Maharshi Dayanand University vs Surjeet Kaur

2. The dispute arose when the respondent felt aggrieved by the action of the appellant refusing to confer the degree of B.Ed. on her. The background of the facts giving rise to the case was that the respondent took admission in the academic session of 1994-95 as a regular student to pursue the course of M.A. in Political Science from Government College, Gurgaon. The respondent appeared in the Part-II Examination in May, 1995 as a regular candidate and in the same academic session of 1994-95 she also applied for admission in the B.Ed. (correspondence course) without disclosing the fact that she was already pursuing the regular course of M.A. in Political Science. The University at the time of preparation of the results of M.A. in Political Science discovered that the respondent had been pursuing her B.Ed. course in violation of Clause 17(b) of the General Rules of Examination and 2 accordingly the respondent was informed that in view of the aforesaid rules she should exercise her option to choose anyone of the courses.

3. The respondent voluntarily and consciously opted for pursuing her course of M.A. in Political Science and forewent her B.Ed. Degree course.

5. The respondent applied under the said Notification for appearing in B.Ed. examination and succeeded in appearing in the examinations and also passed the same. The Appellant- University refused to confer the degree of B.Ed. on the 3 respondent. Aggrieved, the respondent approached the District Forum in the year 2000 praying for the relief which has now been ultimately awarded in the impugned order of National Commission. The District Forum passed an order in favour of the respondent vide judgment and order dated 24.9.2004 and directed the appellant to issue the B.Ed. degree and also award Rs.1,000/- as compensation to the respondent. This order was passed by the District Forum despite a specific objection taken by the appellant that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint and award any such relief.

6. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the State Commission and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 19.10.2005. The judgment of the District Forum was set aside holding that the District Forum should not have entertained the complaint. The respondent aggrieved by the order of the State Commission preferred a revision under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to `Act 1986') before the National Commission which has been allowed by way of the impugned order. The National 4 Commission took notice of the issue relating to the entertaining of the complaint and the jurisdiction of the District Forum to hear the same. The National Commission relying on its larger Bench judgment in F.A. No.643 of 1994 dated 31.5.2001 held that imparting of education by the educational institutions for consideration falls within the ambit of service as defined under the Act and further relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa & Ors. AIR 1978 SC 548 held that in view of the ratio of the said decision and the peculiar facts of the case, the respondent was entitled for the relief claimed and accordingly the appellant was directed to issue the B.Ed. degree.

21. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order of the District Forum and the National Commission are set aside. No costs.