REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6807 of 2008

 MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY   …. Appellant

VERSUS

SURJEET KAUR   …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. The Maharshi Dayanand University (hereinafter referred  

to as “the appellant”)  has 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 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 been issued to the appellant to issue the  

B.Ed. Degree to the respondent on the basis of the results of  

her examinations which 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  

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 session  

of  1994-95  she  also  applied  for  admission  in  the  B.Ed.  

(correspondence course) without disclosing the fact that she  

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  

2

accordingly the 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.

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 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 in  

the examinations and also passed the same.  The Appellant-

University  refused  to  confer  the  degree  of  B.Ed.  on  the  

3

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 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  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  

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  

1986’)  before  the  National  Commission  which  has  been  

allowed  by  way  of  the  impugned  order.   The  National  

4

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 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. 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  

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 entertain the complaint.  The second submission of  

5

Shri  Gupta  is  that  the  rules  as  noted  hereinabove  did  not  

allow a  student  to  pursue  two  courses  simultaneously  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-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  challenged.   The  third  

submission of Shri Gupta is that the National Commission has  

taken  too  sympathetic  view   for  the  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.

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  

6

not be declined the benefits of her academic pursuits on any  

technicality keeping in view the fact that the University itself  

had 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  

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  

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  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  another  University/Board.  The bar shall not apply to  a candidate  appearing in an examination  of  

7

the  University  for passing/re-appear  papers  or  for  improvement  of  division/result  or  for  additional subject.”   

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 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  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.

8

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 Singla & Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 175, dealing  

with a 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 regulations…….”

11. Similarly,  in  Karnataka  State  Road  Transport  

Corporation Vs. Ashrafulla Khan & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 629,  

this Court held as under:–

“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 Manish  

Goel Vs. Rohini Goel AIR 2010 SC 1099.   

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  

9

not made any disclosure about her pursuit of post-graduate  

student in Political Science.

14. The Notification dated 16.3.1998 read as under:-

“It 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) 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 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 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  

10

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, 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  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 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  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  

11

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  

& Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 464; Shish Ram & Ors. Vs. State of  

Haryana  &  Ors., (2000)  6  SCC  84;  Chandra  Prakash  

Tiwari & Ors. Vs.  Shakuntala Shukla & Ors., (2002) 6  

SCC  127;  I.T.C.  Ltd. Vs.  Person  Incharge,  AMC,  

Kakinada & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1796;  State of  U.P.  &  

Anr. Vs.  Uttar  Pradesh  Rajya  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 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 cannot be allowed  

to be defeated merely because the appellant erroneously  

allowed  the  respondent  to  appear  in  the  B.Ed.  

12

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 straightaway 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, 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 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  

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 function of the Board is to   conduct  school  examinations.  This  statutory  

13

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.  

12.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-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  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.

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).   

14

But the 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- 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 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 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 is the appellant 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 the appellant to act contrary  

to its own rules.  The National Commission, in our opinion,  

15

with the utmost respect to the reasoning given therein did not  

take into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and  

thus, arrived at a wrong conclusion.  The case decided by this  

Court  in  Bihar  School  Examination  Board (supra)  clearly  

lays down the law in this regard with which we find ourselves  

in  full  agreement  with.   Accordingly,  the  entire  exercise  of  

entertaining  the  complaint  by  the  District  Forum  and  the  

award  of  relief  which  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 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  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  

16

Forum had no jurisdiction to  entertain any such complaint  

and, in our opinion, they have done so successfully.

21. The appeal  is  accordingly  allowed.   The judgment  and  

order of the District Forum and the National Commission are  

set aside.  No costs.       

………………………………...J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

………………………………...J. (SWATANTER KUMAR)

New Delhi, July 19, 2010.

17