Parveen Rani                                      -- Petitioner 
                Vs.
Punjab School Education Board & Anr. -- Respondent

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

PER MR. B.K.TAIMNI, MEMBER :-

       Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum. Complaint was that the complainant had written examination for 10+2 in 1992 but she was never given the marksheet or the certificate. When repeated requests and visits to the Respondent's office bore no fruit, a complaint was filed before the District Forum who after hearing the parties, dismissed the complaint and held the complainant to be not a 'consumer' within its meaning under CP Act. An appeal filed before the State Commission met the same fate on the same gounds, hence this Revision Petition.

       We heard the parties and perused the material on record. It is not disputed that the complainant had written the examination in 1992. Mark sheet and certificate allegedly were not received by the Petitioner. Respondent has by now got both the mark sheet as well as the certificate. Complainant has failed to show us any loss sustained by her on account of delayed result of these testimonials. Prayer before us now is to grant compensation for deficiency in service by way of delay of 8 years in supplying the certificate which was supplied only in the year 2000. To meet the basic point of law, i.e., the grounds on which both the District Forum and the State Commission dismissed the complaint and the appeal, the Petitioner wishes to rely upon the judgement passed in the case of Ravinder Singh vs. Maharashi Dayanand University (1)1997 CP 5 Vol. III P.36 (MC) and judgements of AP and Punjab State Commission, where services rendered in similar circumstances, the complainant was held to be a consumer. Suffice here to say that the Petitioner wishes to support her case on the citation of the National Commission (supra) which is based on a minority judgement; majority judgement was what has been hald by District Forum and affirmed by State Commission.

        In the case of Unnikrishnan vs. State of A.P. 1993 (1) SCC 645, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

      "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 hereafter. 

      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 direction cannot be deemed to be too much.

     Education has never been commerce in this country. Making it one is opposed to the ethos and traditions and sensibilities of this nation. The argument to the contrary has an unholy ring to it. Imparting of education has never been treated as a trade or business in this country since time immemorial. It has been treated as a religious duty."

     In a catina of judgements, this Commission has expressed the same view - latest being the case of Chairman, Board of Examination, Madras vs. Mohideen Abdul Kader, II(1997) CPJ 49 (NC) wherein this Commission held :

       "What this Commission has decided in earlier cases is that a University or the Board in conducting public examination, evaluating answer papers, announcing the results thereof and thereafter conducting re-checking of the marks of any candidate on the application made by the concerned candidate is not performing any service for hire and there is no arrangement of hiring of any service involved in such a situation as contemplated by Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. A candidate who appears for the examination cannot be regarded as a person who had hired or availed of the services of the University or Board for consideration."

       In view of above, we see no merit in the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner as she is not a consumer within its meaning under CPA -1986, as consistently held by us. This Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.