Thunderous judgment by National Commission on Education

(New Dimensions to “education as service” under Consumer Protection Act)

 

Once again education as service has been discussed in the recent judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble National commission which has opened a plethora of issues on Education as service. As many as 25 bunches of cases having number of petitioners and respondents have come to the National Commission from all over the country either in appeals or in Revision petitions for explanations to education as service . So far as per the Apex courts judgments there are two sets of cases decided on education –firstly education is service with confirming judgment in the matter of Usmania  Islamia Academy Of Education V State Of Karnataka AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3724, Writ Petition (C) No. 350 Of 1993 decision on 14.08.2003 by  three judges’s bench which was further confirmed by the judgment in case of Bhupesh Khurana v Budha Dental College & hospital in the year 2004. Another set of cases was following Bihar School Examination Board case decided in the year 2009 and further confirmed by the same Supreme court in the matter of Maharishi Dayan and University v/s Surjeet Kour case decided in the year 2010.In the first set of cases, student is considered a consumer against educational institutes for deficiency in services as well as for indulging into unfair trade practices. In another set of cases led by Bihar school Examination Board cases, student is not a consumer against examination board or against Universities because they are considered doing their statutory functions and not rendering services

But in the present case in hands namely Consumer Case No. 261 Of 2012 Manu Solanki & 8 Ors  V/S Vinayaka Mission University,Tamilnadu with 24 more cases, issue is not limited to whether education is a service or not. These cases raise number of issues related to education as hereunder –

·         When student is consumer for rendering services

·         What is the definition of education?

·         Who can be called educational institute.

·         Whether coaching centre render education

·         Whether incidental activities associated with educational institutes such as swimming ,sports etc are covered under education Whether skill development courses/vocational studies  are covered under education

·         Whether post education after completion, or pre admission, institute renders services.

 

The above issues had never been raised so far when services of education under consumer protection act are discussed by the apex court or apex commission. This is the first time when various old judgments from the Supreme Court are cited to explain above issues.

WHEN STUDENT IS NOT A CONSUMER FOR RENDERING SERVICES

·         As far as cases against universities are concerned, they all have been dismissed following Bihar School examination Board and Maharishi Dayan and University cases earlier decided by the Apex court in the year 2009 & 2010. These cases are  Consumer Case No. 261 Of 2012 Manu Solanki & 8 Ors  V/S Vinayaka Mission University,Tamilnadu and likewise cases

Revision Petition No. 3159 of 2014 Seedling Academy of Design And

Technology v/S Ranjeet Singh Tanwar; Any defect/ deficiency in conferring of a degree/ diploma, marks, certificates which may arise is a subject matter of university and college does not render services during the course of imparting of Education’

Revision Petition Nos. 721 and 722 of 2018 Revision Petition No. 721 Of 2018

National Institute Of Fashion Technology V/S Shikha Goel Revision Petition No. 722 Of 2018 National Institute Of Fashion Technology V/S Ruby Goel

“Questioning allotment of seats in any specific location after having paid the fees, not consumer”

Revision Petition Nos. 2955 to 2963 of 2018

Arg - once the University is declared as ‘Deemed University’ all functions and

Activities governed by the University Grants Commission Act (UGC Act), fall within the definition of ‘Authority’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and would be amenable only to the jurisdiction of the High Court.

 

 

·         WHEN STUDENT IS A CONSUMER FOR RENDERING SERVICES

Revision Petitions No. 1731 to 1733 of 2017 Arti Sao & Anr Versus v/s Shakuntala Vidyalaya & 4 Ors. National commission held –“an educational institution would come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

·         POST EDUCATION –AFTER COMPLETION NOT RENDERING SERVICES

 

Revision Petition No. 222 of 2015 Revision Petition No. 222 Of 2015

Neelu Verma versus Blue Mountain College Of Teachers Education (NCTE) ; allegation of student –college not   found recognized by National Council of Technical Education (NCTE) and affiliated with the Opposite Party No. 2, Uttrakhand Technical University .

 Commission held-post education –after completion not rendering services

 

·         INCIDENTAL ACTIVITIES OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WHILE IMPARTING EDUCATION NOT AMOUNT TO RENDERING SERVICE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Revision Petition No.     1731 To 1733 of 2017

 

Arg -Education in a school is not limited to teaching in a class room- “educational

Excursion trip” defect or deficiency which may arise on account of a student drowning in a swimming pool maintained by the Educational Institution

Defect or deficiency in the transportation not deficient in services

 

CONDUCTING COACHING CLASSES WHETHER FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF DEFINITION OF ‘EDUCATION’ - revision petition no. 462 of 2013 is directed to be placed before the appropriate bench for deciding it on merits.

 

Revision Petition No. 462 of 2013 with respect to Coaching Institutions.

Question -whether the Coaching Institutions fall within the definition of “Educational Institution”.

Arg -Coaching Centres are promoting rote learning and not imparting actual knowledge.Relied - Hon’ble Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar (Supra). Coaching Centres cannot be equated to regular schools or colleges which are regulated by a Regulatory Authority and also confer a Degree/Diploma on the student who has passed in the examinations conducted as per the Rules and norms specified in the statute .

 

-

VOCATIONAL COURSES ARE THOSE COURSES NOT TAKEN UP ON REGULAR BASIS, HENCE NOT EDUCATION (Definition of educational institute)

Multimedia diploma and certificate courses are not parting education

 

 Revision Petition Nos. 3383 and 3384 of 2018

Admission in Multimedia Diploma and Certificate Courses

In 3D Animation, Visual Effects, Video, Editing, Graphic Designing and Web Designing,

Recognized by Karnataka State Open University

Arg -withdrawal of any such program cannot fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora.

. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association & Ors., 2017 (9) SCC 379 , observed that Vocational Courses are those Courses in which teaching is not on regular basis, though they play an important role in the grooming of students in the different fields. Vocational education can also be termed as job oriented education and trains young people for various jobs and helps them acquire specialize skills.

.Further ,The Union Cabinet has approved a merger of the existing Regulatory Institutions in the skills space — National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) and the National Skill Development Agency (NSDA) into the National Council for Vocational Education and Training(NCVET).. The main purpose and objective of NCVET is to recognize and regulate and assess the skill related service regulators. It is clarified that even if there is any defect/deficiency/unfair trade practice in the services offered by private bodies in offering these courses and are not regulated and do not confer any Degree or Diploma recognized by any Approved Authority do fall within the ambit of definition of ‘Educational Institutions’

 

CONCLUSION

Above judgment is likely to go to Supreme Court for many reasons.

·         Incidental activities may not be a part of education but Consumer Protection Act deals with services of all kinds not limited to education.

·         Similarly all other other vocational courses & coaching centers are rendering services, may not be fit to be called educational institute. The cited cases of Supreme Court comprising seven judge’s bench may not be appropriate when dealing with Consumer Protection Act and services under it. Even if they do not meet the criteria of educational institute , rendering services under consumer protection act does not need it to be necessarily labeled as educational institute

·         Facts of the case in post admission case discussed here in this judgment is little different from Bhupesh Khurana case but grievance is the same-non recognition and non-affiliation of the college as promised. In Bhupesh khurana case, students came ahead before completing the course but in this case after completing it, student came to know that the information was wrong. But impact of such wrong will remain the same ,value of the degree will not be the same as promised ,hence this issue also is likely to go the higher court and post completion theory may be discussed again

With this observation VOICE is suggested to take up this matter for a consumer cause.   

 

Previous

Next