|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Almost every year we see reports of such goof-ups by examination boards around the country. In May this year, newspapers had reported that hundreds of students who appeared in the intermediate examination of the Uttar Pradesh Board had been falsely declared ‘absent’ in a paper. Unfortunately, there is no system of accountability and those responsible for such callous negligence in the declaration of examination results, causing immense distress to the students, get away scot free. So long as examination boards do not identify the culprits and take punitive action, instances of such ‘mistakes’ will continue.
What is most unfortunate in all this is the fact that consumer courts cannot give similar relief, because of a narrow and conservative interpretation of the law by the Supreme Court in 2009, in Bihar School Examination board Vs Suresh Prasad Sinha (CA No 3911 of 2003) The Supreme Court in this case held that the conduct of examination by the boards is a statutory, non-commercial function and a student who participates in the examination is not a consumer, nor the board, a service provider, as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Said the Supreme Court in this case: "We are clearly of the view that the board is not a service provider, and a student who takes an examination is not a consumer, and consequently, complaint under the Consumer Protection Act will not be maintainable against the Board" It also held that "the examination fee paid by the student is not a consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination". As a result, in a case pertaining to Bangalore University, where a student’s marks in computer science had been declared as 05 instead of 50, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint (Bangalore University vs Sri Dattatri S., RP NO 1408 of 2005). Even last month, the Commission dismissed a complaint filed on the issue, on similar grounds (The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board Vs Kundan Kumar, RP No 576 of 2013). Can one approach the university Ombudsman for redress of examination-related complaints? The University Grants Commission (Grievance Redressal) Regulations 2012, mandate that all colleges have a grievance redress committee and every university, an Ombudsman for redress of students’ and parents’ grievances. The Ombudsman, however, can only address complaints pertaining to admissions, quality of education, non-transparent or unfair evaluation practices, delay in conduct of examinations and results, etc. In fact the Regulations state that "No application for revaluation or remarking of answer sheets shall be entertained by the Ombudsman, unless specific irregularity materially affecting the outcome of specific instance of discrimination is indicated". So you will have to approach the university examination board for redress of your complaint. As for compensation, your only option is to approach the court. If a number of students have been affected, all of them can join together and file a common petition or a class action suit.
|
||
|
|
||
My
daughter appeared for the final semester of her law degree course last
year. However, when the results came, we were in for a huge shock
because she was shown as having failed in the examination. When we
checked up the marks card, we found that she was marked ‘absent’
for two papers. Despite our repeated requests, we are yet to get the
corrected marks card and our daughter has already lost an academic
year, as she is unable to apply for any post-graduate course. Can we
approach the consumer court for relief and compensation?
Last
year, while awarding a compensation of Rs 3 lakh to a student, who
lost an academic year on account of a ‘mistake’ in the marks
sheet, the Orissa High Court directed that those responsible for the
mistake be identified and stringent action taken against them. It was
also open to the Board of Secondary Education to recover the
compensation money from the erring officials, the court said (Suman
Panigrahi Vs Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, WP No 15465 of
2013). The Board in this case had wrongly printed the marks obtained
by the student in mathematics as 09 instead of 89!