MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITYversusSURJEET KAUR

                   [2010] 8 S.C.R. 475


            MAHARSHI DAYANANO UNIVERSITY                             A
                                v.
                        SURJEET KAUR
                (Civil Appeal No.6807 of 2008)
                        JULY 19, 2010
                                                                     B
 [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

      -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 e::amination for the withdrawn course and passing the same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
 the candidates like the student in the instant case - Rules and
                                                                     F
 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
respondent to even apply for admission in the B.Ed.
correspondence course. The appellant was, therefore,
absolutely right in withholding this privilege from the
respondent. Thus, the Rule being prohibitory in nature, D
the District Forum or the National Commission could not ,
have issued a direction which violates the statutory
provision i.e. clause 17 of the Rules of Examination.
Neither the court nor any tribunal has the competence to
issue a direction contrary to law and to act in E
contravention of a statutory provision. The court has no
competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor the
court can direct an authority to act in contravention of
statutory provisions. [Paras 9 and 1O] [484-A-D]
    State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Renuka Sing/a and Ors.      F
(1994) 1 SCC 175; Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation vs. Ashraful/a Khan and Ors. AIR 2002 SC 629;
Manish Goel vs. Rohini Goel AIR 2010 SC 1099 - relied on.
     2.1 There can be no estoppel/promissory esto·ppel
against the Legislature in the exercise of the legislative   G
function nor can the Government or public authority be
debarred from enforcing a statutory prohibition.
Promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine, must
yield when the equity so requires. [Para 17] [486-C-D]
                                                             H
    2.2 The notification dated 16.3.1998 issued by the
   478     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A appellant-University was not meant for the candidates like
  the respondent. As a matter of fact, under the garb of the
  said notification, the respondent managed to get her form
  registered with the appellant and when this discrepancy
  was discovered, the appellant chose to set it right which
B was perfectly justified. The respondent cannot plead any
  estoppel either by conduct or against a statute so as to
  gain any advantage of the fact that she was allowed to
  appear in the examination. The respondent abused the
  privilege of appearing in the B.Ed. examination though
c she was not entitled to avail of the benefit of notification
  dated 16.3.1998. [Paras 15 and 20] (485-E-F; 488-G]
       2.3 The conduct of the respondent was such that
  even though she had no statutory right or any vested
  right to pursue her B.Ed. course, the mistake on the part
o of the appellant to allow her to appear in the examination
  cannot be by any logic treated to be a conduct of the
  appellant to confer any such right on the respondent. The
  rules and regulations cannot be allowed to be defeated
  merely because the appellant erroneously allowed the
E respondent to appear in the B.Ed. examination. The
  records reveal that the respondent did not challenge the
  cancellation of her results in respect of the B.Ed
  examination which were held in 1995 The said order
  attained finality. The Respondent straightaway
F approached the District Forum in the year 2000 for the
  conferment of B.Ed. degree in pursuance of the
  examinations conducted under the Notification dated
  16.3.1998. This, was a totally misdirected approach and
  the District Forum fell into error by granting the relief.
G [Para 18] (486-F-H; 487-A-B]
        Union Territory, Chandigarh, Admn. and Ors. vs.
  Managing Society, Goswami, GDSDC (1996) 7 SCC 665; Dr.
  H. S. Rikhy etc. vs. The New Delhi Municipal Committee AIR
  1962 SC 554; M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu
H and Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 464; Shish Ram and Ors. vs. State
 MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY v. SURJEET                 479
                 KAUR
of Haryana and Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 84; Chandra Prakash            A
Tiwari and Ors. vs. Shakuntala Shukl]a and Ors. (2002) 6 SCC
127; I. T. C. Ltd. vs. Person lncharge AMC, Kakinada and Ors.
AIR 2004 SC 1796; State of UP. and Anr. vs. Uttar Pradesh
Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti and Ors. (2008)
12 SCC 675; Sneh Gupta vs. Devi Sarup and Ors. (2009) 6         B
sec 194 - relied on.
    3. The respondent as a student is neither a consumer
nor is the appellant university rendering any service. The
claim of the respondent to award B.Ed. degree was
almost in the nature of a relief praying for a direction to     C
the appellant to act contrary to its own rules. The entire
exercise of entertaining the complaint by the District
Forum and the award/of relief which has been approved
by the National Comm,ission do not conform to law and,
therefore, the same is set aside. [Para 20] [489-A-C]           D,
    Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad
Sinha (2009) 8 sec 483 - relied on.
    Bangalore Water Supply and Severage Board vs. A.
Rajappa and Ors., AIR 1978 SC 548 - held inapplicable.          E
                     Case Law Reference:
     AIR 1978 SC 548          held inapplicable    Para 6
     (1994) 1 sec 115         Relied on.           Para 10
     AIR 2002 SC 629          Relied on.           Para 11      F
     AIR 2010 SC 1099         Relied on.           Para 12
     (1996) 1 sec 665         Relied on.           Para 16
     AIR 1962 SC 554          Relied on.           Para 17
     (1999) 6 sec 464         Relied on.           Para 17      G
     (2000) 6 sec 84          Relied on.           Para 17
     (2002) 6 sec 121         Relied on.           Para 17
     AIR 2004 SC 1796         Relied on.           Para 17
     (2008) 12 sec 675        Relied on.           Para 17      H
    480       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A         (2009) s sec 194          Relied on.             Para 17
          (2009) s sec 483          Relied on.             Para 20
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    6807 of 2008.
B       From the Judgment & Order dated 27.4.2007 of the
    National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
    Delhi in Revision Petition No. 132 of 2006.
          Tarun Gupta (for S. Janani) for the Appellant.
      Surjeet Kaur Respondent-In-Person through her father
C Amrik Singh.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. The Maharshi Dayanand
  University (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") has
D questioned the correctness of the order in Revision Petition
  No.132/06 passed by the National Consumer Disputes
  Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter called "National
  Commission") dated 27.4.2007 whereby the National
  Commission has allowed the Revision Petition and the order
E passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
  Commission (hereinafter. referred to as "State Commission")
  has been set aside simultaneously restoring the order passed
  by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
  (hereinafter called as "District Forum"). A further direction has
F been issued to the appellant to issue the B.Ed. Degree to the
  respondent on the basis of the results of her examinations Hhich
  were held in December, 1998.
        2. The dispute arose when the respondent felt aggrieved
   by the action of the appellant refusing to confer the degree of
G B.Ed. on her. The background of the facts giving rise to the case
   was that the respondent took admission in the academic
   session of 1994-95 as a regular student to pursue the course
 . of M.A. in Political Science from Government College, Gurgaon.
   The respondent appeared in the Part-II Examination in May,
   1995 as a regular candidate and in the same academic
H session of 1994-95 she also applied for admission in the B.Ed.
  MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY v. SURJEET                   481
        KAUR [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

(correspondence course) without disclosing the fact that she        A
was already pursuing the regular course of M.A. in Political
Science. The University at the time of preparation of the results
of M.A. in Political Science discovered that the respondent had
been pursuing her B.Ed. course in violation of Clause 17(b) of
the General Rules of Examination and accordingly the                B
respondent was informed that in view of the aforesaid rules she
should exercise her option to choose anyone of the courses.
    3. The respondent voluntarily and consciously opted for
pursuing her course of M.A. in Political Science and forewent
her B.Ed. Degree course.                                            C
     4. Subsequently, the University as a general measure of
benefit granted an indulgence through Notification dated
16.3.1998 giving a further chance to such Ex. students who had
not been able to complete their post-graduation/B.Ed. courses
                                                                    D
within the span of prescribed period as provided for under the
rules. The supplementary examinations in this regard were
announced by the University in the month of December, 1998.
      5. The respondent applied under the said Notification for
appearing in B.Ed. examination and succeeded in appearing           E
in the examinations and also passed the same. The Appellant-
U niversity refused to confer the degree of B.Ed. on the
respondent. Aggrieved, the respondent approached the District
Forum in the year 2000 praying for the relief which has now
been ultimately awarded in the impugned order of National           F
Commission. The District Forum passed an order in favour of
the respondent vide judgment and order dated 24.9.2004 and
directed the appellant to issue the B.Ed. degree and also
award Rs.1,000/- as compensation to the respondent. This
order was passed by the District Forum despite a specific           G
objection taken by the appellant that the District Forum had no
jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint and award any such
relief.
   6. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the State
Commission and the same was allowed vide judgment dated             H
    482     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2010] 8 S.C.R.


A 19.10.2005. The judgment of the District Forum was set aside
  holding that the District Forum should not have entertained the
  complaint. The respondent aggrieved by the order of the State
  Commission preferred a revision under Section 21 of the
  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to 'Act
B 1986') before the National Commission which has been
  allowed by way of the impugned order. The National
  Commission took notice of the issue relating to the entertaining
  of the complaint and the jurisdiction of the District Forum to
  hear the same. The National Commission relying on its larger
c Bench judgment in F.A. No.643 of 1994 dated 31.5.2001 held
  that imparting of education by the educational institutions for
  consideration falls within the ambit of service as defined under
  the Act and further relying on the judgment of this Court in the
  case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A.
D Rajappa & Ors. AIR 1978 SC 548 held that in view of the ratio
  of the said decision and the peculiar facts of the case, the
  respondent was entitled for the relief claimed and accordingly
  the appellant was directed to issue the B.Ed. degree.
          7. Shri Tarun Gupta, Ld. counsel appearing for the
E   appellant has made three pronged submissions. He contends
    that the complaint could not have been entertained as the refusal
    of the appellant not to award the B.Ed. degree was well within
    its jurisdiction and it was not service much less a consumer
    service as defined under the Act for the District Forum to
F   entertain the complaint. The second submission of Shri Gupta
    is that the rules as noted herein"h 'Ve did not allow a student
    to pursue two courses simultaneot.. -·f and therefore, the attempt
    made by the respondent without disclosing the fact of having
    already taken up another course i.e. Political Science in post-
G   graduation disentitled her from any relief. As a corollary to the
    said submission, he submits that non-disclosure of this fact,
    therefore, did not entitle her to the award of B.Ed. degree more
    so, when her examination had already been cancelled and the
    order cancelling her examination had not been properly
H   challenged. The third submission of Shri Gupta is that the
  MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY v. SURJEET                      483
        KAUR [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
National Commission has taken too sympathetic view for the             A
respondent and while doing so the National Commission has
not correctly appreciated the impact of the General Rules of
Examination as quoted hereinabove and the Notification dated
16.3.1998 which even otherwise did not allow the respondent
to qualify to appear in the B.Ed. examination.                         B
     8. The respondent alongwith her father appeared in
person and vehemently tried to persuade us to believe that the
respondent would be loosing her career and that she should
not be declined the benefitl) of her academic pursuits on any
technicality keeping in view the fact that the University itself had   C
allowed the respondent to appear in the examination and the
order cancelling her result had been passed in violation of
principle of natural justice without giving her any notice or
opportunity. The other submissions that were raised are
borrowed from the finding recorded by the National                     D
Commission which had been reiterated before us.
     9. Before we embark upon the assessment of the rival
submissions, it would be appropriate to reproduce Clause 17
of the General Rules of Examination as well as the Notification
dated 16.3:1998 which are directly involved in the present             E
context.
     "17   Unless otherwise provided, a person who :-
     (a) has already passed an examination of this or any
     other university shall not be permitted to re-appear in that      F
     examination for a corresponding examination.
     (b) is a candidate for an examination in full subjects
     of this University can not simultaneously read for, or
     appear at another examination of this University or of            G
     another University/Board. The bar shall not apply to a
     candidate appearing in an examination of the University
     for passing/re-appear papers or for improvement of
     division/result or for additional subject."
                                                                       H
    484      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A A perusal of the General Rules of Examination 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 Board. This
B prohibition, therefore, did not allow the respondent to even
  apply for admission in the B.Ed. correspondence course. The
  appellant was, therefore, absolutely right in withholding this
  privilege from the respondent. The contention of Ld. counsel for
  the appellant has, therefore, to be accepted that the Rule being
c prohibitory in nature, the District Forum or the National
  Commission could not have issued a direction which violates
  the aforesaid statutory provision. It is settled legal proposition
  that neither the Court nor any tribunal has the competence to
  issue a direction contrary to law and to act in contravention of
  a statutory provision.
0
        10. The Court has no competence to issue a direction
  contrary to law nor the Court can direct an authority to act in
  contravention of statutory provisions. In State of Punjab & Ors.
   Vs. Renuka Sing/a & Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 175, dealing with a
E similar situation, this Court observed as under:-
          "We fail to appreciate as to how the High Court or this
          Court can be generous or liberal in issuing such directions
          which in substance amount to directing the authorities
          concerned to violate their own statutory rules and
F         regu Iat.ions ....... "
         11. Similarly, in Karnataka State Road Transport
    Corporation Vs. Ashrafulla Khan & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 629,
    this Court held as under:-
G         "The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is
          required to enforce rule of law and not pass order or
          direction which is contrary to what has been injuncted by
          law."
          12. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in
H
         .                               .
  MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY v. SURJEET                       485
        KAUR [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Manish Goel Vs. Rohini Goel AIR 2010 SC 1099.                           A
    13. It is worth noting that the respondent at the time of filling
up of her form for B.Ed. course at the first instance had not
made any disclosure about her pursuit of post-graduate student
in Political Science.
                                                                        8
     14. The Notification dated 16.3.1998 read as under:-
     "lt is notified that the University has granted last mercy
     chance to the candidates of Under-graduate (Under
     Pattern 10+2+3) as well as post-graduate examination (s)
     (Annual system after discontinuation of Semester system)           C
     except MBBS/BDS/MD/PG Diplomas Courses, who could
     not clear their re-appear paper (s) within stipulated
     chances and have been declared as fail and those who
     could not pass/complete the degree within the stipulated
     period e.g. within six years of Under-graduate and four            D
     years for post-graduate courses, as per the latest syllabi.
     The examination fee will be Rs. 1,000/-."
      15. A bare perusal of the same would demonstrably make .
it clear that the said provision was not meant for candidates
                                                                E
like the respondent. As a matter of fact, under the garb of the
said Notification, the respondent managed to get her form
registered with the appellant and when this discrepancy was
discovered, the appellant chose to set it right which in our
opinion was perfectly justified. The respondent cannot plead
any estoppel either by conduct or against a Statute so as to F
gain any advantage of the fact that she was allowed to appear
in the examination.
     16. In Union Territory, Chandigarh, Admn. & Ors. Vs.
Managing Society, Goswami, GDSDC, (1996) 7 SCC 665,                     G
this Court considered the case under the provisions of the
Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, wherein a
demand had been challenged on the ground of equitable
estoppel. This Court held that promissory estoppel does not
apply against the Statute. Therefore, the authority had a right         H
    486      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A   to make recovery of outstanding dues in accordance with law.
    The Court held as under :-
          "(The Administration) only corrected a patent mistake which
          could not be permitted to subsist.. ..... A contract in
          violation of the mandatory provisions of law can only be
B         read and enforced in terms of the law and in no other way.
          The question of equitable estoppel does not arise in this
          case because there can be no estoppel against a statute."
           17. There can be no estoppel/promissory estoppel against
c   the Legislature in the exercise of the legislative function nor can
    the Government or public authority be debarred from enforcing
    a statutory prohibition. Promissory estoppel being an equitable
    doctrine, must yield when the equity so requires. (vide Dr. H.S.
    Rikhy etc. Vs. The New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1962
    SC 554; M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu &
0
    Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 464; Shish Ram & Ors. Vs. State of
    Haryana & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 84; Chandra Prakash Tiwari
  I & Ors. Vs. Shakuntala Shukla & Ors., (2002) 6 SCC 127;
    I. T. C. Ltd. Vs. Person lncharge, AMC, Kakinada & Ors., AIR
    2004 SC 1796; State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Utta,r Pradesh Rajya
E Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC
    675; and Sneh Gupta Vs. Devi Sarup & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC
    194).
        18. On the other hand, the conduct of the respondent was
F such that even though she had no statutory right or any vested
  right to pursue her B.Ed. course, the mistake on the part of the
  appellant to allow her to appear in the examination cannot be
  by any logic treated to be a conduct of the appellant to confer
  any such right on the respondent. The rules and regulations
G cannot be allowed to be defeated merely because the appellant
  erroneously allowed the respondent to appear in the B.Ed.
  examination. The records reveal that the respondent did not
  challenge the cancellation of her results in respect of 1995
  examination. The said order attained finality. Respondent
H straightaway approached the District Forum in the year 2000
  MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY v. SURJEET                  487
        KAUR [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
for the conferment of B.Ed. degree in pursuance of the            A
examinations conducted under the Notification dated
16.3.1998. This, in the opinion of the court, was a totally
misdirected approach and the District Forum fell into error by
granting the relief.
     19. The third and the most important issue that deserves     B
to be answered is the competence of the District Forum and
the hierarchy of the Tribunals constituted under the Act 1986
to entertain such a complaint. In our opinion, this issue is no
longer res integra and has been extensively discussed by a
recent judgment of this Court in the~case of Bihar School         C
Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC
483, where it has been held as under :-
    "11. The Board is a statutory authority established under
    the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952. The             D
    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     E
    statutory ·non-commercial function. It is not possible to
    divide this function as partly statutory and partly
    administrative.
    12.When the Examination Board conducts an examination F
    in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its
    services" to any candidate. Nor does a student who
    participates in tb~ examination conducted by the_Board, ____ _
    hires or avails of any service from the Board for a
    consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who G
    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 H
    488       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A         education; and if so, determine his position or rank or
          competence vis-a-vis other examinees. 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
B         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
          in the examination.

C         13. The object of the Act is to cover in. its net, services
          offered or rendered for a consideration. Any service
          rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a
          commercial activity in its broadest sense (including
          professional activity or quasi-commercial activity). But the
D         Act does not intend to cover discharge of a statutory
          function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be
          declared as having successfully completed a course by
          passing the examination. The fact that in the course of
          conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer-
E         scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there
          may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does
          not convert the Board into a service-provider for a
          consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer
          who can make a complaint under the Act. We are clearly
F         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 Act will not be
          maintainable against the Board." (Emphasis added)
       20. The respondent abused the privilege of appearing in
G the B.Ed. examination though she was not entitled to avail of
  the benefit of notification dated 16.3.1998.
         The National Commission appears to have been swayed
    by observations made in the Bangalore Water Supply case
    (supra). The respondent as a student is neither a consumer nor
H
  MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY v. Sl.JRJEET                 489
        KAUR [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

 is the appellant rendering any service. The claim of the           A
 respondent to award B.Ed. degree was almost in the nature of
a relief praying for a direction to the appellant to act contrary
to its own rules. The National Commission, in our opinion, with
the utmost respect to the reasoning given therein did not take
into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and thus,     B
arrived at a wror:ig conclusion. The case decided by this Court
 in Bihar School Examination Board (supra) ,,clearly lays down
the law in this regard with which we finp ourselves in full
agreement with. Accordingly, the entire exercise of entertaining
the complaint by the District Forum and the award of relief which   c
has been approved by the National Commission do not
conform to law and we, therefore, set aside the same. We wish
to make it clear that the National Commission felt that the
respondent had been "harassed" and has also gone to the
extent of using the word "torture" against an officer of the        D
appellant. The appellant is an autonomous body and the
decision of the appellant and the statutory provisions have to
be implemented through its officers. This also includes the
implementation of all such measures which have a statutory
backing and if they are implemented honestly through a correct
                                                                    E
interpretation. the same, in our opinion, cannot extend to the
degree of torture or harassment. The appellant had to be battle
out this litigation upto this Court to establish the very
fundamental of the case that the District Forum had no
jurisdiction to entertain any such complaint and, in our opinion,
they have done so successfully.                                     F

     21. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and
                                                                    \
order of the District Forum and the National Commission are
set aside. No costs.
                                                                    G
K.K.T.                                      Appeal dismissed.