Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1207 (PNJ)

Prabhjot Singh v. Punjab University Chandigarh

2009-07-21

PERMOD KOHLI

body2009
Judgment 1. The petitioner was admitted to respondent No. (2) Institute in the discipline of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (B. E. Course) on the basis of the counselling held on 12.08.2007. On the next following day, i. e.13.08.2007 he deposited a sum of Rs.39545/- plus Rs.1155/- for respondent No.2-Institute for the academic session 2007-2008 vide receipt No.6374, dated 13.08.2007. Another sum of Rs.500/- was also deposited on account of the Membership fee vide receipt No.1345, dated 13.08.2007. 2. In the meantime, the petitioner came to be selected in the National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar, in the discipline of Instrumentation and Control. Since the petitioner has preferred to join National Institute of technology, Jalandhar, he applied for the refund of the fee on 17.08.2007. The request of the petitioner for refund of the fee has been rejected by respondent No.2 vide letter dated 05.03.2008, Annexure-P5, on the ground that the seat vacated by the petitioner was not filled in and, thus, the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the fee under the University Rules and Regulations. It is this communication which has been impugned in the present writ petition. The petitioner has relied upon the instructions issued by the All indian Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to the AICTE) regarding the refund of the fee. The relevant part of the instructions reads as under: "in the event of student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait-listed candidates should be given admissions against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after the deduction of the processing fee of not more than rs.1000/- (Rupees thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/university to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. It would not be permissible for Institutions and Universities to retain the School/institution, Leaving Certificates withdrawing from the programme. It would not be permissible for Institutions and Universities to retain the School/institution Leaving Certificates in original. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the Institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable. " 3. The petitioner also served a legal notice to the AICTE claiming refund of the fee deposited by him. " 3. The petitioner also served a legal notice to the AICTE claiming refund of the fee deposited by him. In response to the legal notice of the petitioner, the AICTE vide its reply dated 4.7.2008 communicated its policy decision. The relevant extract of the aforesaid communication is quoted hereunder: "kindly take note that AICTE has been empowered under Sec.10 (n) of AICTE act to "take all necessary step to prevent commercialization of technical education". Non-refund of fee subsequent upon a student not continuing with the course, amounts to commercialization of education. You are, therefore, advised to refund the tuition fee as per rule, deposited in our Institution by him at the earliest possible. You are also advised to refer to the public notice issued by the AICTE vide Advertisement no. AICTE/legal/04 (01)/2007 making it clear that any violation shall call for punitive action including withdrawal of approval and recognition of erring institution. A report on the action taken by the Institute may please be sent to this office within one week of the receipt of this letter along with detailed comments to enable this office to forward the same to the Director (Public grievances), AICTE, 7th Floor, Chandra Lok building, Near Connaught Place, Janpath, new Delhi-110001. You are also requested to send copy of the report directly to the Director (Public Grievances), New Delhi. " 4. Respondent No.2 has filed the written statement and defended the instructions of non-refund of the fee by relying upon Clause 7 (1) of the Joint Admission Brochure for the session 2007-2008 as also instructions dated 16.04.2007. However, it is contended that the seat vacated by the petitioner was not filled up and, thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the refund of the amount. The respondents have also relied upon UGC instructions in this regard which reads as under: "ugc: the Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the Institutions and Universities, in the Public Interest shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates. In the event of a student/ candidate withdrawing before the commencement of the course, the wait-listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. In the event of a student/ candidate withdrawing before the commencement of the course, the wait-listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- (one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/university to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the Institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable. " 5. On the basis of the aforesaid instructions, it is contended that the seat vacated by the petitioner remained unfilled by the last date of the admission. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the refund of the amount. From the reading of the aforesaid instructions relied upon by the respondents those notified by the AICTE, it becomes crystal clear that if a selected student withdraws before the starting of the course, waiting list candidate should be given the admission against the vacancy. The student who has withdrawn from the course is entitled to refund of the fee collected by the Institute after deduction of the processing fee, but not more than rs.1000/-. To the same effect are the instructions of the University Grants Commission. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner joined on 13.08.2007 and withdrew from the course on 17.08.2007 i. e within a period of four days. In accordance with the instructions, the respondent-Institute is entitled to retain Rs.1000/- only for processing charges and nothing more. 6. The total stand of the respondents is that the seat vacated by the petitioner remained unfilled. The instructions clearly provides for filling up the seat from the waiting list. The respondents have nowhere stated in the reply that any waiting list was prepared and notified. If the respondents did not prepare any waiting list, the question of filling up the seat from the waiting list does not arise. In such a situation, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the inaction on the part of the respondents. If the seat remained unfilled, the blame lies with the respondent-Institute and not with the petitioner. If the respondents did not prepare any waiting list, the question of filling up the seat from the waiting list does not arise. In such a situation, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the inaction on the part of the respondents. If the seat remained unfilled, the blame lies with the respondent-Institute and not with the petitioner. In view of the Instructions of the AICTE and UGC, the respondents were duty-bound to refund the fee if the student has withdrawn before the commencement of the course. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner withdrew after the commencement of the course. Rather the averment made in the writ petition is that the petitioner withdrew from the course on 17.08.2007 before the commencement of the course which fact has not been disputed. 7. In view of the above circumstances, the respondents are entitled to retain Rs.1000/-as processing fee out of the total fee deposited by the petitioner. Rest of the amount is liable to be refunded to the petitioner in law. 8. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to refund the entire fee deposited by the petitioner except Rs.1000/- on account of processing charges. Let the amount be refunded to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. No costs. Petition allowed.