Mandatory examination rules and consumer law limits bar a degree claim based on simultaneous courses and mistaken university permission.

A student who had pursued two full courses simultaneously could not claim a B.Ed. degree where the examination rules prohibited concurrent enrolment and the mercy-chance notification applied only to candidates who had failed to complete the course within time. The university's mistaken permission to sit the examination did not create any right contrary to mandatory rules, and there can be no estoppel against a statute or binding regulation. A consumer complaint against the university was also not maintainable because conducting examinations and issuing results was a statutory function, not a service for consideration, and a student is not a consumer in that context. The direction to issue the degree and the consumer fora's orders were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent could be granted the B.Ed. degree despite the prohibition against pursuing two full courses simultaneously and despite the limited scope of the mercy-chance notification; (ii) Whether a complaint before the consumer forum was maintainable against the University for refusal to issue the degree.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent could be granted the B.Ed. degree despite the prohibition against pursuing two full courses simultaneously and despite the limited scope of the mercy-chance notification.

Analysis: Clause 17(b) of the General Rules of Examination prohibited a candidate pursuing a full course from simultaneously reading for or appearing in another examination of the University or another university or board. The respondent had not disclosed her simultaneous pursuit of M.A. when she first sought admission to the B.Ed. course. The Notification dated 16.3.1998 only extended a last mercy chance to candidates who had failed to complete their courses within the stipulated period and did not cover a candidate who was never entitled to pursue both courses together. The University's mistaken permission to appear in the examination could not confer a right contrary to the rules, and there can be no estoppel against a statute or mandatory rule.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to the B.Ed. degree on the basis claimed, and the direction to issue the degree was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether a complaint before the consumer forum was maintainable against the University for refusal to issue the degree.

Analysis: The University's conduct in conducting examinations and issuing results was part of its statutory function and did not amount to rendering a service for consideration. A student taking an examination is not a consumer, and the examination process does not create a consumer-service relationship. The complaint therefore could not be maintained under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Conclusion: The consumer complaint was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The complaint-based relief and the direction to issue the degree could not stand in law, and the orders of the consumer fora were liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory educational authority performing its examination function is not a service provider under consumer law, and no direction can be issued to compel it to act in violation of mandatory rules or statutory prohibitions.

---