TILAK RAJ OF CHANDIGARH Vs. HARYANA SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD BHIWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the imparting of education to its citizens a sovereign regal function of the State? If not then is such education (when imparted for consideration) a "service" within the meaning of Clause (o) of sub-Section 1 of Sec.2 of the Consumer Protection Act? If so would the conduct of examination by a School Board for a prescribed fee be equally a service aforesaid? This is the trilogy of significant thresh hold questions in this case, apart from the merits thereof.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the issues aforesaid lie within a narrow compass. The Haryana School Education Board as its name indicates conducts the Matriculation examination within the State and candidates are allowed to take the same on compliance of the requisite formalities including the payment of a fee prescribed therefore. More than a decade ago the complainant enrolled as a private candidate to appear in the Matriculation examination to be conducted in March, 1981 and was allotted Roll No.615347. He sat for the said examination at his centre in Chandigarh and the result thereof was published in the official Gazette later. To the chargin of the complainant, his result was described therein as R. L. (Result Later) and (Eligibility) in Annexure C-1 which is a extract therefrom. The complainant who at the material time was a raw youth of 17 years of age ran from pillar to post in trying to get his result officially declared and notified, but to no avail, though he was unofficially informed that he infact had cleared the Matriculation examination. Apart from innumerable verbal requests and enquiries, the complainant made several written representations for expediting the declaration of his result by the Haryana School Education Board (hereinafter called the Board) copies whereof are Annexure C-2. Inordinate delay having occured the Complainant even got the matter highlighted by publication of news Items in the press namely the Dainik Tribune and The Tribune on 24th of November, 1990 and 27th of November, 1990 (Copies thereof being Annexure C-3 and C-4 ). However, even this elicited no response from the Board.

(3.) Having exhausted all other remedies the present complaint has been preferred. It is averred therein that the Board rendered "services" within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act (here- inafter called the Act) and because of the grave deficiency therein of not declaring and publishing his result for more than a decade an irreparable harm has ensued to the complainant. It is the case that all his dreams of rising intellectually and materially in life have been snuffed out by the action of the opposite party and he has been condemned for the result of his life to menial jobs and is now working as a petty car driver. In sum he has claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. five lacs for the inadequacy and deficiency of the "service" provided by the opposite-party.