https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173692 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. en-us Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Oct 2015 19:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173692 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173692