Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 881 (MAD)

C. Sandhiya v. Director of Medical Education

2008-03-10

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2008
Judgment : 1. By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated Nil.8.2004 passed by the third respondent. 3. The brief facts necessary for disposal or the writ petition are as follows: (a) Petitioners passed Plus Two examinations and appeared for entrance examination conducted by the Anna University in the year 2003 and subsequently were selected for undergoing B.Sc Nursing course for the year 2003-2004. Petitioners appeared before the second respondent for counselling for admission to B.Sc Nursing course and the second respondent allotted seats in self-financing colleges in September, 2003 and all the petitioners joined in the respective self-financing colleges. (b) On 24.11.2003, the second respondent called the petitioners for second counselling for admission in Government seats and the Selection Committee issued allotment order to the petitioners by stating that the selection committee of the Directorate of Medical Education selected the petitioners provisionally for admission to the first year B.Sc Nursing Course in Government Seats, 2003-2004. It is also stated in the said order that the said admissions are subject to various conditions given in the Annexure and also the regulations of the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University. (c) The Candidates were required to report before the Head of the Institution, Madurai Medical College, Madurai on or before 28.11.2003 at 3. p.m. and produce certificates in original. One of the condition contained in the annexure is that the petitioners have to pay the balance tuition fees, special fees, etc., as instructed by the Dean/Principal/Head of the Institution of the College at the time of admission. According to the petitioners, they have reported before the Dean, Madurai Medical College and joined in the B.Sc (Nursing) Course on 28.11.2003 and pay the fee of Rs. 7,000/- as fixed by the Head of the Institution and no other instruction was given by the third respondent at the time of admission. The prospectus for admission to paramedical courses 20032004 also states that there are separate fees for Government colleges and self-financing institutions. (d) While the petitioners were undergoing the course, the third respondent through the impugned order demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/-by order dated Nil.8.2004 stating that as per G.O. Ms. No. 498 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 15.12.2003, the students admitted under self-financing scheme have to pay a sum of Rs. (d) While the petitioners were undergoing the course, the third respondent through the impugned order demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/-by order dated Nil.8.2004 stating that as per G.O. Ms. No. 498 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 15.12.2003, the students admitted under self-financing scheme have to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/-as tuition fees for each year and as the petitioners were admitted in self-financing course, they have to pay the said fees. (e) The said order is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the demand of Rs. 20,000/-per year from the petitioners who are admitted in the Government Medical College for nursing course is contrary to the prospectus issued for admission to B.Sc. (Nursing) Course 2003-2004. Petitioners were not informed that they were being allotted to Madurai Medical College on self-financing basis and the prospectus being the rule, respondents are not entitled to demand any amount towards tuition fee other than the one which was already paid by the petitioner for the academic year 2003-2004 and for the future three years also petitioners are entitled to undergo the course by paying the tuition fee originally fixed in Government College and not under self-financing basis. 4. This Court while admitting the writ petition granted interim order on 5.10.2004 on condition that the respective petitioners shall pay the tuition fee for the Government seat as per the prospectus for the year 2003-2004 subject to the result of the writ petition. 5. The third respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioners were originally allotted seats in self-financing private nursing colleges and during the second counselling they were allotted seats in Madurai Government Medical College based on their marks and they were admitted by permitting them to pay the fees prescribed by the Government, which were in force on that date and the tuition fee was collected as provided in the prospectus. The first and second respondents instructed the third respondent to collect a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards self-financing fee from each of the students based on G.O. Ms. No. 498 Health and Family Welfare Department dated 15.12.2003. The second respondent also through letter dated 7.9.2004 stated that the B.Sc Nursing Course sanctioned to Madurai Medical College is on self-financing basis and a fee of Rs. 20,000/- towards self-financing fee from each of the students based on G.O. Ms. No. 498 Health and Family Welfare Department dated 15.12.2003. The second respondent also through letter dated 7.9.2004 stated that the B.Sc Nursing Course sanctioned to Madurai Medical College is on self-financing basis and a fee of Rs. 20,000/- should be collected from each students per annum and based on the Government order only the third respondent issued the impugned order demanding tuition fee of Rs. 20,000/-per year from the petitioners. It is further stated that the students admitted from the academic year 2004-2005 are paying Rs. 20,000/-per year as tuition-fee and therefore petitioners are also bound to pay the said fee. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have completed the course and the respondents are not issuing the course completion certificate, Plus Two mark sheet, transfer certificates and not refunding the caution deposits and therefore the writ petition is to be disposed of with a direction to return the said certificates and refund the caution deposits. The learned counsel further submitted that the prospectus issued for admission to B.Sc Nursing course 2003-2004 nowhere stipulates that students admitted in the Government Nursing course have to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as tuition fee per annum. At the time of second counselling also petitioners were not informed about the payment of Rs. 20,000/-as tuition fee per year and the allotment order issued to the petitioners dated 27.8.2003 also nowhere states that they may have to pay a sum or Rs. 20,000/- per annum and at the time of admission the third respondent received a tuition fee payable to the Government seat and the rules of selection/payment of fee cannot be changed contrary to the prospectus issued for the year 2003-2004. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the Madurai Medical College was sanctioned B.Sc Nursing Course on self-financing basis and the petitioners having been admitted in the said course, they are bound to pay the fee prescribed by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 498 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 15.12.2003, and all other students admitted in the said course in Madurai Medical College are paying the same and therefore the third respondent was justified in demanding the said amount. 8. No. 498 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 15.12.2003, and all other students admitted in the said course in Madurai Medical College are paying the same and therefore the third respondent was justified in demanding the said amount. 8. I have considered the rival submissions mace by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents. 9. The point in issue is whether the respondents are justified in demanding a sum of Rs. 2,000/-per annum towards tuition fee from the petitioners, who were admitted in B.Sc (Nursing) Course in a Government College as per the prospectus issued for admission to the academic year 2003-2004. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent it is admitted that in the prospectus issued for the year 2003-2004 the same was not stated and the petitioners were admitted after second counselling by receiving the prescribed fee payable in a Government Nursing Course. The allotment order issued to the petitioners are dated 24.11.2003 and in the said letter the petitioners were directed to pay the fee as demanded by the third respondent at the time of admission. All the petitioners joined in their course and paid their fee as directed by the third respondent. It is stated in the allotment order dated 24.11.2003 that the petitioners are selected for Government seats for 2003-2004 and they have to join on or before 28.11.2003 at 3. p.m. and the petitioners also paid the prescribed fee and no condition was imposed while admitting the petitioners stating that they have to pay any additional amount towards tuition fee. 11. The second respondent, who conducted the counselling for the second time has not chosen to file counter affidavit stating that the petitioners were allotted to Madurai Medical College on condition that they may nave to pay higher fee than the one payable to the Government seats. The affiliation order granted by Dr. MGR Medical University dated 24.11.2003 nowhere states that the Government proposed to start a new college of Nursing for B.Sc (Nursing) degree course of four years duration, with annual intake of 25 students at Madurai Medical College on self-financing basis. Only on 15.12.2003, the Government decided to treat- the B.Sc (Nursing) Course at Madurai Medical College as self-financing course with annual tuition fee of Rs. 20,000/-. Only on 15.12.2003, the Government decided to treat- the B.Sc (Nursing) Course at Madurai Medical College as self-financing course with annual tuition fee of Rs. 20,000/-. The said decision taken by the Government cannot be applied to the students already admitted i. e., students admitted prior to the said decision of the Government. The petitioners‘ right to undergo the B.Sc (Nursing) course in the Government Medical College with the fee fixed in the prospectus issued for the year 2003-2004 got crystalised on their allotment on 24.11.2003 based on legitimate expectation. The said right to undergo the course in the Government Nursing College with the fee prescribed for the Government seats, cannot be denied merely because the Government subsequently decided and issued G.O. Ms. No. 498 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 15.12.2003. 12. The respondents are justified in demanding Rs. 20,000/- as tuition fee per year from the students admitted for the academic year 2004-2005 onwards, that is after the issue of the said Government Order. Since there was no condition imposed to pay higher tuition fee for joining in Madurai Government Medical College in the prospectus issued for the year 2003-2004 or in the allotment order issued to the petitioners dated 24.11.2003 or while admitting the petitioners any instructions was issued by the third respondent, the impugned demand cannot be sustained as it is in violation of the prospectus issued, which is a rule for selection for that academic year i. e., 2003-2004 as well as the fee fixed for the Government College students. It is well settled in law that rules of selection or conditions of payment of fee cannot be changed after the selection is over. The petitioners have also paid the fee prescribed for Government seats and completed their four year course and it is inequitable to give direction to pay the fee by now to get their certificates. Further, as per the Government policy, they are bound to serve for certain years in Government Hospitals as per the bonds executed by them and the petitioners‘ services are to be utilised by the Government for certain years. Thus, there is no loss to the Government in the strict sense. 13. In the light of the above findings, the demand for tuition fee to the tune of Rs. Thus, there is no loss to the Government in the strict sense. 13. In the light of the above findings, the demand for tuition fee to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-per annum from the petitioners who are admitted in the year 2003-2004 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to issue course completion certificate, caution deposit, Plus Two mark sheet, transfer certificate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.