LexMAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY versus SURJEET KAUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 475 MAHARSHI DAYANANO UNIVERSITY v. SURJEET KAUR (Civil Appeal No.6807 of 2008) JULY 19, 2010 [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] A B -C,onsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Complaint by a student againstUniversity - Maintainability - Student pursuing two courses simultaneously - The University finding the same to C be in violation of the Examination Rules - The student . withdrawing from one course - University issuing a Notification giving opportunity to ex-students to appear in supplementary examination for completing their incomplete courses - The student, in view of the Notification appearing in the o e::amination for the withdrawn course and passing the same - Refusal to confer the degree - Complaint before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - The District Forum directing the University to confer the degree - State Commission deciding in favour of University - National Commission restoring the E order of District Forum - On appeal, held: The direction to confer the degree is in violation of the statutory provision i.e. Examination Rules - Court has no competence to issue a direction contrary to law - The notification was not meant for F the candidates like the student in the instant case - Rules and Regulations cannot be allowed to be defeated merely because the University erroneously allowed the student to appear in the examination - The fact that the student was allowed to appear in the exam does not create estoppel against the University - There can be no estoppellpromissory estoppel against an authority from enforcing a statutory G prohibition - The student is neither a consumer nor the University is rendering any service - Therefore, consumer court was not right in entertaining the complaint - Education - General Rules of Examination of Maharshi Dayanand 475 H 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010]"8 S.C.R. A University - Clause 17 - Estoppel/Promissory Estoppel. Estoppel - Estoppel!Primissory estoppel - There can be no estoppel against Legislature - Promissory estoppel must yield when the equity so requires - Equity. B The respondent was pursuing the course of M.A. with the appellant-University. At the time of preparation of the result of M.A., the University discovered that the respondent-student had also been pursuing her B.Ed. course simultaneously, which was in violation of Clause c 17(b) of the General Rules of Examination of the University. The University informed the respondent to exercise her option to choose any one of the courses. The respondent opted to pursue the course of M.A. and forewent the B.Ed. course and the results in respect of D her B.Ed examination was cancelled by the University. Subsequently, the University issued the Notification, dated 16.3.1998, giving a further chance to such ex- students who had not been able to complete their post graduationlB.Ed. courses within prescribed time span, to E appear in the supplementary examination for the same. Taking advantage of the Notification, the respondent- student applied for and succeeded in appearing in the B.Ed examination and also passed the same. Appellant- University refused to confer degree of B.Ed to her. F The respondent-student filed complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Appellant- Un iversity questioned the jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint. The District Forum directed the University to issue B.Ed degree to the G respondent. The appeal against the order was allowed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holding thei: the District Forum should not have entertained the complaint. The revision petition against the order of the State Commission was allowed by H National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVER$1TY v. SURJEET 477 KAUR holding that imparting of education by educational A institution falls within the ambit of service as defined under Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, instant appeal was filed by the appellant-University. Allowing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1. The General Rules of Examination of the appellant-University leave no room for doubt that a candidate who is pursuing a regular course for an examination in full subjects of the University cannot be simultaneously permitted to appear in another regular course of the same University or of another University or C Board. This prohibition, therefore, did not allow the re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.