Per Justice G.D.Sharma 1. The complainant in this case is a student of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University, which is a creature of The J&K Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University Act 1999 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). Under Sec. 10 of the Act, "Shri Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board" (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Board") is the supreme authority of the University. The "Board" has been constituted under the Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act 1988. The University is a religious institution as it is solely financed by the "Board" for its establishment, maintenance and ultimate management lies with the "Board". His Excellency the Governor of the State by virtue of his office is the Chancellor of the University. The University has some constitutional guarantees as provided by the Indian constitution and spelled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 11 Judges Constitution Bench which was constituted to decide the case of TMA Pai Foundations v. State of Karnataka 2002 8 SCC 481 followed by five Judges constitutional Branch in the case of Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka 2003 (6) Supreme 303 . It is advantageous to mention here that under law, for the determination of minority status of the university, the State of J&K has to be taken as a unit and not the whole of India. Being a minority institution, it has a guarantee or assurance to establish and administer educational institutions of its choice. Under Article 30 of the constitution, it has certain advantages. Similarly, the management of such an institution cannot be taken away. Of course, the institution can be closed down in national interest such as where the security of the Nation is threatened by imparting the education of fundamentalist nature. The institution has preferential right to admit students of their own community/language. It is also worth mentioning that the university has a right to receive or ask for aid. Under the Act, the aims and objects of the university are to disseminate and advance knowledge, wisdom and understanding, and to offer scientific and technical education of the highest standards by teaching and research and by the example and influence of its corporate life. Under Sec. 6, the university is open to all persons of either sex and of whatever race, creed, caste or class. Under Sec. 6, the university is open to all persons of either sex and of whatever race, creed, caste or class. It is a residential university and has to maintain the religious purity in the name of the deity of Goddess Vaishno Devi who is the owner of all the property of the Shrine either already had vested in its name or subsequently acquired including thje offerings. All the members of the university fraternity are required to lead a puritan life style while being in the campus premises such as abstinence from consuming alcohol, taking of drugs and non-vegetarian food, smoking and gambling etc. 2. The complainant was attracted to advance his academic career in the university by choosing to do "post graduation in philosophy" but all her hopes were dashed to the ground when she received copy of the order passed on 28th of August 2009 by the Assistant Registrar (EXPA) whereby and whereunder her admission in M.A (Philosophy) course 2008 Batch was discontinued by stating:- "I am directed to inform you that as per the university rules, you have secured CGPA of 4.80 points which is below the acceptable limit of CGPA to become eligible for continuation to 3rd Semester of M.A (Philosophy)". It was also mentioned in the order that it was issued with the consent of the competent authority. In order to vindicate the infringement of her right to receive education; she has knocked the doors of the Commission inter alia making allegations in the complaint that in order to undergo the P.G course in M.A (Philosophy), on 18.08.2008, she deposited the requisite fee of Rs.22,800/- and Rs.6,700/- respectively (vide annexures A and B attached with the complaint). That there are four prescribed semesters of M.A (Philosophy) and after the receipt of total amount as stated above in the sum of Rs.29,550/-, she was allowed to undergo the course in Ist semester. That within a span of two months, she made application on 15.09.2008 (annexure `C') before OP no.2 seeking permission to drop out from Ist semester on the basis of sickness supported by medical certificate. It was stated in the application that on the day of getting admission (i.e on 24.09.2008), she had obtained oral permission to appear in the ensuing B.Ed exam but unfortunately during examination period she feel sick and Doctor advised her complete rest. It was stated in the application that on the day of getting admission (i.e on 24.09.2008), she had obtained oral permission to appear in the ensuing B.Ed exam but unfortunately during examination period she feel sick and Doctor advised her complete rest. Her request was accepted and OPs gave her permission to pursue the course of IInd semester. Vide annexures E and F, the requisite fee in the sum of Rs.5100+Rs.6700 respectively was accepted on 06.01.2009. She attended the course of IInd semester regularly and appeared in the examination. She secured 4.80 SGPA and on 04.08.2009 and applied for admission in the 3rd semester by depositing an amount of Rs.23,400/- (vide annexure `G'). She has made allegations of harassment against professor R.S.Mishra who demanded bribe of Rs.50,000/- for getting admission in 3rd semester. Her case in brief is that she had been granted permission to drop from appearing in Ist semester on health grounds and as per rules minimum SGPA required for continuation of registration is 4.5 points at the end of Ist semester. She was not having SGPA of 4.5 points; how she was allowed to sit in the IInd semester of the examination. She was able to appear in the IInd semester because permission had been granted to her by OP no.2 by accepting the fee and now the OPs were estopped from raising the objection that CGPA of 5 was required for admission in 3rd semester. That the complainant had made representation before the Director School of Philosophy, language and culture which was sent for approval to OP no.2 (vice chancellor). She has produced the record in the form of application made on 06.08.2009 addressed to the Director School of philosophy language and culture of the university under the heading "Permission for admission in next semester". It is further alleged that her case was processed by the concerned officials and finally submitted to OP no.2 who firstly wrote," unless Ist semester" and then after erasing the same it was substituted by writing: - "she has to go as per rules. Such request should be stopped at Dean's level". While issuing the communication bearing no.SMVDU/A&E/09/1781 dated August the 28th of 2009 (EXPA); career of the complainant has been spoiled by ordering to dis-continue her course of studies when she had been allowed to pursue and appear in the IInd semester which she had cleared by obtaining 4.80 SGPA. Such request should be stopped at Dean's level". While issuing the communication bearing no.SMVDU/A&E/09/1781 dated August the 28th of 2009 (EXPA); career of the complainant has been spoiled by ordering to dis-continue her course of studies when she had been allowed to pursue and appear in the IInd semester which she had cleared by obtaining 4.80 SGPA. That she has paid fee for three semesters as stated above and incurred expenses on her person for boarding and lodging. The total of personal expenses and the payments made for admission and tuition fee has been quantified by her at rupees two lac. The reliefs claimed by her from the Ops are:- i Rs.30 lac for loss of career. ii. Rs.20 lac for mental harassment. iii. Rs.20 lac for physical harassment. iv. Refund of all the tuition fee as well as hostel charges alongwith interest in the sum of Rs.2 lac. 3. In the written version, the OPs have raised the first preliminary objection to the effect that complicated questions of fact and law are involved in the case which can be decided in an effective manner only by a civil court and not in a summary manner by the Commission. The second objection is that the complainant has filed false affidavit by suppressing the material fact in respect of her undergoing B.Ed course which fact she admitted in her letter dated 17.12.2008 addressed to OP no.2. She has thus committed the offence of forgery. On facts, it is admitted that for the Ist and IInd semester, she had secured cummulative grade point average (CGPA) to the extent of 4.80 points which was less than the minimum of 5 CGPA required under rules for the Ist and IInd semester combined in order to secure admission in the 3rd semester. She was declared un-successful candidate in the IInd semester and on her own she deposited the fee in the account of the OPs in J&K Bank, Branch Kakryal. With regard to the allegation made in para 2 of the complaint that "she had deposited Rs.29550/- for allowing her to undergo the course in the Ist semester", the reply given in para no.2 of the written version is:, "the contents of para no.2 are not denied to the extent that the complainant was admitted only provisionally in the Ist semester to undergo her course of studies". Further, in para no.2 of the written version, it is stated that there were only two candidates in the Ist semester of M.A (Philosophy) for the course of 2008-09 session inclusive of the complainant who absented herself from the class courses and had failed to attend minor examinations during her Ist semester. At that time, she was pursuing B.Ed course from some other university/institution. In support of this contention they have produced annexure `B' which is affidavit sworn by the complainant. Regarding allegation made in para no.4 of the complaint, it is admitted in reply in the written version that on the ground of sickness and medical certificate, the complainant was allowed to become a registered student of IInd semester but she could not pass the IInd semester because she had not secured the combined CGPA of 5 which was required for further registration/continuation in the 3rd semester. It is admitted that she was allowed to appear in the IInd semester for which she remained a regular student and has also paid the requisite fee in the sum of Rs.11850/-. Since she could not secure CGPA of 5 in the IInd semester so admission for the 3rd semester was denied and the order has been passed strictly in accordance with law. The allegation regarding making a demand for bribe is denied. In support of the complaint, the complainant has deposed on affidavit and she was cross-examined. She has stated that after taking admission in P.G course in Philosophy, she was not pursuing any other course but had only to appear in B.Ed examination which was delayed due to Shri Amarnath Land row. She appeared for the said examination after taking permission from the OPs. The examination started in the month of September 2008 and ended in the month of November 2008. During the examination, she fell ill. That she could not appear in the Ist semester because she was under-going B.Ed exam as well as she fell sick. That she herself had dropped from the Ist semester and was aware that she had to secure 5 CGPA at the end of IInd semester but she secured only 4.8 points in the IInd semester. According to her, she was telephonically called by the Ops to deposit the fees of 3rd semester. Mrs. Tripti Setu Gupta OP no.4 has filed her affidavit and she was cross-examined by the complainant. According to her, she was telephonically called by the Ops to deposit the fees of 3rd semester. Mrs. Tripti Setu Gupta OP no.4 has filed her affidavit and she was cross-examined by the complainant. She is Assistant Registrar in the university and deals with admissions and examination section of the university. She has lent assurance to the averments made in the written version. In her cross examination, she has admitted that the complainant had filed application before the University for withdrawing to appear in the Ist semester as she was appearing for B.Ed examination. Her application was allowed. For SGPA a student should not fall below 4.5 points for the calculation of CGPA. For CGPA; SGPA is also taken into account. She had not appeared in Ist semester but on the basis of medical ground she was admitted to be registered in the IInd semester. She was not exempted to appear for the Ist semester but she had to clear Ist semester afterwards. She categorically has admitted that, "students can clear all the semesters within the maximum period of three years." She has added that a student has to maintain required minimum CGPA of 5 for permission to the next semester. Notice issued on 28.08.2009 whereby the complainant was directed to dis-continue the course is under her signature and was exhibited as EXPA. It was issued with the approval of the higher authorities. 4. Heard the arguments. 5. Mr. Mohd. Shakir, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has contended that the complainant could not appear in her B.Ed examination because of the situation beyond her control as there was agitation regarding Shri Baba Amarnath Shrine Land and that after seeking the admission in the university when she had been appearing for B.Ed. examination, she fell sick and orally informed the OPs later on by making application on 15.11.2008 (annexure `C') which fact has been admitted by Mrs. Tripti Satu Gupta Assistant Registrar in her deposition and got support from the record which during the course of arguments has been produced today by Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Section Officer legal of the Ops. Said Mr. Rajesh Sharma (S.O. Legal) denied the receipt of application dated 15.11.2008 but he could camouflage the receipt of application dated 17.12.2008, copy whereof he himself submitted in the Commission. Rajesh Sharma, Section Officer legal of the Ops. Said Mr. Rajesh Sharma (S.O. Legal) denied the receipt of application dated 15.11.2008 but he could camouflage the receipt of application dated 17.12.2008, copy whereof he himself submitted in the Commission. From the perusal of this application it becomes clear that the complainant had reiterated the fact that on 24.09.2008, she had in person obtained permission to attend her B.Ed exam. According to him, there was no mis-representation or suppression of any material fact in order to secure admission. She had orally informed the concerned officials of the OPs about the actual position at the time of taking admission which fact was firstly disclosed in the application dated 15.11.2008 and supported in 2nd application dated 17.12.2008 . In para no. 5 of the written version, the OPs have admitted that permission was granted to the complainant to appear in the IInd semester. That Mrs. Tripti Satu Gupta Assistant Registrar who is a responsible officer of the OPs has admitted that the complainant had to clear the exam of the Ist semester as she had not been exempted. The prescribed time table to clear the four semesters is of maximum three years duration; subject to making good the aggregate of CGPA. It is an admitted fact that from the record of the OPs, it was in their knowledge on 17.12.2008 that she had to attend B.Ed exam. That she had finally appeared during the month of October 2008 and November 2008 and at that time the OPs should have followed the relevant rule and allowed the complainant to appear in the Ist semester or in the alternative allowed time to clear the Ist semester by obtaining the required SGPA. She was allowed to pursue IInd semester by remaining as an admitted/registered student while remaining present in the premises of the university by bearing/boarding and lodging expenses as well as paying the requisite tuition fee. She was allowed to pursue IInd semester by remaining as an admitted/registered student while remaining present in the premises of the university by bearing/boarding and lodging expenses as well as paying the requisite tuition fee. The termination order regarding the studies which is EXPA dated 28.08.2009 does not whisper any word about any suppression of material fact for not clearing the Ist semester but is based on the fact that CGPA of 5 has not been obtained which was only of the IInd semester and the complainant should have been given opportunity to clear the Ist semester to make-up the deficiency of (0.2) CGPA though under relevant rules she had to pass the Ist semester by obtaining 4.5 SGPA. She has been denied the right to appear in the Ist semester which is violation of the priniciple of natural justice. While concluding his arguments, he has stated that order dated 28.08.2009 was not passed by the competent authority because under sub clause 3 of Section 26 of the University Act only the Vice Chancellor was competent to debar the complainant from taking examination of 3rd semester. 6. Mr. Gagan Basotra, the learned counsel appearing for the OPs in rebuttal has stated that the complainant had sworn false affidavit at the time of seeking admission on 19.08.2008, wherein, she had stated:- "I had neither been admitted in any course/programme of studies of this university/any other university nor I am enrolled in any P.G course through Distance Education as on date". She has further stated in the affidavit, "that in the event of this having been proved otherwise my admission shall stand automatically cancelled besides any other action may be taken against me under law." She was not basically eligible to take admission in M.A (Philosophy) and the order which was passed by the Assistant Registrar on 28.08.2009 is perfectly in accordance with law. Since the complainant had not appeared in Ist semester examination and she had represented that she may be admitted in the IInd semester and on the acceptance of that representation, she was allowed to appear in IInd semester wherein she secured 4.80 CGPA instead of securing 5 CGPA for getting admission in 3rd semester and this was a disqualification and the order has been validly passed. That under Rule 6 regarding "DEGREE RECRUITMENT'; she should have earned minimum grade as shown in the table prescribed under the rule where minimum CGPA should have been 5 in the IInd semester. Concluding his arguments, he contended that the complainant never represented before the OP to allow her to appear in the Ist semester examination therefore she could not be allowed to appear in the 3rd semester. There is no record produced by her showing her representation for appearing in Ist semester. He admits that the admission fee in the sum of Rs.23,400/- for 3rd semester was deposited by her in the Bank account of the OPs which is still lying in their account but it will not enable her to get admission in 3rd semester because she is lacking basic eligibility. The OPs had no authority to waive off the prescribed rule regarding eligibility of a candidate. That annexure `C' dated 15.11.2008, is not in the record of the OPs; rather they have in their record, the application made by her on 17.12.2008 and undoubtedly she has stated in this application that according to her she had obtained permission in person on 24.09.2008 to attend her B.Ed exam but that would not change the rule position. In case she wants to pursue her studies in M.A (Philosophy), the university is prepared to grant her permission to appear in Ist semester examination as she has already passed the IInd semester. 7. We have considered the respective contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. First of all, we have to deal with the preliminary point raised by Mr. Gagan Basotra advocate appearing for the OPs which is to the effect that the complainant had obtained the admission by playing fraud as in her duly sworn affidavit dated 19.08.2008, she had deposed that she had neither been admitted in any course/programme of studies of this university/any other university nor she was enrolled in any P.G course through Distance Education. It is an admitted fact that she was pursuing B.Ed course at that material time. In support of this contention, he had placed reliance on the application dated 17.12.2008. That in the affidavit she had given an undertaking that in the event of if it is otherwise proved her admission shall stand automatically cancelled. It is an admitted fact that she was pursuing B.Ed course at that material time. In support of this contention, he had placed reliance on the application dated 17.12.2008. That in the affidavit she had given an undertaking that in the event of if it is otherwise proved her admission shall stand automatically cancelled. As the complainant was not basically eligible to take admission in M.A (Philosophy) so she was bound by the undertaking given in the affidavit to be out from the university premises and the action taken in terms of the order dated 28.08.2009 issued by Assistant Registrar is perfectly in accordance with law. He has further contended that it was the duty of the complainant to appear in the Ist semester examination but on her request, she was admitted to appear in IInd semester. At the end of IInd semester, she secured only 4.80 SGPA which has to be taken as CGPA and had fallen short of 5.0 CGPA for getting admission in 3rd semester and suffered from disqualification. Now it does not lie in her mouth to retract from the undertaking which she had given. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel, it is advantageous at this stage to reproduce the prescribed CGPA requirement which is prescribed for continuation of registration and graduates for P.G Programme. At page 14 of the Courses of Study Post Graduate Programmes 2008-2009 with regard to M.A. Philosophy, it is prescribed under heading Criteria for continuation of Admission as under:- "Minimum SGPA required for continuation of Registration is 4.5 at the end of Ist Sem. Minimum CGPA required for continuation of Registration is 5.0 at the end of 2nd Sem". The case of the complainant is that she being a rustic village girl hailing from village Gahri Udhampur was not aware about the technicalities for getting registration for the admission in the university. It is contended on her behalf that while filling the admission form and tendering affidavit on 24.09.2008, she had orally obtained permission in person to attend her B.Ed exam which got delayed because of law and order problem which had engulfed the whole State for more than two months. The genesis of the problem was Shri Baba Amarnath Land row. In support of this contention, she had annexed annexure `C' which is application dated 15.11.2008. The genesis of the problem was Shri Baba Amarnath Land row. In support of this contention, she had annexed annexure `C' which is application dated 15.11.2008. The application was addressed to OP no.2 and recites that on the day of filing the affidavit (i.e on 24.09.2008), she had obtained permission in person to appear in B.Ed exam but during the exam she fell sick. That on 25.09.2008, Dr. Anju Sharma gave her treatment and had advised complete rest. That on 11.11.2008, she had again gone to Dr. Anju Sharma, who advised her rest up to 30.11.2008. Prayer was made in the application to drop out from the Ist semester. Mr. Rajesh Sharma Section Officer Legal of the OPs has denied the receipt of the said application but produced the copy of the application from university's record dated 17.12.2008. In that application which was also addressed to OP no.2, she has reiterated the fact that she had obtained permission orally/in person on 24.09.2008 (which was the date of submitting the affidavit) to attend her B.Ed exam. The only difference in the contents of the above said two applications is that in the first application dated 15.11.2008, she had sought the permission to drop-out from appearing in the Ist semester, while-as in the IInd application dated 17.12.2008, she had prayed for permission for continuing her studies for the IInd semester. It is also admitted case of the OPs that she was allowed the permission to pursue the studies of IInd semester which she passed on the basis of 4.80 SGPA. In both the above stated applications, she has not concealed her intention to appear in B.Ed exam. No element of defrauding the OPs is found out to make her conduct penal because the OPs themselves waived off the eligibility criterion and allowed her to appear in IInd semester. The onus is on the OPs to explain how the breach of above stated criterion was given a go by where, "minimum SGPA required for continuation of Registration is 4.5 at the end of Ist semester". Under these attending circumstances, the complainant cannot be treated as a fraudulent consumer under the provisions of J&K Consumer Protection Act. A bare perusal of the above quoted criteria for continuation of admission reveals that minimum CGPA required for continuation of Registration is 5.0 at the end of IInd semester. Under these attending circumstances, the complainant cannot be treated as a fraudulent consumer under the provisions of J&K Consumer Protection Act. A bare perusal of the above quoted criteria for continuation of admission reveals that minimum CGPA required for continuation of Registration is 5.0 at the end of IInd semester. Both the limbs of the criteria are to be read in continuation and not in contradistinction. Rather both supplement each other and do not supplant each other. The OPs are thus found to have discharged their statutory duty in a negligent manner and now are trying to make out such a case where the pot has started calling the kettle as black. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 provides for 27 rights. Right of Education is also one of the human rights. Article 26 shorn of its unessentials reads :- (i) "Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and Professional education shall, be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit x x x x x x x x x x x". 8. An educational institution is established for the purpose of imparting education of the type made available by the institution. Different courses of study are usually taught by teachers who have to be recruited as per qualifications that may be prescribed. It is no secret that better working conditions will attract better teachers. More amenities will ensure that better students seek permission to that institution. One cannot lose sight of the fact that providing good amenities to the students in the form of competent teaching faculty and other infrastructure costs money. It is, therefore to be left to the discretion of the "Governing Body" and the "Board" to determine the scale of fee that it can charged from the students. One also cannot lose sight of the fact that we live in a competitive world today where professional education is in demand and many Private and Government aided universities are established in the country. Our State is also not lagging behind because her also some universities of religious nature have already been established and more are in the pipe-line of being established. Our State is also not lagging behind because her also some universities of religious nature have already been established and more are in the pipe-line of being established. We, however, wish to emphasize one point and that is that inasmuch as the occupation of education is, in a sense, regarded as charitable, the Government can provide regulations that will ensure excellence in education, while for-bidding the charging of capitation fee and profiteering by the institution. In the establishment of an education institution, the object should not be to make of profit, inasmuch as education is essentially charitable in nature. There can be, however, a reasonable revenue surplus, which may be generated by the educational institution for the purpose of development of education and expansion of institution. It is further stated that for maintaining the excellence of education, it is important that the teaching faculty and the members of the staff of any educational institution perform their duties in the manner in which it is required to be done, according to the rules or instructions. The teachers are like foster parents who are required to look-after, cultivate and guide the students in their pursuing of education. The teachers and the institution exist for the student and not vice versa. Once this principle is kept in mind, it must follow that it becomes imperative for the teaching and administrative staff of an educational institution to perform their duties properly and for the benefit of the students. Right to administer does not include the right to mal-administer. It is not absolute, but must be subject to certain regulations for the benefit of the institution. Where allegations of mis-conduct are made and proved, it is imperative that a disciplinary inquiry is conducted and that a decision is taken. An indolent or perverted minded sediatic official having no human touch in his/her heart either for the students or for his/her subordinates exhibits bureaucratic exuberances in such a sacred institution and requires to be chopped off like dead wood found in a green tree because the foundations of the edifice of the university rest on the donations and offerings of millions of devotees which include masons and millionaires. On the basis of this faith coupled with the past good performance in imparting education, the students hailing from various parts of the country have been attracted to receive education in the university. On the basis of this faith coupled with the past good performance in imparting education, the students hailing from various parts of the country have been attracted to receive education in the university. The logos of the university is (Vigyanam Braham) which means knowledge Science is God. The significance of the word (Vigayanam) has a deep vedic philosophy behind it which has been explained by Lord Krishna in chap. 3 Text 41 in Shri Bhagwat Gita where a distinction between the word viz has been conveyed means pure knowledge andin the religious sense is scientific knowledge of the pure soul. No body has an authority to destroy of diminish the import of the "logos" of the University. Rather every product of the university should fulfill this pre-requisite while being in the field of the wordly life so that the spiritual and material goals of Indian Civilization and culture flourish side by side in modern competitive world where lust for money is eating the vitals of the Indian society. The meaning of the above stated shaloka in relation to word (Vigayanam) is : "Therefore, O Arjuna, best of the Bhartas, in the very beginning curb this great symbol of sin (lust) by regulating the senses, and slay this destroyer of knowledge and self realisation". 9. Adverting to the facts of the present case, we have to ascertain whether the message of the logos and the import of the aims and objects, of the Act as already stated above have been observed in observance or in their breach. The concerned authorities had given admission to the complainant to appear in the IInd semester while losing sight of the raison de'tre of relevant criteria of Registration limit per semester. The criteria for continuation of admission as given at page 14 of the prescribed table of Post-graduate Programmes is minimum SGPA for continuation of Registration 4.5 at the end of Ist semester and minimum CGPA required for continuation of Registration at the end of IInd semester is 5.0. In the written objections filed by OP no.1 (Registrar) she at the end of para no.4 at page 5 has stated: - "Under rules each candidate has to secure a minimum of 4.5 SGPA in the IInd semester. Besides that the candidate has to secure a combined CGPA of 5 in both Ist and IInd semester. In the written objections filed by OP no.1 (Registrar) she at the end of para no.4 at page 5 has stated: - "Under rules each candidate has to secure a minimum of 4.5 SGPA in the IInd semester. Besides that the candidate has to secure a combined CGPA of 5 in both Ist and IInd semester. Since the complainant in the present case did not secure the combined CGPA of 5 in both the semesters as such, the complainant was declared unsuccessful in the IInd semester as such, was not granted admission in the 3rd semester". This factual statement made on affidavit is incorrect because as per criteria for continuation of admission, minimum CGPA required for continuation of Registration is 5.0 at the end of IInd semester. No SGPA is required singularly in the IInd semester. This mistake of horrendous nature was the last straw on the back of the camel to prove disastrous for the continuation of studies of a genuine and bona-fide student. Against such a statement on oath, which is of reckless nature, a junior official of the rank of Assistant Registrar namely, Mrs. Tripti Setu Gupta in her cross-examination while appearing as a witness for the OPs has in a fair, honest and candid manner admitted the true import and intent of the criteria by deposing: - "a student can clear all the semesters within the maximum period of three years". She has further stated that she (the complainant) was not exempted from appearing in the exam of Ist semester but was granted concession on health ground to clear Ist semester afterwards." Now after the result of an after-thought, argument has been advanced on behalf of the OPs like a cantankerous litigant that the complainant herself had to first appear in Ist semester and should have made such prayer in writing. Instead of showing sagacity in favour of its own student for the atonement of an act of malfeasance such an argument smacks of bureaucratic arrogance where a student as a consumer has the right under the Consumer Protection Act to get unpolluted and fair service against consideration which she had paid. It was for the administrative wing of the university to give her proper guidance as having fiduciary relationship with her, to clear the first semester. Not only that,her legal status was like that of a King and the university was only a service provider. It was for the administrative wing of the university to give her proper guidance as having fiduciary relationship with her, to clear the first semester. Not only that,her legal status was like that of a King and the university was only a service provider. The latter was required to disseminate and advance knowledge, wisdom and understanding and not to do acts of despotic and capricious nature. It is noted with disgust and pain that reconised constitutional right as well as basic human right for having education of a genuine student like the complainant has been scuttled enroute the prescribed period of three years within a short span of one year and 9 days (from 19.08.2008 to 28.08.2009); leaving her high and dry at the mercy of her fate which act sends shivers down to the spine and shakes the conscience of every right thinking citizen of the country. It is a blatant case of rendering deficient service which falls within the infringement of Sec. 2 of the Consumer Protection Act. 10. Be that as it may, the scheme of the Act reveals that under chapter 2 of the Statues of the university, "the Vice Chancellor shall be whole-time salaried officer of the university". Under Rule 5 of the Statue, it is further provided that the "Registrar" shall be appointed by the Executive Council and "shall be a whole-time salaried officer of the university". The Registrar is the custodian of the records' of the common seal and other property of the university as the Executive Council shall give it to his/her charge. Registrar's duties are specified in detail under this rule and need not be mentioned here. Similarly, under Rule 6, "the Finance Officer" shall be appointed by the Executive Council and "shall be whole-time salaried officer of the university". His duties are also of onerous nature prescribed in detail therein. These three functionaries of the university are the back-bone to run the day-to-day administration of the university in an efficacious and efficient manner to achieve the aims and objects of the institution. The "Board" is the Supreme Authority of the university and it has to discharge duties under Sec. 18 of the Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act. Under Sec. 5 of that Act, the "Board" is constituted with members of eminence in their respective spelled out fields. The "Board" is the Supreme Authority of the university and it has to discharge duties under Sec. 18 of the Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act. Under Sec. 5 of that Act, the "Board" is constituted with members of eminence in their respective spelled out fields. It is for them to consider and decide whether the appointments of a "Registrar" as well as that of a "Finance Officer" should be on ad-hoc basis by way of make shift arrangements or synchronize with the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor to fulfill the parity of a "whole time salaried officer". In the backdrop of the above made discussion, in the final analysis, we find that a bonafide and genuine student namely Miss Esha Sajgotra who had to continue her studies in the P.G discipline of Philosophy upto a maximum period of three years has been ousted in an arbitrary, capricious and whimsical manner by giving a go by to the relevant criteria. She has alleged in the complaint, which fact is proved by evidence of credulous nature, that she has spent Rs.2 lac for getting admission and subsequently by giving tuition fees, which is inclusive of personal expenses of boarding and lodging incurred while remaining in the premises of the university to pursue her studies. From that amount a sum of Rs.23,400/- are still lying in the account of the OPs as un-utilized fee for 3rd semester. She has undergone mental trauma, physical harassment as well as loss of two precious academic years of her life which cannot be exactly measured and then compensated in terms of money. Taking stock of all the facts and attending circumstances, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to reimburse the complainant for the actual loss suffered by her quantified on the basis of un-rebutted evidence in the sum of Rs.2 lac. With regard to damages of general nature for the loss of two years of her academic career and undergoing mental trauma, emotional upsurge and physical torture, we direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.2.50 lac. The whole amount of Rupees Four lac, Fifty Thousand be paid within a period of two months from today failing which interest shall be paid at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount of special damages of Rs.2 lac from the day of passing illegal order EXPA dated 28.08.2009. The whole amount of Rupees Four lac, Fifty Thousand be paid within a period of two months from today failing which interest shall be paid at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount of special damages of Rs.2 lac from the day of passing illegal order EXPA dated 28.08.2009. The litigation expenses are quantified at Rs.4,000/- which should also be paid simultaneously. The complaint is consigned to records.