R G KAUSHIK Vs. SACHIV DIVL OFFICE MADHAMIK SHIKSHA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was fixed today for preliminary hearing but no one was present on behalf of the appellant inspite of the notice of 16.4.1998. Previously this appeal was listed for 16.4.1998 but adjourned for today (27.8.1998 ).

(2.) We have perused the impugned order dated 23.9.1997 passed by District Forum, Haridwar in Complaint Case No.106 of 1995 and the memo of appeal. The last para which is a concluding one of the impugned order dated 22.9.1997 reveals that the complainant Sri R. G. Kaushik has moved a complaint against the Madhamik Shiksha Parishad, Meerut for direction to declare the result which was with- held by the opposite party for want of transfer certificate (T. C. ). The opposite party has contested the case before the District Forum saying that Km. Manju Rani Sharma, the daughter of the complainant could not file T. C. for verification for want of which the result was withheld but after waiting for three years the result could not be declared. The District Forum held that the result was withheld because of the failure of the examinee Km. Manju Rani Sharma who could not file the T. C. and verify it even for a period of three years and, therefore, the complainant's ward (the examinee Km. Manju Rani Sharma) is to be blamed for withholding of the result and thus there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party (Madhamik Shiksha Parishad, Meerut) and hence the District Forum has dismissed the complaint.

(3.) We do not find any material in the memo of appeal from which the orders passed by the District Forum can be defaulted and interfered from vague submission that the form is submitted by private candidate only when it is satisfied that the candidate is eligible for appearing in the examination. This mere submission is not sufficient as we find from the order of the District Forum that the Madhamik Shiksha Parishad/ opposite party waited for three years for T. C. 's verification but no action was taken by the student or her father/complainant. Therefore, there is no force in the appeal and consequently the appeal is dismissed. We leave the parties to bear their own costs.