{"id":154702,"date":"2006-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006"},"modified":"2019-04-07T15:50:07","modified_gmt":"2019-04-07T10:20:07","slug":"deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"Deputy Registrar (Colleges) & … vs Ruchika Jain & Ors. on 7 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal<\/div>\n
Deputy Registrar (Colleges) & … vs Ruchika Jain & Ors. on 7 July, 2006<\/div>\n
  \n \n \n \n \n \n NCDRC\n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL\nCOMMISSION \n\n \n\n   NEW DELHI  \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n REVISION\nPETITION No. 1121 of\n2005 \n\n \n\n(From the order dated 17.3.2005 in\nR.P. No. 156 of 2004 of the State Commission, Haryana)\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nDeputy Registrar (Colleges) & Anr.  Petitioner \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nVersus \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nRuchika Jain & Ors.    Respondent \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n REVISION\nPETITION No. 1122 of\n2005 \n\n \n\n(From the order dated 17.3.2005 in\nR.P. No. 157 of 2004 of the State Commission, Haryana)\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nDeputy Registrar (Colleges) & Anr.  Petitioner \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nVersus \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nRuchika Jain & Ors.    Respondent \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n REVISION\nPETITION No. 1123 of\n2005 \n\n \n\n(From the order dated 17.3.2005 in\nR.P. No. 189 of 2004 of the State Commission, Haryana)\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nDeputy Registrar (Colleges) & Anr.  Petitioner \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nVersus \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nRuchika Jain & Ors.    Respondent \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n REVISION\nPETITION No. 2140 of\n2005 \n\n \n\n(From the order dated 30.5.2005 in\nAppeal No.743 of 2004 of the State Commission, Haryana)\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nDeputy Registrar (Colleges) & Anr.  Petitioner \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nVersus \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nRuchika Jain & Ors.    Respondent \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n REVISION\nPETITION No. 614 of\n2006 \n\n \n\n(From the order dated 7.9.05 in\nAppeal No.743 of 2005 of the \n\n \n\nState Commission, Haryana)\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n1. Deputy\nRegistrar (Colleges)  \n\n \n\n   Maharshi  Dayanand  University \n\n \n\n Rohtak, Haryana \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n2.\nController of Exams  \n\n \n\n   Maharshi  Dayanand  University \n\n \n\n Rohtak, Haryana   Petitioners \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nVersus \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n1. Ruchika Jain  \n\n \n\n D\/o Shri\nM.P. Jain \n\n \n\n Resident\nof D.E.-100 \n\n \n\n   Tagore  Garden \n\n \n\n   New Delhi- 110 027 \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n2. The\nPrincipal \n\n \n\n Sudha Rastogi Dental Sciences \n\n \n\n And\nResearch, Khehri Modh \n\n \n\n Village Bhopani \n\n \n\n   Faridabad, Haryana  \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n3. Centre\nSuperintendent  \n\n \n\n of Exams of B.D.S. \n\n \n\n Sudha Rastogi Dental Sciences \n\n \n\n And\nResearch, Khehri Modh \n\n \n\n Village Bhopani \n\n \n\n   Faridabad, Haryana    Respondent \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n AND \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n REVISION\nPETITION No. 1933-34 of\n2005 \n\n \n\n(From the order dated 6.4.2005 in\nR.P. No. 203 \/03 & R.P. No.105\/04 of the State Commission, Haryana)\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n  Maharshi  Dayanand  University, Rohtak \n\n \n\nHaryana, through its Registrar .  Petitioner \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nVersus \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nParul Midha    Respondent \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nBEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE.\nM.B.SHAH, PRESIDENT  \n\n \n\n MRS.\nRAJYALASHMI RAO, MEMBER. \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nFor the Petitioners : Mr. Nidhesh Gupta,\n\n \n\nIn all the\nPetitions Advocate.\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nFor the respondents in  : N E M O\n\n \n\nAll the petitions \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n Dated   the 7th July, 2006 : \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n  O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 M.B.SHAH, J. PRESIDENT.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
I.   At the outset, we would make it clear that on several
\noccasions the   Apex Court has deprecated the practice of permitting the students to
\npursue their studies and\/or to appear in the examination under the interim
\norders (fiat as observed by the   Apex Court) passed in the petitions which were filed before the High
\nCourt\/Courts. If the High Court is not
\npermitted to pass such orders, it is to be held without any hesitation or
\nreservation that Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to pass such orders.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Hence, we hereby direct that in future no such interim order
\npermitting the students either to pursue the study or to appear in the
\nexamination, shall
\nbe passed by the Consumer Fora.\n<\/p>\n
That is not the function of the Consumer Fora and, hence, granting of
\nsuch interim orders would amount to misconduct.\n<\/p>\n
II.   Facts:\n<\/p>\n
(a)    Revision\nPetition No.1121 of 2005: \n\n \n\n  Undisputedly,\n<\/pre>\n
the Complainant, Ruchika Jain, was admitted against
\nmanagement quota even though she has not obtained requisite marks in Physics as
\nper the rules prescribed
\nfor getting admission to BDS Course. As she was not permitted to appear in the examination
\nof BDS course which was to be held on 2nd
\nAugust, 2004, she filed complaint No.536
\nof 2004 on 2nd August, 2004 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad with a
\nprayer that she might be permitted to
\nappear in the examination which was to
\nbe held on the same day.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Surprisingly,
\non the same date, the District Forum,   Faridabad, Haryana, passed an order
\ndirecting the University to allow  <\/p>\n
the Complainant to sit in the examination which was to take place on the same
\ndate.\n<\/p>\n
 The
\nDistrict Forum, inter alia, observed:\n<\/p>\n
 Without
\ngoing into the merit of the case, the Forum is of the opinion that at this
\nstage if any controversy is tried to resolve in between the parties, the same
\nwill take more time and the future of the Complainant who has to appear in BDS
\nexam would be spoiled ultimately. The Respondents are, therefore, ordered to
\nallow the Complainant to sit in the examination of BDS which have to take place
\ntoday itself. The Respondents are, therefore, ordered to issue the regular roll
\nnumber to the Complainant for appearing in BDS exam which are to be conducted
\nby the Respondent and in case regular roll number issued to the Complainant.
\nCopy of this order be given to the Complainant Dasti. The court fee has not been placed on the file
\nthrough challan so far. The exemption is granted
\nconsidering the matter is of an urgent nature for today.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
(b).    Revision\nPetition No. 1122 of 2005: \n\n \n\n  Thereafter,\n<\/pre>\n
on 4.10.2004, without going into the merits of the case, by interim order the
\nDistrict Forum directed grant of provisional admission to the next class and
\nthe University was directed to declare the result within 7 days from the date of the
\norder, in case she was found eligible as per the result to be declared by the
\nRespondent, by making it clear that the impugned order passed by it should not
\nbe deemed as impression of the final order of the Forum.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
(c).  Revision
\nPetition No.1123 of 2005:\n<\/p>\n
 Again, the District Forum, by
\norder dated 21.12.2004
\nobserved that without going into the merits of the application, the Complainant
\nshould be permitted to re-appear in the examination of the subject Anatomy
\nwhich was to be conducted by the Petitioner on 27.12.2004 and the operation of
\nthe cancellation letter sent by the University was stayed and it was ordered
\nthat she be treated as a regular student of BDS, even though the validity of cancellation letter still to
\nbe decided.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
(d). Against
\nthose interim orders, the Petitioner,
\nhad preferred Revision Petition Nos. 156\/04, 157\/04 and 189\/04 before
\nthe State Commission, Haryana. Surprisingly, on  17th
\n March, 2005, the State
\nCommission dismissed the three Revision Petitions filed by the University
\nchallenging the interim and arbitrary orders passed by the District Forum, by
\nonly observing that there was no ambiguity in the impugned directions issued by
\nthe District Forum.\n<\/p>\n
  Hence, the aforesaid
\nthree Revision Petitions.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
III.    Law on such interim orders:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Now, we would refer to the law settled
\nby the   Apex Court in various judgments to the effect that such interim orders
\nare detrimental to education and its efficient management. As a matter of
\ncourse, such interim orders should not be passed, as they are aberrations and
\nit is subversive of academic discipline.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 In Regional Officer, CBSE v. Sheena Pethambaran, (2003) 7
\nSCC 719, at page 725. the Supreme Court has observed <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
6. This Court has on
\nseveral occasions earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the students to
\npursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders
\npassed in the petitions. In most of such cases it is ultimately pleaded that
\nsince the course was over or the result had been declared, the matter deserves
\nto be considered sympathetically. It results in very awkward and difficult
\nsituations. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions,
\nagainst the legal provisions. ..\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 In the case of C.B.S.E. & Anr. v. P. Sunil Kumar
\n& Ors.<\/a>  (1998)5 SCC 377, the institutions whose students were permitted to
\nundertake the examination of the Central
\nBoard of Secondary Education were not affiliated
\nto the Board, hence the students were not entitled to appear in the examination. They were, however, allowed to appear in the
\nexamination under the interim orders granted by the High Court in contravention
\nof the rules and regulations of the Board.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court
\nwhile considering the matter sympathetically had not
\ninterfered. In that context the Supreme Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
4. But to permit students of an unaffiliated
\ninstitution to appear at the examination conducted by the Board under orders of
\nthe Court and then to compel the Board to issue certificates in favour of those
\nwho have undertaken examination would tantamount to subversion of law
\nand this Court will not be justified to sustain the orders issued by the High
\nCourt on misplaced sympathy in favour of the students.\n<\/p>\n
 In
\nthe case of Guru Nanak Dev University v.\n<\/p>\n
Parminder Kr. Bansal
\n(1993) 4 SCC, 401 the Supreme Court
\nobserved that such interim order is
\nsubversive of academic discipline. The relevant observations
\nare as under:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory
\nremedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service
\nto anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic
\nmatters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as
\ninterlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of
\ndegenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic
\ndiscipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic
\nlife. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the
\ncandidates. .. The courts should not
\nembarrass academic authorities by themselves taking over their functions.\n<\/p>\n
 Yet
\nin another case i.e. in the case of A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society
\nvs. Govt. of A.P. (1986) 2 SCC 667 the Supreme Court held that:\n<\/p>\n
10. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute
\nto which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University
\nitself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a
\ndirection by the court to disobey the laws.\n<\/p>\n
The above-referred matters relate to the admission and examination of
\nB.D.S. or MBBS
\ncourses.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  In
\nthe case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute<\/a> (1991) 3 SCC 87 the Supreme Court observed
\nthat the direction of admitting the students of
\nunauthorised educational institutions and permitting them to appear at the
\nexamination has been looked on with disfavour and the students of unrecognised
\ninstitutions who are not legally entitled to appear at the examination
\nconducted by the Educational Department of the Government cannot be allowed to
\nsit at the examination and the High Court committed an error in granting
\npermission to such students to appear at the public examination.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  In
\nthe case of Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Nikhil
\nGulati<\/a> (1998) 3 SCC 5, the Apex Court deprecated
\nthe practice followed by the High Court to issue direction and also observed
\nthat such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 In Krishna Priya Ganguly
\nv.   University of  Lucknow<\/a>  (1984) 1 SCC 307, the Supreme Court
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
3.  whenever a writ petition is filed provisional
\nadmission should not be given as a matter of course on the petition being
\nadmitted unless the court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has a
\ncast-iron case which is bound to succeed or the error is so gross or apparent
\nthat no other conclusion is possible.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
   In State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale<\/a> – (1992) 4
\nSCC 435, it was held that the
\nstudents of unrecognized and
\nunauthorized educational institutions could not have been permitted by the High
\nCourt on a writ petition being filed to appear in the examination and to be accommodated
\nin recognized institutions. The Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
12. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of
\neducation and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of
\nthe education.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  In view of the aforesaid settled law,
\nthe Revision Petition are allowed. The impugned orders dated 2.8.2004, 4.10.2004, 21.12.2004 passed by
\nthe District Forum which are confirmed by the State Commission in Revision Petition No. 156 of 2004, 157 of
\n2004 and 189 of 2004 are set aside by holding that those orders are on the face
\nof it illegal and arbitrary. Revision Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
\nThere shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
IV.    Revision Petition No. 2140\/2005 & \n\n \n\n Revision Petition No.614\/2006 \n\n \n\n  \u00a0\n\n \n\n  Firstly,\n<\/pre>\n
the District Forum on  29th March, 2005 allowed the complaint No. 536\/04 by holing that a
\nsympathetic view was needed in the matter, particularly, when the Complainant
\nis a woman who has a long future before her. The Petitioners were directed to
\ntreat the Complainant as a regular student of the B.D.S.; they were also
\ndirected to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000\/- and
\ncosts of Rs.5,000\/- on account of litigation expenses.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 That
\norder was challenged by the Petitioners before the State Commission by filing
\nappeal No 743\/05. Again, by order dated  30th
\n May, 2005, the State
\nCommission, Haryana, observed that no ground was made
\nout for granting stay, hence the application for
\ninterim relief was rejected. That order is challenged by the Petitioner by
\nfiling Revision Petition No. 2140 of 2005 and operation of that order was
\nstayed.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Thereafter,
\nthe appeal was heard on merits by the State Commission and the State Commission
\nnegatived the contention of the Petitioner  University that in such
\ncircumstances Complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer
\nProtection Act. The State Commission
\nheld that the Complainant
\ncould be held
\nto be a consumer as she has hired
\nservices of the University for consideration.
\nFor this, the State Commission placed
\nreliance upon the decision of the National Commission in the case of Bhupesh Khurana & Ors. Vs. Vishwa Budha Parishad
\n& Ors., 2001 JRC 240 wherein it was
\nheld that imparting of education by an
\neducational institution for consideration falls with the ambit of service as
\ndefined in the Consumer Protection Act.\n<\/p>\n
Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education
\nby the educational institutions. If
\nthere is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not
\narise. The complainants had hired the
\nservices of the
\nrespondents for consideration so they are consumers as defined in
\nthe Consumer Protection Act. In that
\ncase reliance was placed upon the observation of the   Apex Court in   Bangalore
\nBangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
\nv. A. Rajappa and Others (AIR<\/a> 1978 SC 548 at page\n<\/p>\n
583):\n<\/p>\n
“In the case of the University or an educational
\ninstitution, the nature of activity is, exhypothesis, education which is a service to the
\ncommunity. Ergo, the University is an industry”.\n<\/p>\n
Hence, the Commission held that
\nimparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls
\nwithin the ambit of ‘Service’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees
\nare paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the
\neducational Institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of
\npayment of fee would not arise. The Complainants had hired the services of the
\nRespondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer
\nProtection Act.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Thereafter,
\nthe State Commission discussed
\nthe eligibility
\ncondition for seeking admission to BDS course for the session 2003-04, which is as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
a)  Senior School Certificate
\nExamination (10 + 2) of Board of School Education, Haryana
\nor an examination recognized as equivalent thereto with at least 50% marks
\nin English and 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together
\nin qualifying examination.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 On the basis of the said condition, the
\nState Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Complainant has
\nnot fulfilled the eligibility criteria laid down in the prospectus provided for
\nthe admission to the BDS course for the session 2003-04. The State Commission arrived at the conclusion that certificate issued by
\nthe CBSE dated 30th May, 2003 reveals that Complainant has been declared
\nsuccessful in Senior Secondary School examination held in the year 2003, but
\nthe subject physics is not mentioned which indicates that she has failed in the said subject.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Against
\nthe finding recorded by the State Commission that the Complainant was a
\nconsumer, this
\nRevision Petition is filed.\n<\/p>\n
  \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Findings:\n<\/p>\n
A.   Whether rendering of education can be
\nheld as service for consideration? This question is to be answered by deciding
\ntwo parts, namely:\n<\/p>\n
 (i) Whether
\nperformance of statutory duties by a University or College in laying down
\ncriteria\/rules\/regulations for conducting examinations, eligibility criteria
\nfor permitting the student to appear in the examination or declaration of the
\nresults of a student who appeared in the examination and such other activities,
\ncan be considered to be rendering of service for fees?\n<\/p>\n
AND <\/p>\n
 (II) Secondly, whether giving of admissions to
\nthe students in a school\/college\/institution\/University by recovering fees and
\nin such cases if there is any dispute with regard to the validity of such
\nadmission or illegality, irregularity committed by such institution in giving
\nadmissions, on the part of the school\/college\/institution\/University can be
\nconsidered to be rendering of service?\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
B.   The
\naforesaid questions are to be decided in the context of definition of the words
\nconsumer, service and deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.\n<\/p>\n
 Under
\nthe Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the word consumer, is inter alia, defined
\nunder Section (2)1)(d) (ii) to mean a person who hires or avails of any service
\nfor consideration which has been paid or partly paid and partly promised, etc.<\/p>\n
 Thereafter,
\nSec.2(1)(o) defines the meaning of the word service
\nto mean a service of any description which is made available to
\npotential users.\n<\/p>\n
  The next relevant definition is meaning
\nof the word deficiency as defined in Sec.2(1)(g),
\nwhich means, any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the
\nquality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by
\nor under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be
\nperformed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.\n<\/p>\n
 The
\naforesaid expressions are in wide terms and are also interpreted in the same way so as to render justice to the consumers.\n<\/p>\n
(I)
\n Performance of Statutory Duties by a University or College:\n<\/p>\n
  Undisputedly, a University or College
\nis required to carry out number of activities for its administration and such
\nactivities are severable from its activity of imparting education by recovering
\nfees. The recovery of fees for granting
\nadmission is an accepted reality. For
\nthis purpose, we would refer to a few leading judgments on this aspect:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  In
\nthe case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. Vs.
\nState of   Andhra Pradesh & Ors.\n<\/p>\n
(1993) 1 SCC 645 while
\ninterpreting Article
\n19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which provides that citizens have right to practice any profession, or to carry on
\nany occupation, trade or business observed (pr.196, 197 and 204) thus:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
196.  The cost of
\neducation may vary, even within the same faculty, from institution to
\ninstitution. The facilities provided, equipment, infrastructure, standard and
\nquality of education obtaining may vary from institution to institution. The
\ncourt cannot certainly do this. It must be done by Government or University or
\nsuch other authority as may be designated in that behalf. Even so, some
\nquestions do arise  whether cost-based education only means running charges or
\ncan it take in capital outlay? Who pays or who can be made to pay for
\nestablishment, expansion and improvement\/diversification of private educational
\ninstitutions? Can an individual or body of persons first collect amounts (by
\nwhatever name called) from the intending students and with those monies
\nestablish an institution  an activity similar to builders of apartments in the
\ncities? How much should the students coming in later years pay? Who should work
\nout the economics of each institution? Any solution evolved has to take into
\naccount all these variable factors. But one thing is clear: commercialisation
\nof education cannot and should not be permitted. The Parliament as well as
\nState Legislatures have expressed this intention in
\nunmistakable terms. Both in the light of our tradition and from the standpoint
\nof interest of general public, commercialisation is
\npositively harmful; it is opposed to public policy. As we shall presently point
\nout, this is one of the reasons for holding that imparting education cannot be
\ntrade, business or profession. ..\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
197. While we do not
\nwish to express any opinion on the question whether the right to establish an
\neducational institution can be said to be carrying on any occupation within
\nthe meaning of Article 19(1)(g),  perhaps, it
\nis  we are certainly of the opinion that such activity can neither be a
\ntrade or business nor can it be a profession within the meaning of Article
\n19(1)(g). Trade or business normally connotes an activity carried on
\nwith a profit motive. Education has never been commerce in this country. Making
\nit one is opposed to the ethos, tradition and sensibilities of this nation. The
\nargument to the contrary has an unholy ring to it. Imparting of education has
\nnever been treated as a trade or business in this country since time
\nimmemorial. It has been treated as a religious duty. It has been treated as a
\ncharitable activity. But never as trade or business.
\nWe agree with Gajendragadkar, J. that education in
\nits true aspect is more a mission and a vocation rather than a profession or
\ntrade or business, however wide may be the denotation of the two latter words
\n…. (See University of Delhi.- AIR 1963 SC
\n1873) .\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
204. We must, however,
\nmake it clear, and which is of crucial importance herein, that the right to
\nestablish an educational institution does not carry with it the right to
\nrecognition or the right to affiliation. In Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society v. State of Gujarat [(1974) 1 SCC 717) it has been held uniformly by all the nine
\nlearned Judges that there is no fundamental right to affiliation. Ray, C.J.,
\nstated that this has been the consistent view of this Court. They also recognised that recognition or affiliation is essential
\nfor a meaningful exercise of the right to establish and administer
\neducational institutions. Recognition may be granted either by the
\nGovernment or any other authority or body empowered to accord recognition.
\nSimilarly, affiliation may be granted either by the University or any other
\nacademic or other body empowered to grant affiliation to other educational
\ninstitutions. In other words, it is open to a person to establish an educational
\ninstitution, admit students, impart education, conduct
\nexamination and award certificates to them. But he, or the educational
\ninstitution has no right to insist that the certificates or degrees (if they
\ncan be called as such) awarded by such institution should be recognised by the State  much less have they the right
\nto say that the students trained by the institution should be admitted
\nto examinations conducted by the University or by the Government or any
\nother authority, as the case may be. The institution has to seek such
\nrecognition or affiliation from the appropriate agency. Grant of recognition
\nand\/or affiliation is not a matter of course nor is it a formality.
\nAdmission to the privileges of a University is a power to be exercised with
\ngreat care, keeping in view the interest of the general public and the nation.
\nIt is a matter of substantial significance  the very life-blood of a private
\neducational institution. Ordinarily speaking, no educational institution can
\nrun or survive unless it is recognised by the
\nGovernment or the appropriate authority and\/or is affiliated to one or the other
\nUniversities in the country. Unless it is recognised
\nand\/or affiliated as stated above, its certificates
\nwill be of no use. No one would join such educational institution. As a matter
\nof fact, by virtue of the provisions of the U.G.C. Act, noticed hereinabove, no
\neducational institution in this country except a University is entitled to
\naward degrees. It is for this reason that all the private educational
\ninstitutions seek recognition and\/or affiliation with a view to enable
\nthem to send the students trained by them to appear at the examinations
\nconducted by the Government\/University. The idea is that if such students pass
\nthe said examination, the Government\/University will award its degree\/diploma\/certificate
\nto them. These educational institutions follow the syllabus prescribed
\nby the Government\/University, have the same courses of study, follow the same method of teaching and training. They do not
\naward their own degrees\/qualifications. They prepare their students for
\nUniversity\/Government examinations, request the
\nUniversity\/Government to permit them to appear at the examinations conducted
\nby them and to award the appropriate degrees to them. Clearly and
\nindubitably, the recognised\/affiliated private
\neducational institutions, supplement the function performed by the institutions
\nof the State. Theirs is not an independent activity but one closely allied to
\nand supplemental to the activity of the State. In the above circumstances, it
\nis idle to contend that imparting of education is a business like any other
\nbusiness or that it is an activity akin to any other activity like building of
\nroads, bridges etc. In short, the position is this: No educational
\ninstitution except a University can award degrees (Sections 22 and 23 of the U.G.C. Act). The
\nprivate educational institutions cannot award their own degrees. Even if they
\naward any certificates or other testimonials they have no practical value
\ninasmuch as they are not good for obtaining any employment under the State or
\nfor admission into higher courses of study. The private educational
\ninstitutions merely supplement the effort of the State in educating the people,
\nas explained above. It is not an independent activity. It is an activity
\nsupplemental to the principal activity carried on by the State. No private
\neducational institution can survive or subsist without recognition and\/or
\naffiliation. The bodies which grant recognition and\/or affiliation are the
\nauthorities of the State. In such a situation, it is obligatory  in the
\ninterest of general public  upon the authority granting recognition or
\naffiliation to insist upon such conditions as are appropriate to ensure not
\nonly education of requisite standard but also fairness and equal treatment in
\nthe matter of admission of students. Since the recognising\/affiliating
\nauthority is the State, it is under an obligation to impose such conditions as
\npart of its duty enjoined upon it by Article 14 of the Constitution. It cannot
\nallow itself or its power and privilege to be used unfairly. The incidents
\nattaching to the main activity attach to supplemental activity as well.
\nAffiliation\/recognition is not there for anybody to get it gratis or
\nunconditionally. In our opinion, no Government, authority or University is
\njustified or is entitled to grant recognition\/affiliation without imposing such
\nconditions. Doing so would amount to abdicating its obligations enjoined upon
\nit by Part III; its activity is bound to be characterised
\nas unconstitutional and illegal. To reiterate, what applies to the main
\nactivity applies equally to supplemental activity. The State cannot claim
\nimmunity from the obligations arising from Articles 14 and 15. If so, it cannot
\nconfer such immunity upon its affiliates. Accordingly, we have evolved  with
\nthe help of the counsel appearing before us and keeping in view the positive
\nfeatures of the several Central and State enactments referred to hereinbefore
\nthe following scheme which every authority granting recognition\/affiliation
\nshall impose upon the institutions seeking such recognition\/affiliation.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  From the aforesaid paragraphs, it is clear
\nthat a person has a right to establish an educational institution but such
\ninstitution does not carry with it the right to recognition or right to
\naffiliation. That is to say that it is open to a person to establish an educational institution, admit
\nstudents, impart education, conduct examination and award certificates to
\nthem. However, the recognition or affiliation is
\nessential for a meaningful exercise of the
\nright to establish
\nand administer educational institutions. The institution has to seek
\nrecognition or affiliation from the appropriate agency. Grant of such recognition or affiliation from the appropriate
\nagency is not a matter of course nor is it a formality. If the institution is recognized and its
\nstudent pass the examination the Government\/University will award its
\ndegree\/diploma certificate to them. Such educational institutions have to
\nfollow the syllabus prescribed by the Government\/University and follow the same
\nmethod of teaching and training as prescribed.
\nOn the request
\nof such institutions, the University\/Government
\nmay permit the students trained
\nin such institutions, to appear in the
\nexamination conducted by them and to
\naward appropriate degrees to them. For
\nthis purpose, the Government or University has to administer such functions on
\nthe basis of the statutory rules or regulations framed by it. By discharging such function, it cannot be
\nsaid that the said functions are discharged by the Government\/university or
\ninstitutions by charging fees.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  In
\nour view, a student who appears in the examination conducted by the
\nUniversity cannot be held to be a
\nconsumer as defined under Section 2(1)(b) read with
\nSection 2(1)(o). Such a person does not
\nhire or avail of the services of University or the Board for
\nconsideration. On the contrary, he
\nappears in the examination voluntarily for the purpose of getting degree or
\ndiploma and for evaluation of his merit with regard to his studies during the
\ncourse of a year or years. The law on
\nthe subject is settled by the decisions of this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  In
\nthe case of Chairman, Board of Examination Vs.Mohideen
\nAbdul Kader, II (1997)
\nCPJ 49 (NC), this Commission dealing with the same contention observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
 What
\nthe Commission has held in the earlier cases is that a University or the Board
\nin conducting public examination, evaluating answer papers, announcing the
\nresults thereof and thereafter conducting re-checking of the marks of any
\ncandidate on the application made by the concerned candidate is not performing
\nany service for hire and there is no agreement of hiring of any service
\ninvolved in such a situation as contemplated by Sec.2(1)(o)
\nof the Act. A candidate who appears for examination cannot b regarded as a
\nperson who had hired or availed of the services of the University or Board for
\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
That judgment was followed by this Commission in Praveen Rani Vs.
\nPunjab School Education Board (Revision Petition No. 2268 of 2000, reported as
\nIII (2004) CPJ 70 (NC), and the complaint was dismissed by holding that the
\nComplainant was not the consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act,
\n1986. The Commission also relied upon the following observation made by the   Apex Court in Unnikrishnan Vs. State of A.P.
\n(1993) 1 SCC 645:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
Education has never been commerce in
\nthis country. Making it one is opposed to the ethos and traditions and
\nsensibilities of this nation. The argument to the contrary has an unholy ring
\nto it. Imparting of education has never been treated as a trade or business in
\nthis country since time immemorial. It has been treated as a religious duty.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Similarly,
\nin the case of Registrar, University of
\nBombay Vs. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat
\n(First Appeal No. 284 of 1992,) reported as I(1994) CPJ 146 (NC), this
\nCommission observed that consistently the National Commission has taken the
\nview that a University while valuing the answer papers or undertaking the
\nre-valuation of answer papers or the re-checking of marks awarded to a
\ncandidate at the instance of a candidate who has appeared for examination is
\nnot performing a service which had been hired or availed of for
\nconsideration. Further, in the case of Ex.Sub.Sachida
\nNand Sharma Vs. Chairman, C.B.S.E., reported as 2004
\nCTJ 39 (CP) (NCDRC), after considering various judgments this Commission
\nobserved that the pith and substance of the judgments rendered by the
\nCommission was that the institutions holding examinations are not rendering any
\nservice as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Similar view
\nis taken in Alex J. Rebello Vs.
\nVice-Chancellor, Bangalore University & Ors. I(2003)
\nCPJ 7 (NC).\n<\/p>\n
 From the aforesaid discussion, it is to be
\nheld that a University while conducting examination, decide the eligibility
\ncriteria of the student who appear in the examination, evaluating the answer
\npapers or re-checking of the marks awarded to the student is performing a
\nstatutory duty and is not rendering service on hire for a consideration of
\nfees.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
II  Giving
\nadmission to
\nthe students by charging fees:\n<\/p>\n
 However,
\nother part of education is, namely, running\/managing of
\nschools\/colleges\/institutions by recovering fees is, at present, undoubtedly
\nfor commercial purpose. On occasions lakhs of Rupees are recovered from the
\nstudents before granting admission to a particular course, even though, the
\nCourse is not recognised by the University or by the authority giving such
\nrecognition.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 For
\nillustration: Medical Council of India has not recognised a medical course run
\nby a particular institution. Yet, such institution gives admission by
\nrecovering large amount of fees. This would be trade, commerce or business.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  In
\ncontext of the aforesaid aspect, we would now consider the decision rendered in
\nBhupesh Khurana & Ors.\n<\/p>\n
Vs. Vishwa Buddha Parishad
\n& Ors., Original Petition No.168 of 1994 decided in 29.9.2000 reported as
\n2001 (2) CPJ 72 = (2001) JRC 240. In that case, 11 students who have passed 12th
\nstandard examination filed complaints contending that they on the basis of the
\nadvertisement in the name of Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital
\nestablished by Vishwa Buddha Parishad,
\napplied for admission to the Dental College.\n<\/p>\n
In the advertisement issued it was categorically and clearly written
\nthat the College is under   Magadh  University,  Bihar and the Dental Council of India,   New Delhi has recognised the same. This was a false averment. In that
\nset of circumstances, the Commission held that imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration
\nfalls within the ambit of ‘Service’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
\nFees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the
\neducational Institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of
\npayment of fee would not arise. The Complainants had hired the services of the
\nRespondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer
\nProtection Act. For this, the Commission relied upon
\nthe observation of the   Apex Court in   Bangalore
\nBangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
\nv. A. Rajappa and Others (AIR<\/a> 1978 SC 548 at page\n<\/p>\n
583):\n<\/p>\n
“In
\nthe case of the University or an educational institution, the nature of
\nactivity is, exhypothesis,
\neducation which is a service to the community. Ergo, the University is an
\nindustry”.\n<\/p>\n
 Hence, the Commission held that imparting of education by an
\neducational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of ‘Service’
\nas defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be
\nrendered by way of imparting education by the educational Institutions. If
\nthere is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise.
\nThe Complainants had hired the services of the Respondent for consideration so
\nthey are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Thereafter, this Commission held that it was a case of obvious
\nmisrepresentation on behalf of the Respondents and it tantamounts
\nto unfair trade practice. The Commission also observed that as the institution
\nwas not recognised, the Complainants lost their two years of study,
\nthey have incurred expenses by staying in the hostel, for purchase of books and
\nother miscellaneous expenses. Therefore, it directed the College to refund the
\namount of expenses and fees received by it with interest.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 We agree
\nwith the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment. However, it is to be stated that observations made in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Supra) is
\nsolely on the basis of meaning of the
\nexpression industry under the Industrial Disputes Act as observed in the case
\nof Unni
\nKrishnan (paragraph 200) (Supra).\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 We have also
\nto accept the reality that some of the private educational institutions are commercialised. They charge heavy fees and also there is a
\nprevalent practice of
\nrecovering donations on one or other pretext. On occasions, even though the
\ninstitutions are not recognised or a particular course is not recognised by the
\nUniversity\/Government, yet, they start recovering fees by false representation
\nand\/or by misleading advertisements.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter, when the students are not permitted to appear in the
\nexamination dispute arises. Those
\nstudents who suffer are entitled to refund of fees paid along with compensation
\nfrom such institution. Further, when the students are not permitted to appear
\nin the examination on the ground that the institution was not recognised or
\nthat the students were declared ineligible to be admitted to the course, in
\nsuch cases it would amount to unfair trade practice by the institution\/college.
\nSuch students suffer heavy loss in terms of money and precious period of their
\nstudy and years of youth. For this such institutions should be held liable to pay punitive
\ndamages.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  However,
\ncertain services rendered by an educational institution by receiving fees are
\ntotally different in nature from the statutory functions which are to
\nbe discharged by the University, such as, conducting examination; checking of
\nthe answer books; evaluation of the marks or declaring of results; with regard to deciding of eligibility
\ncriteria or for admission in the classes or appearing to the examination,
\netc. Hence (i)
\nthe first part of the services in
\ngranting admission by recovering fees is
\non the basis of the contract of getting education in an institution or college by
\npayment of fees, and (ii) the second part
\nis the function of the
\nUniversity which is a statutory duty and
\ndoes not depend upon the contract or of hiring of services of educational
\ninstitutions.\n<\/p>\n
 The
\naforesaid finding is also supported by the decision of the Apex Court in P.A. Inamdar Vs.
\nState of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537
\nwherein the Court has observed that
\none cannot shut eyes to the hard realities of
\ncommercialization of education and evil practice being adopted by many
\ninstitutions to earn large amounts for their private or selfish ends. In paragraph 6 and 140, the Court held as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
6. Education used to
\nbe charity or philanthropy in the good old times. Gradually it became an
\noccupation. Some of the judicial dicta go on to hold it as an industry.
\nWhether to receive education is a fundamental right or not has been debated for
\nquite some time. But it is settled that establishing and administering of an
\neducational institution for imparting knowledge to students is an occupation,
\nprotected by Article 19(1)(g) and additionally
\nby Article 26(a), if there is no element of profit generation. As of
\nnow, imparting education has come to be a means of livelihood for some
\nprofessionals and a mission in life for some altruists.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
140. Capitation fee
\ncannot be permitted to be charged and no seat can be permitted to be
\nappropriated by payment of capitation fee. Profession has to be distinguished
\nfrom business or a mere occupation. While in business, and to a certain
\nextent in occupation, there is a profit motive, profession is primarily a
\nservice to society wherein earning is secondary or incidental. A student who
\ngets a professional degree by payment of capitation fee, once qualified as a
\nprofessional, is likely to aim more at earning rather than serving and that becomes
\na bane to society. The charging of capitation fee by unaided minority and
\nnon-minority institutions for professional courses is just not permissible.
\nSimilarly, profiteering is also not permissible. Despite the legal position,
\nthis Court cannot shut its eyes to the hard realities of commercialisation of education and evil practices
\nbeing adopted by many institutions to earn large amounts for their
\nprivate or selfish ends. If capitation fee and profiteering is to be
\nchecked, the method of admission has to be regulated so that the admissions
\nare based on merit and transparency and the students are not exploited. It
\nis permissible to regulate admission and fee structure for achieving the
\npurpose just stated.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Conclusion:\n<\/p>\n
  Hence, we arrive at the conclusion
\nthat:\n<\/p>\n
(i).  Performance of statutory duties by a
\nUniversity or College in laying down criteria\/rules\/regulations for conducting
\nexaminations, eligibility criteria for permitting the student to appear in the
\nexamination or declaration of the results of a student who appeared in the
\nexamination and such other activities, cannot be considered to be hiring of
\nservice for fees. Those are statutory functions not
\ndepending upon the contract between the parties.\n<\/p>\n
 The
\nservices which are to be rendered on the basis of the statutory provisions by
\nthe University\/educational institution cannot be construed as rendering of
\nservice for consideration in the form of fees.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
(ii).  Giving of admissions to the students in a
\nschool\/college\/institution\/University by recovering fees and in such cases if
\nthere is any dispute with regard to the validity of such admission or
\nillegality, irregularity committed by such institution in giving admissions,
\nsuch dispute would be covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This is on the basis of contract between the parties, i.e.
\nstudents and the institution, and is based on the consideration (fees) for rendering
\neducation. Such students on the basis of
\nSection 2(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 2(1)(o) would be hirer of service for
\nconsideration and hence would be
\nconsumer. Further, deficiency as defined under Section 2(1)(g) would
\nbe apparent as this would be a
\nfault\/shortcoming in nature and manner
\nof performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law.\n<\/p>\n
 In the result, the Revision
\nPetition Nos. 2140\/05 and 614\/06 are
\ndisposed of accordingly. There shall be
\nno order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
  \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Revision Petition No.1933-34 of 2005:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Parul Midha, the complainant (Respondent herein) filed complaint
\nNo.466\/03 before the District Forum, Rohtak
\ncontending that the
\npetitioner-University be directed to grant
\nher admission in B.Ed (Regular) Course. The District Forum by its interim order dated
\n14.10.2003 directed
\nthe University to grant admission to
\nthe Complainant in B.Ed (Regular) Course.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 That
\ninterim order was challenged by the Petitioner before the State Commission by
\nfiling Revision Petition No. 203\/2003.\n<\/p>\n
While confirming the interim order passed by the District Forum the State Commission in its order dated 6.4.2005 observed: We hardly find any ambiguity
\nin the impugned order vide which
\nthe District Forum had issued interim
\ndirection to grant admission to the
\ncomplainant in B.Ed (Regular) Course after completing the required formalities, subject to the final decision of the complaint. Against this order of the State Commission,
\nthe Petitioner has filed Revision Petition No.1933\/2005 before this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Again on an application filed by the Complainant, the District Forum by its order dated 16.7.2004 directed the Petitioner to declare the result of the complainant provisionally and further to issue provisional
\nmigration Certificate and to
\ndeliver the original certificates
\ndeposited with it to the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
The Petitioner
\nfiled Revision Petition No.105\/2004 against the order of the
\nDistrict Forum before the State
\nCommission. The State Commission
\nconfirmed the order of the District Forum by its order dated 6.4.2004 and
\ndismissed the revision petition filed by the Petitioner. Hence the Petitioner filed Revision Petition No.1934\/2005
\nbefore this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
 For the reasons recorded in the
\ncase of Ruchika Jain in the above Revision Petitions, (a) the impugned interim
\norders dated 14.10.2003 passed by the District Forum in complaint
\nNo.466\/03 and confirmed by the State
\nCommissions in R.P. No. 2003 by its
\norder dated 6.4.2005, directing the University to grant admission to the complainant
\nin B.Ed. (Regular) Course after completing the required formalities, subject
\nto the final decision of the complaint, and (ii) impugned interim orders
\ndated 16.7.2004 passed by the District Forum in complaint
\nNo.466\/03 and upheld by the State Commission by its Order dated 6.4.2005 in Revision Petition
\nNo.105\/2004 directing the
\nUniversity to declare
\nthe result of the complainant provisionally and further to issue
\nprovisional Migration Certificate and to deliver the original certificates deposited with the University at the time of taking
\nadmission, are set aside. The Revisions petitions are allowed accordingly.
\nThere shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
….J.\n<\/p>\n
( M.B. SHAH ) <\/p>\n
PRESIDENT <\/p>\n
 Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
….\n<\/p>\n
( RAJYALAKSHMI RAO ) <\/p>\n
MEMBER <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Deputy Registrar (Colleges) & … vs Ruchika Jain & Ors. on 7 July, 2006 NCDRC NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 REVISION PETITION No. 1121 of 2005 (From the order dated 17.3.2005 in R.P. No. 156 of 2004 of the State Commission, Haryana) \u00a0 Deputy Registrar (Colleges) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154702","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nDeputy Registrar (Colleges) & ... vs Ruchika Jain & Ors. on 7 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Deputy Registrar (Colleges) & ... vs Ruchika Jain & Ors. on 7 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-07T10:20:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Deputy Registrar (Colleges) & … vs Ruchika Jain & Ors. on 7 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-07T10:20:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":6783,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006\",\"name\":\"Deputy Registrar (Colleges) & ... vs Ruchika Jain & Ors. on 7 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-07T10:20:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Deputy Registrar (Colleges) & … vs Ruchika Jain & Ors. on 7 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Deputy Registrar (Colleges) & ... vs Ruchika Jain & Ors. on 7 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Deputy Registrar (Colleges) & ... vs Ruchika Jain & Ors. on 7 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-07T10:20:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Deputy Registrar (Colleges) & … vs Ruchika Jain & Ors. on 7 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-07T10:20:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006"},"wordCount":6783,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006","name":"Deputy Registrar (Colleges) & ... vs Ruchika Jain & Ors. on 7 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-07T10:20:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-registrar-colleges-vs-ruchika-jain-ors-on-7-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Deputy Registrar (Colleges) & … vs Ruchika Jain & Ors. on 7 July, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154702","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=154702"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154702\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154702"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154702"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154702"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}