Ex-Sub. Sachida Nanda Sharma              ----      Appellant
                             Vs.
Chairman, CBSE                                    ----      Respondent

Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P.Wadhwa, President, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K.Mehera, Member, Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member, Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member

Per B.K.Taimni, Member

    Appellant was the Complainant before the State Commission where alleging deficiency on the part of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), he had filed a complaint which was dismissed on the grounds of maintainability and leaving it open to the Complainant to seek his remedy before a civil court.

     The facts of the case are that the Complainant's son appeared for class X examination conducted by the Respondent in March, 1991. The child wrote the examination but his result was not disclosed along with others. After protracted correspondence and personal visits to the Respondent office in Ajmer and Delhi, only in response to a legal notice issued to the Respondent, he was told that the child's examination result could not be declared for want of Internal Grades Certificate from the Principal of the School at Bareilly where the child was studying. Respondent was also told to intimate the name of school where the child was studying in order to get the internal grades. Respondent did not have it, as there was change of examination Centre from one region to another. Internal grades were finally obtained from the concerned school. Principal while informing of the grades also intimated that they had already intimated the same to the Respondent's Regional office in Ajmer in February, 1991. It was only in April/May, 1993, that the result of the Complainant's son was declared causing loss of two years of further studies of the complainant's son. It was also the Complainant's case that the same Roll Number 1199086 was issued to two students while the result of the other student was declared, this was not done in his case, which is a deficiency on the part of Respondent. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed by the Appellant before the State Commission who after hearing this petition dismissed the complaint as not being maintainable, hence this appeal.

     While arguing the case, the Appellant in person, stated that record is quite clear that for no fault of the child, the Respondent took two years to declare the result. All the facts narrated earlier were reiterated. It is his case that deficiency on the part of the Respondent is obvious on the face of it. The State Commission did not appreciate the full facts of the case, hence, that order be reviewed and set aside. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the Respondent argued that CBSE is not rendering any service as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In support of this he cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as Unni Krishnan vs. State of A.P. 1993(1)SCC 645, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

     "The fundamental purpose of education is the same at all times and in all places. It is to transfigure the human personality into a pattern of perfection through a synthetic process of the development of the body, the enrichment of the mind, the sublimation of the emotions and the illumination of the spirit. Education is a preparation for a living and for life, here and there. Today, the frontier of knowledge are enlarging with incredible swiftness. The foremost need to be satisfied by our education is therefore, the eradication of illiteracy, which persists in a depressing measure. Any effort taken in this time immemorial. It has been treated on a religious duty. It has been treated as activity".

      Our attention was also drawn towards the orders passed by this Commission in Revision Petition No.26 of 1993, Registrar, University of Madras vs. V.Murugesan. First Appeal No.245 of 1992, Registrar Evaluation, University of Karnataka vs. Mrs. Poornima G.Bhandari & Ors. First Appeal No.284 of 1992, Registrar, University of Bombay vs. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat. In all these it has been held that University does not render a service when it holds examination.

      We have seen the material on record and find that the grounds on which the State Commission held the Complaint not maintainable are precisely the above and for this relied upon the order of this Commission in Registrar, Evaluation, University of Karnataka vs. Mrs. Poornima G. Bhandari & Ors. The pith and substance of all these judgments is that the institutions holding examination are not rendering any service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hence, any concomitant - omission or commission, cannot be termed as deficiency. No authority or citation to the contrary has been shown/cited by the Appellant.

     In the light of the decisions taken on the subject, we cannot but agree with the reasoned order of the State Commission. We find no merit in the appeal and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.