KARANVIR SINGH Vs. THE PRINCIPAL CONTINENTAL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY AND ORS.
LAWS(P&H)-2016-1-222
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on January 20,2016

Karanvir Singh Appellant
VERSUS
The Principal Continental Institute Of Engineering And Technology And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) The petitioner seeks return of the original certificates and for payment of refund of fee amounting to Rs. 45,200/ - and for compensation of Rs. 2 lacs and other misc. expenses + Rs. 87,200/ - incurred on books, travelling etc. apart from another sum of Rs. 4 lacs due to lapse and negligence on the part of the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that he has lost one precious academic year and therefore, he is entitled for the said amount. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was admitted in B.Tech. in session 2013 -14 in the stream of Civil Engineering in the month of August 2013 in the respondent No. 1 -college which is affiliated to respondents No. 2 and 3 -university. He deposited the above said fee in two installments on 16.8.2013 and 22.8.2013 and it was shown that he was a student of Civil Engineering branch. It is his case that for the lapse on the part of respondent No. 1 -college he was registered with respondent -University in Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE) in which he had never taken admission. Respondent No. 1 -college wrote a letter on 17.9.2013 realising its mistake and followed it up on 27.9.2013 (Annexure P/3) but the university did not act on the same. The petitioner was allowed to attend the classes of B.Tech. in Civil Engineering and thereafter the respondent No. 1 -college gave him no objection certificate dated 1.10.2013 (Annexure P./4) to approach the University for redressal of his grievance. The petitioner visited the University on 12.11.2013 and was told that correction in the portal had not been made and he could appear either for examination of ECE or to take admission in next year in Civil Engineering. Accordingly, the petitioner had represented to Dr. Rajnish Arora, on 15.11.2013 (Annexure P/5). A legal notice was also served on 16.11.2013 (Annexure P/6) but no action was taken. Since the examinations were to start w.e.f. 22.11.2013 and correction was not made he was not issued roll number. Thus he lost one year and was entitled to return of the amount of fee along with compensation. The respondent No. 1 -college refused to return his original certificates and to refund fee. He had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and the appeal was also dismissed on 22.7.2014 on the same account. Resultantly the present writ petition was filed.
(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it is admitted that the admission was taken in B.Tech. in Civil Engineering but the portal site maintained by the University had shown the admission in the Electronics and Communication Engineering. The error was brought to the notice of office of respondent -university on 17.9.2013 for transferring the admission which was followed up by letter dated 27.9.2013 (Annexure P/3). The correction was to be done by the office of University which was delayed and the correction was only allowed on 28.11.2013. The petitioner had himself not appeared in the examination and certificates had remained in the safe custody of respondent No. 1 -college and the petitioner has never visited the office of respondent No. 1 -college to collect the same even though notice had been put on the notice board.
(3.) Respondents No. 2 and 3 -university on the other hand took the plea that the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 5 in the Electronics and Communication Engineering (lateral entry) course as per information down loaded from the University Website as on 10.9.2013 (Annexure R -2/1). The University has not had not shown his name in the different branch and the branch was duly changed on 28.11.2013 and therefore, it was wrong that the student was admitted in the Civil Engineering Course. It was respondent No. 1 -college who had wrongly registered the petitioner and grievance was also with respondent No. 1 -College regarding refund of fee. The original certificate had to be returned by respondent No. 1 -college.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.