Archive · 24 Sep 2026
Punjab Commission Orders Refund Over Unfulfilled Placement Guarantee
Harish Malhotra paid ₹84,960 for an online course after seeing a promise of guaranteed placement.
He completed the course but said the company did not get him a job.
The company said it had helped him prepare and had shared job opportunities.
It also said employers made the final hiring decisions and that Malhotra preferred jobs in Gurugram and Delhi-NCR.
The commission said sharing vacancies and arranging interviews is not the same as giving someone a job.
It found no appointment letter, accepted offer or other proof that he had been placed.
The commission said any limits on the guarantee should have been clearly explained before he enrolled.
It ordered a refund and additional payments, but rejected his larger compensation claim because he had not provided enough evidence of financial loss.
The Gurdaspur District Consumer Commission ordered Eduinx Education Services to refund ₹84,960 to MBA graduate Harish Malhotra.
Malhotra enrolled in a six-month online AI in product management programme after seeing an advertisement promising “100% guaranteed placement.”
The commission said vacancy referrals, screening calls and interviews did not prove that successful employment had been secured.
Eduinx argued that its guarantee covered career preparation, profile improvement and employer outreach, while employers controlled final hiring decisions.
Eduinx was also ordered to pay ₹10,000 for mental tension and harassment and ₹5,000 in litigation expenses, while Malhotra’s ₹6 lakh claim was rejected.
- Who
- MBA graduate Harish Malhotra and Eduinx Education Services Private Limited.
- What
- The Gurdaspur District Consumer Commission ordered a refund and additional payments after finding that Eduinx did not establish fulfilment of its advertised “100% guaranteed placement” promise.
- When
- The order was reported as dated September 16; Malhotra paid on July 12, 2025 and received his course certificate on November 24, 2025, creating an apparent chronology discrepancy in the reports.
- Where
- The case was decided by the Gurdaspur District Consumer Commission in Punjab.
- Why
- The commission found that recruitment assistance and interview opportunities did not establish actual placement, and that any conditions limiting the guarantee were not clearly disclosed at enrolment.
Malhotra and the commission
Eduinx Education Services
Meaning of the guarantee
Malhotra and the commission
Malhotra said the guaranteed-placement representation influenced his enrolment. The commission held that Eduinx could not later interpret the promise as merely forwarding profiles and arranging interviews.
Eduinx Education Services
Eduinx said the guarantee covered interview preparation, profile optimisation and employer outreach, while prospective employers made the final hiring decisions.
Whether assistance amounted to placement
Malhotra and the commission
The commission said vacancy referrals, screening calls and interviews were distinct from actual employment, and noted the absence of an appointment letter, joining report or accepted offer.
Eduinx Education Services
Eduinx said it had provided placement assistance and communicated recruitment opportunities involving companies including Cognizant, Capgemini and Innomick.
Location and interview performance
Malhotra and the commission
The commission said Eduinx did not show that Malhotra received and rejected a definite job offer, or provide employer assessments proving that interview performance caused rejection.
Eduinx Education Services
Eduinx alleged that Malhotra declined opportunities in Mumbai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad because he preferred Gurugram and Delhi-NCR, and argued that interview performance affected selection.
- Programme
- Six-month online AI in product management course
- Course fee
- ₹84,960, paid by credit card
- Refund ordered
- ₹84,960
- Additional compensation
- ₹10,000 for mental tension and harassment
- Litigation expenses
- ₹5,000
- Advertised promise
- “100% guaranteed placement”
- Rejected claim
- ₹6 lakh compensation claim, due to insufficient supporting evidence
