Haryana School Education Board vs Tilak Raj
1992 Latest Caselaw 363 Del

JUDGMENT

B.S. Yadav, J.

(1) The appellant. Board of School Education, Haryana (for short the Board) conducts Middle and Matriculation Examinations within the State of Haryana. The respondent herein appeared in the Matriculation Examination held in March, 1981 and was allotted Roll No. 615347. The result thereof was published in the official Gazette later on. To the charging of the respondent complainant, his result was described therein as R.L. (Result Later) and E (Eligibility).

(2) According to the complainant, he ran from pillar to post trying to get his result declared but to no avail. He also made written representations to the Board requesting them to expedite his case and release his result but those also bore no fruit. In January, 1991, he filed a complaint before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh claiming Rs. 5,00,000.00 as compensation for the inadequacy of and the shortcomings in the 'service' rendered by the Board. His contention was that had the respondent declared his result, he could have continued his education and would now be holding a decent job.

(3) In the counter filed by the Board through its .Secretary a preliminary objection to maintainability of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was taken. It was averred that the Board only conducts Middle and Matriculation Examinations for prescribed fees, which according to them, are nominal charges to partly meet the expenses for conducting the examinations for prescribed fees, which according to them, are nominal charges to partly meet the expenses for conducting the examinations and they do not render any 'service' for any consideration nor the complainant is a 'consumer' as he cannot be said to have hired a service for consideration.

(4) On merits the Board pleaded that the complainant had appeared as a private candidate in the Matriculation Examination held in March, 1981. He did not attach any documentary proof of his date of birth with the examination form as required under the Rules. He was provisionally allowed to sit in the said Examination subject to his submission of proof regarding his date of birth. The complainant took the examination but failed to submit the proof about his date of birth even after the conclusion of the Examination and accordingly his result was withheld. The complainant either contacted the Board nor has submitted any proof of his date of birth till today. The complainant cannot agitate the matter at such a belated stage and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

(5) The complaint filed replication in which he controverter the allegations of the board and alleged that he had attached his 'School Leaving Certificate' in original with his examination form as required by the Board and in it the date of birth was mentioned. A copy of said certificate was filed along with the replication. We do not consider it necessary to go into the merits of the case as the complaint appears to be a stale one and is liable to be dismissed on the ground. The complainant sat in the Matriculation Examination held in March, 1981. The result must have been declared a couple of months thereafter in which his result was withheld with the remark 'R.L.' (Result Later). The complaint was filed after about a decade of the declaration of the result. The learned counsel for the complainant respondent argued that the complainant was contacting the officials of the Board and also wrote letters to the Board. The copies produced are of letters dated 30.5.1990 and 19.10.1990. In the letter there is mention of two other letters dated 10.6.1990 and 11.8,1990. To a pointed question put to the counsel for the complainant-respondent by this Commission, he admitted that his client did not write any letter to the Board prior to 1990 but stressed that the complainant had been making oral requests to the Board to declare his result. Such a contention cannot be believed. When the complainant did not get any proper reply from the Board to his oral requests for a couple of years. It is unthinkable that he would go on making oral requests and would not have given a written notice to the Board.

(6) Photostat copy of the School Leaving Certificate was produced by the complainant before the State Commission. If it was obtained by him for sending it to the Board then he must have sent it by ordinary or registered post. As noticed earlier, it has been admitted on behalf of the complainant respondent that before 1990, he did not write anything to the board. Hence, the contention of the complainant that he had been making oral requests is difficult to be believed.

(7) If the complainant had contacted the Board, he must have been told that proof of his date of birth was required before his result could be declared. He would have at once obtained another School Leaving Certificate and produced it before the Board. In such circumstances, nobody insists that such certificate containing his date of birth was attached with form for admission to the examination and the Office of the Board has lost/misplaced it.

(8) It is not the contention of the complainant that his admission to the Examination was not provisional. He has not produced his roll number chit to show that his admission to the Examination was not provisional as contended by the Board.

(9) About the Stand taken by the Board in the counter, the State Commission has remarked. "THE stand now sought to be taken on behalf of the Board is thus not on any solid basis of any existing documentary record. The verification of the affidavit of the Secretary of the Board is indeed deeply tell-tale. It Slates that the contents of the affidavit are true and correct to his knowledge based on official record and nothing has been kept concealed therein. This affidavit loses all significance when it has been categorically affirmed therein itself that all the relevant record has in fact been destroyed seven years earlier and consequently any other representations and letters sent by the complainant were filed in the absence of any linkage and were thus untraceable. The very bottom is thus knocked out from the stand in defense. The averments in the only evidence on behalf of the opposite party namely the affidavit of the Secretary is thus patently conjectures and surmises and has consequently to be taken with a pinch of salt. The end result is that at the very threshold, there is no firm, factual or documentary rebuttal of the complainant's case."

(10) The question of linkage of any representation or letter of the complainant- respondent with his record does not arise as according to him, he had not written any letter to the Board prior to 1990.

(11) At the time of arguments, Shri Atreya, counsel for the appellant stated that the tabulated result in respect of the Matriculation Examination held in March, 1981 was with him. If the complainant had taken the trouble of sending proof of his date of birth to the Board, his result could have been declared. Without sending such proof, required by the Board, the complainant cannot ask the Board, after about a decade, that his result be declared.

(12) In view of above observations, we do not think it necessary to go into the question if the Board is rendering any 'service' as complained by Section 2(l)(0) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by merely holding the Middle and Matriculation Examinations. Hence, we set aside the finding of the State Commission on that point and keep that question open.

(13) For the reasons given above, we accept the present appeal, set aside the Order of the State Commission and dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.