LAW LAID DOWN ON EDUCATION
PART
-A
1. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD V SURESH PRASAD SINHA 2009CTJ
1057 SC (CP)
1. “We are clearly of the view that
the Board (examination board) is not a ‘service provider’ and a student who
takes an examination is not a ‘consumer’ and consequently, complaint under the
Act (Consumer Protection Act) will not be maintainable against the board,” said
a bench comprising Justice R V Raveendran and Justice Markandey Katju
2. “The function of the board is to
conduct school examinations. This statutory function involves holding
periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results
and issuing certificates. The process of holding examinations, evaluating
answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages
of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide
this function as partly statutory and partly administrative.
3. “When the examination board
conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not
offer its ‘services’ to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in
the examination conducted by the board, hires or avails of any service from the
board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in
the examination conducted by the board is a person who has undergone a course
of study and who requests the board to test him as to whether he has imbibed
sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having successfully completed
the said course of education; and if so, determine his position or rank or
competence vis-à-vis other examinees.”
4. “The process is not,
therefore, availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general
examination conducted by the board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit
to be considered as having successfully completed the secondary education
course. The examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for
availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of
participation the examination,”
UNIVERSITY
OF BOMBAY V/S MUMBAI GRAM PANCHAYAT REPORTED IN [1994]CPJ 146 [NC] AND IN
CHAORMAN BOARD OF EXAMINATION V/S MOHIDEEN ABDUL KADAR [1997] CPJ 49 [NC]
“University or the Board in conducting public examination
,evaluating papers ,announcing results etc. are not the service providers by
taking consideration.”
REGIONAL
OFFICER CBSE V/S SHEENA PETHAMBRAN[2003]OF SCC 719 AT PAGE 725 SC
‘This court has on several occasions earlier
deprecated the practice of permitting the students to persue their studies and
to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the petitions.
In most of such cases it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over
or the result had been declared ,the matter deserves to be considered
sympathetically.’
BHUPESH
KHURANA &OTHERS V VISHWA BUDHA PARISHAD &OTHERS 2009CTJ 733 CP NO 1135
OF 2001
“College and Hospital that imparting education by an
educational institute falls within the ambit of service as defined in the
consumer protection act.
!)Imparting education
by an institute for consideration falls within the ambit of services and
that the students are consumers of that services .
!!)That it was
total misrepresentation by Budhist Mission Dental College and Hospital
through advertisement giving clear impression that the institute
had its affiliation with Magadh University ,Bodh Gaya and was recognized by
dental council of India .while it was not true ,it tentamounts to unfair
trade practice
CENTRLAL
BOARD OF SEC.EDUCATION & ... V/S ADITYA BANDOPADHYAY & ORS. ON 9
AUGUST, 2011,AUTHOR: R.V.RAVEENDRAN ,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ,CIVIL APPEAL
NO.6454 OF 2011
Issue : Inspection and re-evaluation of answer-books Under
RTI Act
CBSE rejected the said request by letter dated 12.7.2008.
The reasons for rejection were:
Crux of the law laid down in the judgement
CBSE Examination Bye-laws
No.61 . Verification of marks obtained by a Candidate in a
subject (i) A candidate who has appeared at an examination conducted by the
Board may apply to the concerned Regional Officer of the Board for verification
of marks in any particular subject. The verification will be restricted to
checking whether all the answer's have been evaluated and that there has been
no mistake in the totalling of marks for each question in that subject and that
the marks have been transferred correctly on the title page of the answer book
and to the award list and whether the supplementary answer book(s)
attached with the answer book mentioned by the candidate are intact. No revaluation
of the answer book or supplementary answer book(s) shall be done.
(ii) Such an application must be made by the candidate within 21
days from the date of the declaration of result for Main Examination and 15
days for Compartment Examination.
(iii) All such applications must be accompanied by payment of fee
as prescribed by the Board from time to time.
(iv) No candidate shall claim, or be entitled to, revaluation of
his/her answers or disclosure or inspection of the answer book(s) or other documents.
xxxx
(vi) In no case the verification of marks shall be done in the
presence of the candidate or anyone else on his/her behalf, nor will the answer
books be shown to him/her or his/her representative.
(vii) Verification of marks obtained by a candidate will be done
by the officials appointed by or with the approval of the Chairman. (viii) The
marks, on verification will be revised upward or downward, as per the actual
marks obtained by the candidate in his/her answer book. xxxx
62. Maintenance of Answer Books
The answer books shall be maintained for a period of three months
and shall thereafter be disposed of in the manner as decided by the Chairman
from time to time.
Bye-law 61(4), which provided that no candidate shall claim or be
entitled to re-evaluation of answer books or disclosure/inspection of answer
books
Maharashtra
State Board of Secondary Education vs. Paritosh B. Sheth [1984 (4) SCC 27],
Parmod
Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar PAC [2004 (6) SCC 714]
,
Board of Secondary Education vs. Pavan Ranjan P [2004 (13) SCC 383],
Board
of Secondary Education vs. S [2007 (1) SCC 603] and
Secretary,
West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education vs. I Dass [2007 (8) SCC
242]; and
(iv) holding that the examinee had a right to inspect his
answer book under section 3 of the RTI Act and the examining bodies like CBSE
were not exempted from disclosure of information under section 8(1)(e) of the
RTI Act.
On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for our
consideration
(i) Whether an examinee's right to information under the RTI Act
includes a right to inspect his evaluated answer books in a public examination
or taking certified copies thereof?
(ii) (ii) Whether the decisions of this court in Maharashtra State
Board of Secondary Education [1984 (4) SCC 27] and other cases referred to
above, in any way affect or interfere with the right of an examinee seeking
inspection of his answer books or seeking certified copies thereof?
(iii) (iii) Whether an examining body holds the evaluated answer books
in a fiduciary relationship and consequently has no obligation to give
inspection of the evaluated answer books under section 8 (1)(e) of RTI Act?
(iv) (iv) If the examinee is entitled to inspection of the evaluated
answer books or seek certified copies thereof, whether such right is subject to
any limitations, conditions or safeguards?
Relevant Legal Provisions
"The right to information is a cherished right. Information
and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of
responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and
accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all
efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause
(b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and
accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging
corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than
those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and
emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive
information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of
governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under
RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency
and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of
corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the
efficiency of the administration"
"The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to
become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to
destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be
converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials
striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the
staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and
furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular
duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the
authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public
authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal
and regular duties."
Conclusion:In view of the foregoing, the order of the High Court
directing the examining bodies to permit examinees to have inspection of their
answer books is affirmed, subject to the clarifications regarding the scope of
the RTI Act and the safeguards and conditions subject to which `information'
should be furnished
Jai
Jai Kumar Mittal Vs.Brilliant Tutorials ORIGINAL
PETITION NO. 51 OF 1996 NC
…
"it is apparent that there is deficiency
in service by the Opposite Party in supply of study material. However,
the question is whether these errors can be held to be of such importance that
it would result in failure of the Complainant in succeeding Civil Services
Examination. Some of the errors were noted by the
Complainant. Therefore, it would be difficult to hold that it had
adversely affected the Complainant in succeeding the Civil Services
Examination. We appreciate the zeal of the Complainant in highlighting the
errors. Considering the overall facts and errors pointed out by the
Complainant, we are of the opinion that the claim made by the Complainant is
exaggerated. Considering the
dispute involved and
deficiency in service,
we direct the Opposite
Party to pay to the
Complainant Rs.25,000/- towards
compensation, to refund the
amount of Rs.4,800/- paid
to the Opposite Party by way of fees, and also pay
Rs.5,000/- towards costs. The Original Petition is disposed of
accordingly".
PART--B
LAW ON INTERIM ORDERS AGAINST UNIVERSITIES
In Regional Officer CBSE V/s Sheena Pethambaran(2003) of SCC 719 at
page 725 High Courts had given interim orders against which Supreme Court
held;
“This court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the
practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies had to appear
in the examination under the interim orders passed in the petitions. In most of
such cases it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was
over or the result had been declared, the matter deserves to be
considered sympathetically.”
In the above referred
cases,
Revision petition No.1121 of
2005-Ruchika jain V BDS College Faridabad
AND Revision petition No.1127 of 2005
National Commission Justice M.B.Shah warns the Consumer Fora as hereunder
“If High Court is not permitted to pass such orders,
it is to be held ;without hesitation or reservation that Consumer Fora
have no jurisdiction to pass such orders.We hereby direct that in future no
such interim order permitting the students either to pursue the study or ;to
appear in the examination, shall be passed by the Consumer For a. That is
not the function of the Consumer Fora and hence granting of such interim orders
could amount to misconduct:”
Hence the three Revision petitions before the National Commission and
finaly commission held that consumer foras cannot issue interim order on
such subject which are statutory duties of the university and if such orders
are passed , shall be considered misconduct.
Parul Midha in Revision Petition No.1933-34 of
2005
District forum directed the university to give admission to the complainant in
regular B.Ed. course on 14.10.2003 while deciding complaint No.466/03 before
disctrict consumer forum Rohtak. State Commission also confirmed the
order on 6.4.2005. District forum again issued interim order dated
16.7.2004 directing petitioner to declare result and issue provisional
migration certificate. National Commission set aside all the interim
orders passed by the lower forum and commission.
-
PART--C
CENTRLAL BOARD OF SEC.EDUCATION & ...
V/S ADITYA BANDOPADHYAY & ORS. ON 9 AUGUST, 2011 –
RTI ISSUE
Author: R.V.Raveendran
Supreme Court of India
civil appelalte
jurisdiction
civil appeal no.6454 of
2011
Crux of the law laid
down in the judgement
Issue :
Inspection and re-evaluation of answer-books Under RTI Act
CBSE rejected the said
request by letter dated 12.7.2008.
The reasons for
rejection were:
CBSE Examination
Bye-laws
No.61 .
Verification of marks obtained by a Candidate in a subject (i) A candidate who
has appeared at an examination conducted by the Board may apply to the
concerned Regional Officer of the Board for verification of marks in any
particular subject. The verification will be restricted to checking whether all
the answer's have been evaluated and that there has been no mistake in the
totalling of marks for each question in that subject and that the marks have
been transferred correctly on the title page of the answer book and to the
award list and whether the supplementary answer book(s) attached with the
answer book mentioned by the candidate are intact. No revaluation of the answer
book or supplementary answer book(s) shall be done.
(ii) Such an application
must be made by the candidate within 21 days from the date of the declaration
of result for Main Examination and 15 days for Compartment Examination.
(iii) All such
applications must be accompanied by payment of fee as prescribed by the Board
from time to time.
(iv) No candidate shall
claim, or be entitled to, revaluation of his/her answers or disclosure or
inspection of the answer book(s) or other documents.
xxxx
(vi) In no case the
verification of marks shall be done in the presence of the candidate or anyone
else on his/her behalf, nor will the answer books be shown to him/her or
his/her representative.
(vii) Verification of
marks obtained by a candidate will be done by the officials appointed by or
with the approval of the Chairman. (viii) The marks, on verification will be
revised upward or downward, as per the actual marks obtained by the candidate
in his/her answer book. xxxx
62. Maintenance of
Answer Books
The answer books shall
be maintained for a period of three months and shall thereafter be disposed of
in the manner as decided by the Chairman from time to time.
Bye-law 61(4), which provided that no candidate shall claim or be
entitled to re-evaluation of answer books or disclosure/inspection of answer
books
Maharashtra
State Board of Secondary Education vs. Paritosh B. Sheth [1984
(4) SCC 27], Parmod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar PAC [2004 (6) SCC
714], Board of Secondary Education vs. Pavan Ranjan P [2004 (13) SCC 383],
Board of Secondary Education vs. S [2007 (1) SCC 603] and Secretary, West
Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education vs. I Dass [2007 (8) SCC 242]; and
(iv) holding that the examinee had a right to inspect his answer book under
section 3 of the RTI Act and the examining bodies like CBSE were not exempted
from disclosure of information under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
On the contentions
urged, the following questions arise for our consideration
(i) Whether an
examinee's right to information under the RTI Act includes a right to inspect
his evaluated answer books in a public examination or taking certified copies
thereof?
(ii) Whether the
decisions of this court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education [1984
(4) SCC 27] and other cases referred to above, in any way affect or interfere
with the right of an examinee seeking inspection of his answer books or seeking
certified copies thereof?
(iii) Whether an
examining body holds the evaluated answer books in a fiduciary relationship and
consequently has no obligation to give inspection of the evaluated answer books
under section 8 (1)(e) of RTI Act?
(iv) If the examinee is
entitled to inspection of the evaluated answer books or seek certified copies
thereof, whether such right is subject to any limitations, conditions or
safeguards?
RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION is a cherished
right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools
in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in
transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced
strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary
information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to
securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities
and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is
information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act),
equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like
confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships,
efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical
demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry
information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of
public authorities and
eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration
The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead t
&nbs
Become a Member of the new revolution "Consumer Awakening" and instantly expand your knowledge with the Important Landmark Judgements, Laws Laid down by the Supreme Court for Consumer Rights, Get access to hundreds of Featured Articles in 2 different Languages; English and Hindi - a valuable professional resource to draw upon, and a powerful, collective voice to advocate for your protection of rights as a consumer nationwide.
Thank you for your interest in becoming a "Consumer Awakening" Member!
You will find information on Customer Rights, what we're doing and how to become a member. If you are looking forward to become a member of our portal and gain access to Hundreds of Featured Articles which will clearly give you an insight of yoru rights as a Consumer, then Read Further. more detail on our technologies and technology process,