State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Institution Of Engineers (India) vs Sri Kaushal Kumar Singh on 12 March, 2013
DRAFT State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO.FA/115/2012 (Arising out of order dated 22/02/12 in Case No.318/2009 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I) DATE OF FILING:21/03/12 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:12/03/13 APPELLANT : The Institution of Engineers ( India) 8, Gokhale Road Kolkata-700 020 RESPONDENT : Sri Kaushal Kumar Singh Hind Motor Security Barrack No.1, Hind Motor Hooghly-712 233 BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas Mukherjee President HONBLE MEMBER : Sri S. Coari HONBLE MEMBER : Smt. M. Roy FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. D. Ghosal Ld. Advocate Mr. A. K. Sil Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. N. M. Mookherjee Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE SRI KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in case no.318 of 2009 allowing the complaint case and directing the OP to take up the matter with the Human Resource Department, Government of India or appropriate authority with the prayer for allowing the complainant to clear the unsuccessful paper by affording him a chance in relaxation of normal rules as a special case within nine months.
The case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that he was enrolled as technician in The Institution of Engineers ( India), that is, the OP on 13/03/90 vide Membership No.T-088175-2 and Registration No.6985 RC against consideration. The OP is an educational institution and was granted Royal Charter by His Majesty, the King Emperor George Vth in the year 1935, to promote the general advancement of engineering, science and their application in India and to facilitate the exchange of information and ideas on those subjects amongst the members of and persons attached to the institution and otherwise.
The Diploma Engineering Course comprise of section A and section B and is recognized as equivalent to a Degree in Engineering by the Government of India and also almost of the State Governments.
The petitioner cleared section A course in Mechanical Engineering in the year 1999 and the result thereof was declared on 30/09/99. There was no time limit prescribed for clearing section A and section B examination of Mechanical Engineering. A member was required to appear in the examination for clearing ten subjects in each course A and B. The new rule and new syllabus were brought into force by the OP from the summer 2005 examination. According to the new rule there was a time limit of six years for clearing section A examination and another six years for clearing section B examination.
Prior to the introduction of the aforesaid new rule, the petitioner had already completed and cleared section A examination and partly cleared section B examination. The new syllabus and the new rules could not, therefore, be made applicable by the OP in the case of the complainant. The complainant was entitled to complete his section B examination without any time limit as per old rules under which he was originally enrolled. In summer 2008 examination the complainant upon payment of the examination fee of Rs.1,200/- for each paper appeared for two remaining papers of section B under the old syllabi, Manufacturing Technology paper and Design of Machine Elements paper. The result of such examination was published on 15/09/08 and the petitioner obtained 50 marks in the paper Design of Machine Elements. The petitioner was awarded only 24 marks in the Manufacturing Technology paper. The petitioner again appeared for the Manufacturing Technology paper in winter 2008 upon payment of necessary fees. He was surprised to find that he was again awarded 24 marks in Manufacturing Technology and thus denied the Diploma of Mechanical Engineering. In the examination of winter 2006 the complainant secured 36 marks in the Manufacturing Technology paper. The complainant met the concerned officials of the OP and prayed for re-verification of the Manufacturing Technology paper, but to no effect. By the letter dated 22/04/09 the complainant intended to inspect the answer script pertaining to Manufacturing Technology paper for winter 2008 examination. He also issued legal notice dated 29/06/09 with the prayer to review the said answer script with an alternative prayer to allow the petitioner to sit for the winter 2009 examination on Manufacturing Technology paper.
The OP declined to permit inspection of the answer script. The OP has adopted arbitrary and illegal procedure in dealing with the complainant.
Under the circumstances, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum praying for an order allowing the complainant to inspect the answer script in respect of the manufacturing Technology paper of section B of winter 2008 examination; upon inspection, re-evaluation of the said paper by an expert examiner; in the event, the complainant be found to have secured less than 35 marks for the purpose of 50% aggregate in section B, to further direct the OP to allow the petitioner to sit for Manufacturing Technology paper of section B under the old rule and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
The Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that when the respondent got enrolled there was no time limit for passing the subjects under course A and course B. It is submitted that course A consisting of ten papers was cleared in the year 1999 and in respect of course B consisting of ten papers the respondent failed in Manufacturing Technology paper on all the occasions within the time limit fixed. It is submitted that the appellant is governed by their own rules under which the answer scripts would not be shown to the respondent for his perusal. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the Learned District Forum while passing the impugned judgment and order exceeded its jurisdiction and the respondent/complainant is not entitled to get any relief in the complaint case.
The Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that prior to the admission of the complainant there was no amendment.
It is submitted that he could not complete the course within six years and undertook to complete B course within two years. It is submitted that the appellant claimed information under the RTI Act and by way of reply it was stated that the provisions of RTI Act did not apply in the matter and as per rule the appellant could not be permitted to see answer script.
It is contended that the OP is governed by their own rules as it is not a statutory body. It is contended that the only remedy lies before the Consumer Forum, in as much as, writ petition will not lie as the appellant is a private body governed by their own rules.
The following decisions have been referred to by the parties:
(1) AIR 1986 Allahabad 251 [Ashwani Kumar Srivastava Vs. Institution of Engineers ( India), Calcutta & Anr.]; (2) AIR 1996 Calcutta 47 [Saikat Ghosh Vs. The Institution of Engineers ( India) & Ors.]; (3) SC Case No.FA 511/2010 (WB) decided on 20/01/12; (4) 2009-(SC1)-GJX-1264-SC [Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha]; (5) III (2006) CPJ 343 (NC) [Deputy Registrar (Colleges) & Anr. Vs. Ruchika Jain & Ors.].
We heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. Admittedly, the appellant is not a statutory body and it is governed by its own rules.
In Para 6 of the W.V. it has been averred that the complainant while applying for studentship of the institution in October, 1989 had given an undertaking that he would be governed by laws and regulations of the institution. In Para 7 of the W.V. it has been stated that the complainant had passed section A examination in summer 1999 and he was eligible to appear in section B examination in winter 2000 after completion of the project work of minimum one year duration. It has further been averred that the complainant appeared 17 times in all in section B examination and he could not clear Manufacturing Technology paper within time limit. It has been averred in Para 11 of the W.V. that under the recommendation of Ministry of Human Resource Department, New Delhi the unlimited time to pass in section A and section B examinations was discontinued. It is the contention of the appellant that the respondent having opted to clear remaining ten subjects under the old syllabi and having failed to pass Manufacturing Technology paper within the extended period of two years, is now stopped from challenging the rules of examination of the appellant.
Evidently, the respondent having failed to clear the Manufacturing Technology paper within the prescribed time limit cannot be given any further opportunity under the rules. The Learned District Forum was not justified in directing the OP to take up the matter with the Human Resource Department, Government of India to relax the normal rules for affording the complainant a chance to clear the unsuccessful paper since the inspection of answer script is not permissible under the rules of the appellant. The relief prayed for in the petition of complaint cannot be granted. We are of the considered view that the Learned District Forum was not justified in passing the impugned judgment and order. The respondent/complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
In the result, the appeal succeeds. We set aside the impugned judgment and order.
The petition of complaint is dismissed.
We make no order as to costs.
MEMBER(SC) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT