Useful Information Customer Care Address Popular Judgments
FAQ Consumer Forum Reliance Karnataka Country Club Bajaj Allianz State Bank Of India
Court Fee Airtel Chandigarh Idea ICICI Lombord Andhra Bank
Where to file Complaint Vodafon Bengal Tata Indicom HDFC Standard Life HDFC Bank
Notice Sample Idea Uttarakhand Airtel IffcoTokio Icici Bank
First Appeal Consumer Forum BSNL Gujarat Reliance Metlife Punjab National Bank
Consumer Protection Act Nokia Rajasthan Vodafone SBI Life Insurance Bank Of India
RTI for Banks Micromax Assam Mobile Store Reliance General Insurance Canara Bank
Insurance Ombudsman Lava Uttar Pradesh MTNL New India Insurance Bank Of Baroda
Banking Ombudsman Karbonn Jharkhand Birla Sun Life National Insurance United India Insurance
How to start DND Sony Bihar LIC Oriental Insurance State Bank Mysore
Irctc TATA AIG India Bank

+ Submit Your Complaint
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: The District Educational Officer, Medak District

  1. #1
    Tanu's Avatar
    Tanu is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default The District Educational Officer, Medak District


    FA.No.301/2009 against CC.No.20/2007 District Consumer Forum, Medak District at Sangareddy.


    Thakur Rajkumar Singh, Head Master,

    Rajput U.P.School,

    IDA Bollaram Village, Jinnaram Mandal,

    Medak District, A.P.



    1.The District Educational Officer, Medak District,

    O/o.DEO’s Office, Opp.Collector’s Bungalow,

    Sangareddy, Medak District, A.P.

    2.The Mandal Educational Officer, Jinnaram Mandal,

    O/o.MDO’s Office, Jinnaram Village,

    Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District, A.P.


    For the petitioner : Party-in-person appeared.

    For the Respondents : Smt.Poornima S.Roy.







    Oral Order (Per Sri K.Satyanand, Hon’ble Male Member)


    1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission.

    2. This is an appeal filed by the complainant before the District Forum questioning the denial of recognition to the complainant’s school by the opposite parties who are the District Educational Officer and Mandal Educational Officer, obviously the Government officials.

    3. The complainant claimed to have given admission to 13 students in his school anticipating the recognition. But it is complained that the opposite parties declined to give recognition entailing lot of inconvenience to the students. It is submitted further that the examination fee collected from them was accepted by the higher authorities thereby giving them to understand that there was recognition. Ultimately, he came to know that there was no recognition. The complainant claiming to be representing the students filed this complaint.

    4. The same was resisted by the opposite parties. As per the counter affidavit of opposite party No.1, which was adopted by opposite party No.2, the complainant hardly answers the description of ‘consumer’ within the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and therefore, the Forum lacks jurisdiction. Thus, this is all the essential defense apart from other points with which we are least concerned at the stage of admission. In other words they have taken a plea that this was a case of patent lack of jurisdiction to the District Forum.

    5. The complainant filed documents, Exs.A.1 to A.41 in order to prove the factum of admission of students and other proceedings. The opposite parties did not file any document.

    6. On a consideration of the documentary evidence, the District Forum came to a conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable before it for want of jurisdiction in as much as the complainant hardly answers the description of ‘consumer’.

    7. Assailing the order, the present appeal came to be filed. We find that this is not a case where the otherside has to be called to answer as it pertains to very obvious question of law. The learned counsel for the complainant/appellant cited a passage from a case rendered by the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 = AIR 2004 SC 2141 to canvas the point that even the statutory and government authorities are amenable to the jurisdiction of the consumer fora. But we are very sure that that is a decision rendered in the context of a consumer and service provider relationship. By no stretch of imagination, the complainant and the officers of the government, that too dealing with the grant of recognition of the private school can be accorded the status of service provider as they were expected to essentially discharge sovereign functions. So the decision relied upon by the learned counsel has no bearing to support her proposition. We have not come across any provision, whatsoever empowering us to exercise jurisdiction in matters like this. These Fora are the creatures of the statute endowed with powers limited to the jurisdiction circumscribed by the provisions of the Act. In this view of the matter, we feel that there are no merits in the appeal.

    8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, but without costs.





  2. #2
    Syeda Afroz Fatima Guest

    Default Request regarding for the post of SGT Selection

    To ,
    The Deo Officer (Medak)
    Sangareddy -500091.

    Subject: Request regarding for the post of SGT Selection.
    Respected Sir,
    I Syed Afroz Fatima bearing HT No: 441799020169 secured 45Th Rank in SGT Merit List -2012 and secure 49.5 Marks , It has come to my knowledge that the 2 Ex service man post are given to the parents candidate but it is actually applicable for only Ex service man as per G.O MS NUMBER 310, GO MS NUMBER 65, GO MS NUMMBER 91 and also 4 candidates got position in SA POST, I kindly request you that after deducting two seats of ex service man and 4 seats of SA Posts according to merit list the next position hold of mine, I kindly request you to do certain measures in getting my name in final provision selection list which is to be declared on 15th of this month.
    In PROFORMA-III as per our knowledge We have gone through the Category wise selection order in SGT-2012 Posting Urdu Medium and found there was mistake in selection in OC General Posting . Actual seat should be allotted as follows

    Total seats should allocated as per above category list for OC GENERAL Is 21 candidates but in Provisional List Selected 22 candidates and in OC WOMENS Candidates should be selected 13 Instead 12 candidates were selected as per provisional list.

    We kindly request you to look into this matter as one seat has to be allocated to OC Womens but it is given extra seat to OC General.
    Thanking you sir,

    Your’s faithfully
    Syeda Afroz Fatima
    HT NO: 441799020169

  3. #3
    daffodils2030 Guest

    Default Application number

    respected sir ,
    i lost my application number so i request you to send my application number to this number 9959328661.

    my details:-
    father name: TENUGU VENKATESHAM
    mother name: TENUGU MANJULA
    dob :02-07-2000
    stream: regular without vocational

+ Submit Your Complaint

Similar Threads

  1. Siliguri Telecom District
    By Sidhant in forum Judgments
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-25-2010, 11:36 AM
  2. District Co-operative Bank Ltd
    By admin in forum Banking
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-06-2009, 07:01 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-01-2009, 01:48 PM
  4. Sangli District Telecom
    By Sidhant in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-31-2009, 03:43 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts