PRINCIPAL, VELAGUPUDI RAMAKRISHNA SIDDHARTHA ENGINEERING COLLEGE KANUR Vs. G.THRILOCHAN HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals one filed by the aggrieved opposite party and the other by the unsatisfied complainant directed against the same order have been taken up for disposal by a common order.

(2.) The facts that led to filing these two appeals are briefly as follows:

(3.) The complainant before the District Forum succeeded in the EAMCET 1996 examination and scored rank no.14532. He was allotted seat in the opposite party college on the basis of his caste status as BC A. He claimed to have paid Rs.26,250/- and joined the first year B.Tech course, the classes for which appeared to have commenced with effect from 22-10-1996 whereas the complainant started attending classes four days later. While things stood thus on 25-12-1996 the Commissioner of Technical Education and Convener EAMCET examinations, Hyderabad issued a memo to the complainant through the opposite party alleging that the complainant obtained admission by misrepresenting himself to be belonging to BC A while in fact he belonged to BC D category and calling upon him to give his explanation before 2-1-1997. The complainant claimed to have submitted a detailed explanation calculated to exonerate himself from the imputation. The District Social Welfare Officer was appointed as the Enquiry Officer into the matter. The complainant claimed to have participated in the enquiry on 25-2-1997 and ultimately, he was given the impression that the final orders would be communicated to him in March, 1997. In view of these circumstances, the complainant claimed to have approached the opposite party seeking permission to attend to the classes but in vain. This prevention according to him was contrary to the G.O.Rt.No.97/SW(J1) dated 10-5-1995 which came to be issued relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court and also the instructions of the Special Commissioner dated 3-3-1997. Ultimately the Commissioner Backward Classes Welfare through his proceedings dt.2-4-1997 informed to the convener that the complainant was nevertheless entitled to be treated as belonging to Yellapu caste which falls also under the category of BC-A. Thus the complainant submitted that he was totally absolved of any liability in pursuance of the charge made against him. It is the case of the complainant in so far as it related to this consumer dispute that the opposite party prevented him from attending the classes all through the pendency of the proceedings entailing shortage in attendance in as much as he scored only 42% as also shortage in sessional marks as he was prevented from appearing in sessional examinations 1 and 2. As a result, he complained that he was detained and was obliged to repeat his first year B.Tech by paying the annual fees all over again. As a result of this misdeeds on the part of the opposite party, he not only lost precious one year of academic career but also suffered job loss as by the time he came out of the college in the year 2001, the job market became very competitive and in this view of the matter, the complainant filed the consumer dispute claiming compensation for all that loss he sustained on account of the illegal or unauthorized prevention from attending to the classes. The further inaction on the part of the opposite party to condone the shortage of attendance and also allow the complainant to sit in sessional examinations meant for belated admissions along with the candidates who were admitted late had also added to his misery. In this regard it seems the complainant approached the High court and the High court was pleased to order at the admission stage itself directing the Nagarjuna University to sympathetically consider the complainants application dated 8-7-1997 for condonation of shortage of attendance but the said university as also the opposite party were heedless constraining the complainant to moving a contempt application against the university only which was later came to be closed even on his own showing as the direction issued by the High Court was obviously not against the opposite party but was against the University which in turn pleaded successfully that the direction was duly complied with by passing an order though not in favour of the complainant.