singh son of Sh. Pala Singh, resident of Near Mahatama
Gandhi Middle School, Nandeana Gate, Faridkot, Tehsil and District
Faridkot.
2. Madan Gopal son of Jani Ram, resident of Mohalla Khokhran,
Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
3. Narinder Singh Roop, Advocate, son of Sh. Harbhajan Singh, resident
of New Green Avenue, Street No. 4, Backside Dashmesh Dental
College, Chahal Road, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 22.7.2010 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Bathinda.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
For respondents No.1&3 : Ex.-parte.
For respondent No.2 : Sh. Pankaj Sahotra, Advocate for
Sh. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate
2nd Appeal
First Appeal No. 1658 of 2010
Date of institution : 20.9.2010
Madan Gopal son of Jani Ram, resident of Mohalla Khokhran, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. Dashmesh Public School, Talwandi Road, Faridkot through its Principal.
2. Sangat Sahib Bhai Pheru Sikh Educational Society, Faridkot through its President.
First Appeal No. 1623 of 2010 2
3. Manjit Singh son of Sh. Pala Singh, resident of Near Mahatama Gandhi Middle School, Nandeana Gate, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
4. Narinder Singh Roop, Advocate, son of Sh. Harbhajan Singh, resident of New Green Avenue, Street No. 4, Backside Dashmesh Dental College, Chahal Road, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 22.7.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda. Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Pankaj Sahotra, Advocate for Sh. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate For respondents No.1&2 : Sh. Ashish Gupta, Advocate For respondents No.3&4 : Ex.-parte PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER:
This order will dispose of two appeals i.e. First Appeal No. 1623 of 2010 (Dashmesh Public School & Anr. Vs. Manjit Singh & others) and First Appeal No. 1658 of 2010 (Madan Gopal Vs. Dashmesh Public School and others). Both the appeals are against the impugned order dated 22.7.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda(in short the "District Forum") and are being disposed off in a single order as in both the appeals the facts, dispute and the question of law involved is the same. The facts are taken from 'First Appeal No. 1623 of 2010' and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents pleaded that their wards appeared in the matriculation examination through the appellants as regular students of the school run by appellant No. 2 and secured 78.6% marks by Paramdeep Kaur, 73% by Sunil Arora and 69.4% by Roopambir Kaur in the exams. The wards were to be promoted automatically as regular students in 10+1 standard as per rules but they were not promoted by the appellants on the ground that they have not secured 80% marks to take the admission in 10+1 standard and admission First Appeal No. 1623 of 2010 3 was refused to the wards of the respondents but they had given the admission to the student of other schools in 10+1 standard. The appellants had denied the admission to the wards of the respondents illegally and against the rules when they were the regular students of the appellants.
Complaint was filed on the ground that the appellants were deficient in service and prayed that direction may be issued to the appellants to allow the wards of the respondents to sit in 10+1 class being regular students and also for readmission if their names have been struck off, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- per ward may be granted on account of loss of study of the students, mental tension and harassment as well as Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, the appellants replied and pleaded that the respondents had made the demand of migration certificates and detailed marks of their wards from the appellants as they were interested to take admission in some other institute/school. There was no restriction ever imposed by the CBSE for admission of the students in 10+1 standard, who had passed matriculation examination from any other Educational Board in India. All the students were admitted in the school as per the rules and regulations. The applications were duly called by the appellant from the students for admission in 10+1 class and admission in 10+1 class was given as per the merit list. The stand of the appellants was that the school has limited seats and the students who got 90% or more marks in matriculation examination were admitted in 10+1 standard as per the merit list. Admissions have been given purely on merit basis and no preference can be given to any student. The act of the appellants was as per rules and there was no fault on the part of the appellants. All other allegations were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed. First Appeal No. 1623 of 2010 4
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the complaint and passed the following order:-
"Hence, this complaint is accepted with the view to stop unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant Nos. 1 & 3 have failed to pursue their complaints. Therefore, the compensation and cost of Rs. 20,000/- will be paid only to complainant No. 2 by the opposite parties."
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, First Appeal No. 1623 of 2010 was filed by Dashmesh Public School for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.7.2010 and First Appeal No. 1658 of 2010 was filed by Madan Gopal father of Sahil Arora for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Forum.
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
7. The appeal was filed by the appellants on the grounds that no permission was sought from the District Forum for filing the complaint by the respondents under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act as only one complaint was filed by the respondents having the same interest, the order of the District Forum is against Clause 1.6 of the C.B.S.E. which deals with the Admission to 10+1 standard, the respondents do not fall under the definition of 'consumer', imparting education does not fall within the ambit of 'Consumer Protection Act', the order of the District Forum is against the evidence and law, as such, the order of the District Forum is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set-aside. First Appeal No. 1623 of 2010 5
8. On the other hand, respondent No.2-Madan Gopal filed First Appeal No. 1658 of 2010 for the enhancement of the compensation in the interest of justice.
9. We have perused the order dated 20.8.2009 by which the application of the respondents for issuance of interim direction to the appellants to allow the wards of the respondents to sit in 10+1 class as regular students till the decision of the complaint was allowed. The District Forum after hearing the parties, disposed off the application dated 16.7.2009 filed by the respondents by passing the following interim order:-
"12. In view of these facts and circumstances the application is accepted. Accordingly the opposite parties are directed to give provisional admission or if they think fit give permanent admission to the wards of the complainants within the period of 15 days from today on depositing of all the necessary charges, failing which the complainants shall be at liberty to get complied with these orders in accordance with law. However this order shall have no effect on the decision of the case on merits."
10. To comply with the interim order of the District Forum as pleaded in para No. 7 of the grounds of appeal that the wards of the respondents were called to get admission and also issued notice dated 3.9.2009 to get the admission in terms of the interim order of the District Forum but the wards of respondents No. 1 & 3 did not come and only ward of respondent No. 2 came and he was admitted. The wards of respondents No. 1 & 3 had taken the admission in some other schools as they were not interested to take the admission in the school of the appellants. The complaint of respondents No. 1 & 3 was dismissed as they did not pursue the same.
11. In the present complaint, we have to decide whether a regular student of the School is entitled for the admission in the higher class after passing the exam or not?
First Appeal No. 1623 of 2010 6
12. There is no dispute between the parties that Sahil Arora was the student of the appellants since Nursery and he had passed the matriculation exam from the school of the appellants as a regular student and scored 73% marks.
13. Sahil Arora applied for the admission in 10+1 standard with the appellants but the admission was refused on the ground that his name was not in the merit list of those students, who secured more than 80 marks in the matric exam whereas the marks of Sahil Arora were only 73%.
14. We have gone through the guidelines which were furnished by Assistant Solicitor General of India P. Wilson on April 26th for the admission by C.B.S.E. Schools for their own class 10 students. The relevant portion of the same is as follows:-
"Court Directive to CBSE Schools on Class XI Admissions Making it clear that Class XI should be treated as a continuation of the original admission done by the school, the guidelines stipulate that no admission tests be conducted by schools for their own students. Students from other schools should be considered for admission only after accommodating their own students. Admission of other school students could be on the basis of the Class X Board examinations or by a new admission test, it said. The guidelines also wanted the schools to display all details relevant to admission of students in Class XI, such as the total number of vacancies, admission procedure in order to ensure transparency.
The First Bench, commending the guidelines, also directed the authorities to communicate them to all CBSE Schools along with a copy of the present order, Besides displaying the details on the notice board, the schools could upload them on their website, if any, the Judges said. On their part, the schools should communicate the information to the parents of students in Class X, along with a copy of this order, alongwith with a copy of this order within two weeks, they said. On their part, the schools should communicate the information to the parents of students in Class X, along with a copy of this order, within two weeks, they said.First Appeal No. 1623 of 2010 7
It all began with a public interest litigation petition filled by convenor of Concerned Citizen's Committee S. Anandalakshmy, who contended that several CBSE schools were weeding out Class X students of their own schools."
15. On the other hand, the appellants had tendered into evidence Senior School Curriculum, 2000 (Ex. R-2) issued by C.B.S.E., Delhi and Clause 1.6 : Specific Requirements, which is reproduced:-
"1.6 Admission : Specific Requirements Admission to Class XI in a school shall be open only to such a student who has passed:-
(a) Secondary School Examination (Class X Examination) conducted by this Board; or
(b) An equivalent examination conducted by any other recognised Board of Secondary Education/Indian University and recognised by this Board as equivalent to its Secondary School Examination."
16. From the perusal of the guidelines and Court directives to C.B.S.E. Schools to Class 11th admissions, it is clear that the appellants had violated the said guidelines by not giving the admission in 10+1 standard to Sahil Arora, who was the regular student of the appellants' school from Nursery and by not treating his admission in Class 10+1 as a continuation of the original admission. Even it is also not pleaded by the appellants in their reply that they had also complied with the directions issued to the C.B.S.E. Schools for admission in 10+1 standard. Nowhere it is pleaded that they had displayed or communicated the details to the parents of the students in Class 10th alongwith a copy of the order within two weeks as ordered by the Hon'ble Court or that they displayed the details of the order on the Notice Board. Nor did they upload the same on their website.
17. As per Regulation No. 1.6 of the Curriculum 2009, the students who had passed Class 10th examination conducted by Secondary First Appeal No. 1623 of 2010 8 School of Examination or any other recognized Board of Secondary Education/Indian University or recognized by the C.B.S.E. equivalent to its Secondary School Examination; eligible to take admission in 10+1 standard/Class. In the said curriculum it is not mentioned anywhere that their own 10th class student will be treated as fresh candidate for admission to 10+1 standard and that he will be issued Transfer Certificate before re- admitting him in Class 10+1 in the same school.
18. So from the above Court directives to C.B.S.E. Schools on 11th class admissions, it is proved beyond any doubt that the appellants had violated the directives of the Hon'ble Court deliberately when the same were very much in their knowledge and illegally refused admission to their regular students in 10+1 standard/Class. It is also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "The Principal, Cambridge School and Another versus Ms. Payal Gupta and others", 1995 (2) CPC 311 in para No. 8 as follows:-
"8. Now coming to the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 145 which is the sheet anchor of the appellant's case, we do not find anything in the said rule which contemplates or requires fresh or re-admission of a student in the same school after he passes an examination from the said school. That the class X examination is public examination does not make any difference. The question of an admission test or the result in a particular class or school for purposes of admission would arise only if a student of one institution goes for admission in some other institution. The question of admission test on the basis of result in a particular class will not be taken into account in the case of a student of the same school who passes the public examination. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to produce or show any provision in the Act or the Rules which specifically contemplates that re-admission or fresh admission is necessary to every next higher class after a student passes out a particular class nor he could show any provision of law authorizing the head of an educational institution to prescribe a cut off level of marks for continuance of further studies in higher class in the same school by a student who passes a public examination."First Appeal No. 1623 of 2010 9
19. We have also perused an application dated 29.1.2010, which was moved by respondent No. 2 Sh. Madan Gopal father of Sahil Arora. In paras No. 2 and 3 of the application it was pleaded that the official of appellant No. 1 were threatening to the applicant/respondent No. 2 to withdraw the complaint otherwise his son, shall not be allowed to succeed and will be failed, as such, he was not interested to continue the study of his son in the school of the appellants due to the above threats and wanted to get School Leaving Certificate so that his son could study peacefully without any pressure or fear.
20. So from the application it is also proved beyond any doubt that the appellants were adamant to compel the student to leave the school under such circumstances, which was not fair on their part. The conduct of the appellants is condemnable.
21. The appellants have not produced any evidence to prove how the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. It was also not denied by the appellants that the warden/guardian of respondent No. 2 was paying the requisite fee as well as other funds as per the rules of the School. As such, the version of the appellants that the complaint was not maintainable and the complainant No. 2/respondent No. 2 was not the 'consumer' of the appellants is not correct. It is evident that the School was not imparting education to the students without charging any fee and funds.
22. The order of the District Forum is very exhaustive and based on the facts, evidence and law and there is no infirmity in the same. The appeal of the appellants, being without any merit, is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-, to be paid to respondent No.2-Madan Gopal by the appellants within one month from the receipt of copy of the order. First Appeal No. 1623 of 2010 10
23. The impugned order dated 22.7.2010 of the District Forum, Bathinda is affirmed and upheld.
First Appeal No. 1658 of 2010
24. We have also perused the grounds of appeal for the enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Forum but no cogent reasons pleaded in the grounds of appeal for the enhancement of the compensation. It seems that the present appeal is filed by the appellant only as a counter-blast of the appeal filed by the respondents-Dashmesh Public School etc.. As such, First Appeal No. 1658 of 2010 of Madan Gopal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
25. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 21.8.2012 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
26. The appellants of F.A. No. 1623 of 2010 had deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 10,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 2-Madan Gopal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
27. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to respondent No. 2-Madan Gopal within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
28. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
29. Copy of this order be placed on First Appeal No. 1658 of 2010 (Madan Gopal Vs. Dashmesh Public School and others).
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
August 27, 2012. (Baldev Singh Sekhon)
as Member
First Appeal No. 1623 of 2010 11