Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 362 (MP)

Shikha Gehlot v. State of M. P.

2007-03-28

A.K.PATNAIK, K.K.LAHOTI

body2007
ORDER 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.3. No one appeared for respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner was admitted in September, 2003 in the course of Bachelor of Physiotheraphy (BPT). In the brochure published by Paramedical Council of M.P. for different courses of studies for 2003-04 fees prescribed for free seat is Rs. 41,000/-, fees prescribed for payment seat is Rs. 67,000/- and the fees prescribed for NRI quota is 2000 $ for 3 to 4 years degree course. The petitioner's case is that she was admitted in the BPT course by respondent No.4 college in a payment seat and not in the NRI quota and, therefore, was liable to pay fees payable for payment seat and not liable to pay fees payable for NRI quota. Yet, respondent No. 4 has been demanding fees from the petitioner as if she was admitted to a seat in NRI quota. 3. In the return filed by respondent No.4, it is stated that the petitioner was admitted against NRI quota for which the tution fee as fixed by the State Government of M.P. for 2003-04 is 2000 $ and the petitioner and his parents were well aware of this fact and they willingly opted for it. No document, however, has been produced by respondent No.4 to show that the petitioner has been admitted in the NRI quota. 4. Return has also been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, namely, the State of M.P. and the Director Medical Education, M.P., in which it is stated that students seeking admission to a free seat was liable to pay Rs. 41,000/- per annum inclusive of tution fee and other charges whereas students admitted against payment seat was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 67,000/- towards tution fee and other charges but since the petitioner has not clarified under which category she was admitted in respondent No.4 college, it is difficult for respondents No.1 and 2 to point out as to how much fee respondent No.4 is entitled to charge from the petitioner. 67,000/- towards tution fee and other charges but since the petitioner has not clarified under which category she was admitted in respondent No.4 college, it is difficult for respondents No.1 and 2 to point out as to how much fee respondent No.4 is entitled to charge from the petitioner. There is no mention in the return filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 regarding fees to be paid by the students admitted in the NRI quota presumably because, even according to respondents No. 1 and 2, the petitioner is not an NRI or is not a ward and child of NRI. 5. The point to be decided in this case is whether petitioner can be charged fees 2000 $ for the NRI quota or is to be charged Rs. 67,000/- as if she has been admitted to the payment seat. Besides stating in the writ petition that she was not admitted to the NRI quota, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 18th August, 2006 stating that she is not an NRI and is not a ward of NRI. 6. In P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra [ (2005) 6 SCC 537 ] the Supreme Court observed that it is common knowledge that some of the institutions grant admissions to certain number of students to NRI quota by charging a higher amount of fee but by and large, it has come to the notice of the Court that neither the students fall in that category nor their parents are NRIs. The Court has further observed in the aforesaid judgment that seats falling in NRI quota should be utilised bona fide by NRIs only and for their children or wards. Para 131 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, as reported in SCC, is quoted hereinbelow: "131. Here itself we are inclined to deal with the question as to seats allocated for Non-Resident Indians ("NRI" for short) or NRI seats. It is common knowledge that some of the institutions grant admission to a certain number of students under such quota by charging a higher amount of fee. In fact, the term "NRI" in relation to admissions is a misnomer. By and large, we have noticed in cases after cases coming to this Court, neither the students who get admissions under this category nor their parents are NRIs. In fact, the term "NRI" in relation to admissions is a misnomer. By and large, we have noticed in cases after cases coming to this Court, neither the students who get admissions under this category nor their parents are NRIs. In effect and reality, under this category, less meritorious students, but who can afford to bring more money, get admission. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out that a limited number of such seats should be made available as the money brought by such students admitted against NRI quota enables the educational institutions to strengthen their level of education and also to enlarge their educational activities. It was also pointed out that people of Indian origin, who have migrated to other countries, have a desire to bring back their children to their own country as they not only get education but also get reunited with the Indian cultural ethos by virtue of being here. They also wish the money which they would be spending elsewhere on education of their children should rather reach their own motherland. A limited reservation of such seats, not exceeding 15%, in our opinion, may be made available to NRIs depending on the discretion of the management subject to two conditions. First, such seats should be utilised bona fide by NRIs only and for their children or wards. Secondly, within this quota, merit should not be given a complete go-by. The amount of money, in whatever form collected from such NRIs, should be utilised for benefiting students such as from economically weaker sections of the society, whom, on well-defined criteria, the educational institution may admit on subsidized payment of their fee. To prevent misutilisation of such quota or any malpractice referable to NRI quota seats, suitable legislation or regulation needs to be framed. So long as the State does not do it, it will be for the committees constituted pursuant to the direction in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka [ (2003) 6 SCC 697 ] to regulate." 7. Even though the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, has been delivered on 12th August, 2005, it only explains the meaning of NRI quota in professional colleges and, therefore, also will apply to admissions in NRI quota made before the judgment was delivered. Even though the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, has been delivered on 12th August, 2005, it only explains the meaning of NRI quota in professional colleges and, therefore, also will apply to admissions in NRI quota made before the judgment was delivered. Admissions to NRI quota could not have been given to students who are neither NRI nor wards or children of NRIs even before the aforesaid judgment was delivered. As a matter of fact, as the Supreme Court has noticed in the aforesaid judgment in the case of P.A. Inamdar, private colleges have been resorting to malpractice of giving admission to students who are neither NRIs nor children or wards of NRIs and have been collecting higher fees from them. As the respondent No.4 has not been able to produce any document to show that the petitioner was in fact NRI or was a child or ward of NRI and has been given admission in the NRI quota for such reason, we hold that respondent No.4 college was not entitled to collect fees for seats meant for NRI quota from the petitioner. 8. We, accordingly, hold that the petitioner is liable to pay fees for payment seat and direct respondent No.4 college not to collect any amount exceeding the fees for payment seat from the petitioner. Any excess amount collected from the petitioner will be refunded to her.