Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 811 (AP)

K. Vamshi Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2009-11-13

N.V.RAMANA

body2009
ORDER The petitioners, who are pursuing 1st year MBBS/BDS course in private institutions, admitted against B-category seats, have filed this batch of writ petitions questioning the action of the private institutions in demanding them to pay tuition fee, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the endorsements "fee exempted" made in the letters of allotment, issued by Dr. NTR University of Medical and Health Sciences. PLEADINGS OF THE PETITIONERS 2. The petitioners belong to various communities of Backward Classes. After their two year intermediate course, they appeared for EAMCET-2008 under medical stream and passed the same. As called, they appeared for the counselling before the Convenor, Dr. NTR University of Medical and Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as "the University" who gave them allotment letters, admitting them against the Competent Authority Seats of MBBS/ BOS in different private medical colleges. At the time of admission/counselling, the petitioners state that they were informed by the Convenor/University authorities, that since they were admitted against the Competent Authority Seats, they need not pay the tuition fee as they are exempted from paying the tuition fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.18, BCW (B2) Department, dated 27-06-2008, and that after collecting the nominal fee fixed, the Convenor/University authorities made an endorsement on their allotment letters to the effect "fee exempted". Pursuant to their admission, the petitioners state that they are pursuing their 1st year MBBSIBOS courses, and while so, the colleges in which they are studying refused to permit them to attend the theory and practical classes and also refused to receive their examination fee on the ground that they did not pay the tuition fee, and they further informed the petitioners that unless they pay the tuition fee, they will not be permitted to attend the theory and practical classes and appear for the examinations. Hence, they filed the present writ petitions. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are poor BC students with their parental annual income not exceeding more than Rs.1,00,000/-. At the time of admission/counseling into MBBS/ BDS courses, the petitioners were informed by the Convenor/University authorities that they were admitted against the Competent Authority Seats, and that they need not pay the tuition fee as they are exempted from payment in terms of G.O.Ms. At the time of admission/counseling into MBBS/ BDS courses, the petitioners were informed by the Convenor/University authorities that they were admitted against the Competent Authority Seats, and that they need not pay the tuition fee as they are exempted from payment in terms of G.O.Ms. No.18, dated 27-06-2009, and accordingly, they made an endorsement on their letters of allotment to the effect "fee exempted". They submitted that since the petitioners were admitted against the Competent Authority Seats in the private medical colleges, and they having been informed by the Convenor/University authorities that they need not pay the tuition fee because they are exempted from paying the tuition fee in terms G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, the colleges are not justified in refusing to permit them to attend the theory and practical classes until they pay the tuition fee, and their action in demanding the petitioners to pay the tuition fee, is illegal and arbitrary. They further submitted that the petitioners had taken admission in MBBS/BDS courses in private medical colleges because they were informed that they are admitted against the Competent Authority Seats, and that they are exempted from paying the fee, and having regard to the fact that based on the assurance given by the Convenor/University authorities, they had joined the private medical colleges, they have accrued right to pursue the, studies without paying the fee, and if in the middle of the course they are called upon to pay the tuition fee, the petitioners, who hail from poor BC families, have no other alternative, but to give up their studies. They further submitted that they had been informed at the time of admission/counselling that they are required to pay the fee, then they would not have taken admission, and at any rate, for the fault, if any, committed by the Convenor/University authorities, the petitioners cannot be penalized and prayed that the writ petitions be allowed as prayed for. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT 4. On behalf of the Government, the Principal Secretary to Government in the Backward Classes Welfare Department filed common counter. The learned Additional Advocate General made submissions on behalf of the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the Government. Reiterating the counter averments, he submitted that in the medical stream, the Competent Authority Seats consist of two categories, namely A-category and B-category. The learned Additional Advocate General made submissions on behalf of the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the Government. Reiterating the counter averments, he submitted that in the medical stream, the Competent Authority Seats consist of two categories, namely A-category and B-category. As per the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 18, dated 27-06-2008, sanction of post-matric scholarship and reimbursement of tuition fee from the year 2008-09 to all eligible BC students on saturation basis on par with Social Welfare Department, is applicable only to those students, who are admitted against A-category Competent Authority Seats, and the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, were even communicated to the University authorities concerned by the Director of BC Welfare, vide his letter in Rc.No.B-2/8502/07, dated 30-06-2008. However, the Convenor/University authorities, contrary to the spirit of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms. No.18, dated 27-06-2008, and by misinterpretation of the same, informed the petitioners, who were admitted against B-category seats, that they need not pay the tuition fee and that they are exempted from paying the tuition fee as per the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008. 5. He submitted that the Director of BC Welfare, in response to the letters in No.01/ MBBS/BDS/EA-1/08, dated 20-10-2008, 10-02-2009, 21-02-2009, 25-05-2009 and 26-05-2009 addressed by the Registrar of the University, vide his letters in Rc.No.B2/ 8005/2008, dated13-11-2008, Rc.No.B2/8005/ 2008, dated 19-02-2009 and Rc.No.B2/1128/2009, dated 06-06-2009, clarified that sanction of post-matric scholarship and reimbursement of tuition fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, is applicable only to eligible BC students admitted against A-category Competent Authority Seats, In view of this, he submitted that the Government are bound to honour the obligation of reimbursement of tuition fee to eligible BC students, arising out of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, only to the students admitted against A-category Competent Authority Seats and not in respect of students admitted against B-category seats, and no cause of action having arisen against the Government, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed against the Government. 6. He further submitted that for the lapses committed by the Convenor/University authorities in making admissions, by mis-interpretation of G.O.Ms. No.18, dated 27-06-2008, the Government cannot be penalized by asking them to reimburse to tuition fee, by extending the benefit of the orders issued by the Government inG.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008. 6. He further submitted that for the lapses committed by the Convenor/University authorities in making admissions, by mis-interpretation of G.O.Ms. No.18, dated 27-06-2008, the Government cannot be penalized by asking them to reimburse to tuition fee, by extending the benefit of the orders issued by the Government inG.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008. He submitted that the Government cannot be forced to shoulder the burden of reimbursing the tuition fee to the petitioners, who were admitted against B-category Seats, which works out to Rs.20.00 crores, for four years. He further submitted that whether or not to extend the benefit of reimbursement of tuition fee to B-category Student on par with A-category students in terms of G.O.Ms. No.18, dated 27-06-2008, is a policy matter, and the University, can (sic. cannot) direct them to extend the benefit of GO.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, for if any such directions is given, it would amount to directing the Government to re-write their policy. 7. Since admissions against B-category seats were made by mis-interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, the Government, issued orders in U.O. Note No.2247 IB2/09, dated 20-08-2009, requesting the Departments concerned, to take appropriate action against the officials responsible for mis-interpreting the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, and making admissions contrary thereto. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed against the Government. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF DR. NTR UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES 8. On behalf of the University, their Registrar filed counter. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the University, reiterating the counter averments submitted that the University made admissions into MBBS/BDS course for the academic year 2008-09 against A-category and B-category Competent Authority Seats, as per the Admission Rules, known as A.P. Un-aided Non-minority Professional Institutions (Regulations of Admissions into Under Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules, 2007, notified by the Government in G.O.Ms. No.136, HM and FW (E1) Department, dated 30-04-2007. He submitted that under the medical stream, the Competent Authority seats comprise of two categories, namely A-category and B-category seats. The Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms. No.18, dated 27-06-2008, for sanction of post-matric scholarships and reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee for eligible BC students on saturation basis from the academic year 2008-09 on par with Social Welfare Department for admissions made against A-category seats. The Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms. No.18, dated 27-06-2008, for sanction of post-matric scholarships and reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee for eligible BC students on saturation basis from the academic year 2008-09 on par with Social Welfare Department for admissions made against A-category seats. He submitted that unlike admissions under the Engineering stream, where there are only two category of seats, namely 50% A-category seats (Competent Authority Seats), which an~ to be filled by the Convenor and 50% B-category seats (Management Seats), which are filled by the respective managements, the admission under the Medical stream, is slightly different, in that there are three categories of seats, namely A-category, B-category and C-category A-category seats which consist of 50%, are to be filled by the Convenor and B-category seats, which consist of 20%, are to be filled by Convenor, based on EAMCET Ranking and C-category Seats, which consist of 30%, are to be filled by the managements of the respective private medical colleges. 9. He submitted that since the Government in G.O.Ms.No.181, HM and FW (E-1) Department, dated 21-05-2008, mentioned that A-category and B-category seats are Convenor seats, before making admissions against B-category, the Convenor/University authorities sought clarification on telephone from the Director of BC Welfare, who informed that since B-category seats are Convenor seats, no fee be collected from the eligible BC students admitted against B-category seats whose parental annual income, is less than RS.1,00,000/- per annum, as the same would be reimbursed by the Government in terms of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008. Accordingly, after making admissions, the Convenor/University authorities, informed the Principals of the respective private colleges and requested them to send proposals to the BC Welfare Department, for sanction of reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee to students admitted against A-category and B-category seats. However as the students admitted against B-category seats represented to the University authorities that the Government did not sanction fee, and that the colleges are not permitting them to attend the theory and practical classes, the University requested the Government to reimburse the tuition fee and special fee to the petitioners, who were admitted against B-category seats, and further requested the Principals of the respective colleges not to insist payment of fee by such of those students. 10. 10. He further submitted that the University vide its letter dated 13-04-2009 brought to the notice of the Government, the circumstances under which it did not collect the fee from the eligible BC candidates admitted against B-category seats (petitioners), and requested them to sanction the reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee on par with eligible BC students admitted against A-category seats, particularly when the BC Welfare Department, had already sanctioned post-matric scholarship to the petitioners-in terms of G.O.Ms.No.18, BCW (B2) Department, dated 27-06-2008. 11. He submitted that the University is a creature of a statute, and as the University runs its administration, based on the promise of the Government and the orders issued by them from time to time, and having regard to the fact that in the matter of making admissions, the Convenor/ University authorities, have merely acted in the capacity of Representative to the Government, by implementing the G.os., and inasmuch as based on the oral clarification issued by the Director of BC Welfare, they did not collect the tuition fee from the students admitted against B-category seats, and if any dispute arises, then the Government, being the principal, should take the responsibility of solving them. However, after lapse of nearly one and a half year from the date completion of the admission process, and that too in the middle of the course, the Government cannot contend that reimbursement of tuition in terms of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, is applicable only to students admitted against A-category Competent Authority Seats and not B-category seats and that since the University had informed the students admitted against B-category seats that they are exempted from paying the fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, they alone are liable to solve the problem of reimbursement of tuition fee to such of those students. He submitted that since the University depends on the funds from the Government, and having regard to the fact that they are suffering from lack of funds, the liability of reimbursement of tuition fee in respect of students admitted against B-category seats, cannot be thrown on them. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed against the University. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE MEDICAL COLLEGES 12. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed against the University. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE MEDICAL COLLEGES 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective private medical co lieges submitted thatG.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008 clearly states that it is applicable to eligible BC students admitted against A-category Competent Authority Seats. The petitioners were admitted against B-category seats, and they are not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008. The colleges never informed the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008. Since the University had made endorsement" to the effect "fee exempted" on the letters of allotment of the petitioners, either the University or the Government, should reimburse the fee or else they are entitled to collect the same from the students, particularly when the colleges did not inform the petitioners that their fee would be reimbursed by the Government. He submitted that the private medical colleges are run by their own funds, and unless all the students pay the fee, they will not be in a position to manage the colleges. As neither the petitioners nor the University nor the Government paid the fee of the petitioners, they have directed the petitioners not to attend the colleges, and no fault can be found with such action of the private medical colleges. Hence, they prayed that the will petitions be dismissed. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the Government, the learned Standing Counsel for the University and the learned counsel for the respective private medical colleges, and also perused the note file, relating to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.18, BCW (B2) Department, dated 27-06-2008 and the amendment made thereto vide G.O.Ms. No.50, BCW (B2) Department, dated 26-08-2008. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE STAND OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES 14. No.50, BCW (B2) Department, dated 26-08-2008. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE STAND OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES 14. It is the case of the petitioners that since they are admitted against the Competent Authority Seats, and they having been exempted from paying the tuition fee, as endorsed by the Convenor/University authorities in their letters of allotment to the effect "fee exempted", they are not liable to pay any tuition fee and special fee, and they are entitled to reimbursement of the tuition fee and special fee in terms of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, and the action of the colleges in which they are studying in not permitting them to attend the theory and practical classes unless they pay the tuition feel reimbursed by the Government, is illegal and arbitrary. 15. However, the Government contends that as per the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, tuition fee is reimbursed only to the eligible BC students admitted against A-category Competent Authority Seats, and since the petitioners are admitted against B-category seats, they are not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, and for the mistake committed by the University authorities, they cannot be mulcted with the liability of reimbursing the eligible BC students admitted against B category seats. 16. Though the Government has taken such a stand, as indicated above, it is the case of the University that since in the amendment issued to Admission Rules in G.O.Ms.No.181, HM and FW (E1) Department, dated 21-05-2008, it is mentioned "Competent Authority Quota "A" and "B" categories", they sought clarification from the Director of BC Welfare as to whether students admitted against B-category seats are entitled to fee exemption in terms of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, and based on the clarification issued by the Director of BC Welfare on telephone that students admitted against B-category seats are also entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, they have made admissions and informed the petitioners that they need not pay the fee and they are exempted from paying the •fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27 -06-2008. 17. 17. While the private medical colleges contend that the University having made the admissions and having assured that fee in respect of the students admitted against B-category seats would be reimbursed by the Government in terms of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, now cannot contend that the benefit of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, is applicable only to eligible BC students admitted against A-category Competent Authority Seats and not to students admitted against B-category seats, and that for reimbursement of the tuition fee in respect of such of those students, they have to pursue with the Government. It is their further case, that as neither the Government nor the University had reimbursed the fee in respect of the petitioners, who were admitted by the Convenor/University authorities against the B-category seats, they have no other alternative, but to recover the tuition fee from the students, and as the petitioners did not pay the tuition fee, they have not permitted them to attend the theory and practical classes and demanded them to pay the fee, and such action of the private medical colleges, cannot be faulted. QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION 18. In the background of the facts and circumstances and in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties, the questions that arise for consideration in this writ petition are- (1) Whether the students admitted against B-category EAMCET ranking based Management seats, are entitled to the benefit of tuition fee and special fee reimbursement in terms of G.O.Ms.18, BCW (B2) Department, dated 27-06-2008; if not, whether the University authorities were justified in informing the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of exemption of tuition fee and special fee and reimbursement in terms of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008? (2) Whether the Government being the Authority under the statute, is liable for the acts committed by its Representative while discharging its functions on its behalf, and if so, whether the Government should be directed to pay the tuition fee of the petitioners? 19. To consider this question, a reference be made to the Admission Rules, the categories of seats and the fee prescribed for each category, and which of the eligible BC students admitted to the category of seats, are entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, as per the guidelines framed thereunder. 19. To consider this question, a reference be made to the Admission Rules, the categories of seats and the fee prescribed for each category, and which of the eligible BC students admitted to the category of seats, are entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, as per the guidelines framed thereunder. ADMISSION RULES/DELEGATION OF POWER OF MAKING ADMISSIONS/FEE REIMBURSEMENT GUIDELINES Admission Rules: 20. In pursuance of the judgment of the apex Court in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (1) 2005 (5) ALT 1 (SC) = 2005 (5) SCJ 746 = AIR 2005 SC 3226 and upon holding discussions with the Private Unaided Non-Minority Medical/Dental Colleges in the State for under-graduate courses i.e. MBBS/BDS, the Government arrived at a consensual arrangement in adopting admission policy and seat matrix for the competent authority seats/EAMCET ranking based management seats/ management seats in Unaided Non-Minority Medical/Dental Colleges in the State, notified the Admission Rules in G.O.Ms.No.136, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (E1) Department, dated 30-04-2007. Delegated Legislation - Delegation of Powers: 21. The Legislature is the authority which legislates the laws in exercise of its legislative power, shares the same with the executive and other administrative organs of the State, by empowering the administrative organs of the State to frame Rules by exercising the rule making power conferred on them under the statute. The Rules so framed by the executive, supplement the law under the authority of the Legislature. The Government of Andhra Pradesh having felt that the practice of collecting capitation fee at the time of admitting students into educational institutions is on the increase, which practice is resulting in commercialization of education, and to curb such evil and undesirable practice, and in order to avoid frustration among the standards of education, has enacted A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Capitation Fee Act), to provide for regulation of admissions into educational institutions and to prohibit the collection of capitation fee in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 2 (1) of the Capitation Fee Act, states that all words and expressions used but not defined in the Capitation Fee Act, shall have the meanings assigned to them in the A.P. Education Act, 1982. Section 2 (1) of the Capitation Fee Act, states that all words and expressions used but not defined in the Capitation Fee Act, shall have the meanings assigned to them in the A.P. Education Act, 1982. Section 15 of the Capitation Fee Act empowers the Government to make Rules by issuing notification for carrying out all or any of the purposes of the Act. The Government under the provisions of the Capitation Fee Act, are required to discharge its obligation of making admissions. 22. To relieve itself of the obligations, the Government in exercise of the power conferred on them under Section 15 of the Capitation Fee Act, have framed Rules delegating the power of completing the process of admission, in G.O.Ms.No.136, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (Dl) Department, dated 30-04-2007, known as Andhra Pradesh Unaided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into Under Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules". Rule 2(2) of the Rules defines "competent authority" to mean the Vice Chancellor, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada. As per Rule 4 of the said Rules, the seats under the medical stream are divided into three categories i.e., A-category i.e. Competent Authority seats (50% of the sanctioned intake of the seats), B-Category i.e. EAMCET based Management seats (20% of the sanctioned intake of the seats) and C -Category i.e. Management Seats. As per Rule 5. A-Category seats shall be filled by the Committee for Admissions constituted by the Competent Authority under the Rules; B-Category seats shall be filled by the Committee for Admissions constituted by the Competent Authority under the Rules and C-Category seats shall be filled by the Management of individual colleges or Committee of Managements under the Rules. The Vice Chancellor of the University, is the competent authority, appointed by the Government to undertake its obligations under the Capitation Fee Act. To know the definition of "competent authority", a reference should be made to the definition of "Competent Authority" as defined in Section 2(12) of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 which defines "competent authority" to mean any person, officer or authority authorized by the Government by notification to perform the functions of the competent authority under this Act for such area or for such purposes as may be specified in the notification. Fee Reimbursement Guidelines: 23. Fee Reimbursement Guidelines: 23. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.33 BCW (B2) Department, dated 24-09-2003, issued guidelines for reimbursement of tuition fee to Medical and Engineering Courses. The provisions thereof, need not be dealt with in detail, because the other G.Os., issued thereafter dealing with the subject matter will be dealt with infra. EVOLUTION OF G.O.MS.NO.18. DATED 27-06-2008 AND AMENDMENTS MADE THERETO. AS CONTAINED IN THE NOTE FILE PRODUCED RX. THE GOVERNMENT 24. As noted above, the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.33, BCW (B2) Department, dated 24-09-2003, issued guidelines for reimbursement of tuition fee to Medical and Engineering Courses. While this G.O. is being implemented, it appears that based on the representations made by the President. A.P. Backward Classes Welfare Association, for saturation of both post-matric scholarships and reimbursement of tuition fee in respect of eligible BC students and not to collect any fee from BC students at the time of admission/counselling, the Government directed the concerned to process the file for taking appropriate decision. Accordingly, as per the directions of the Government, the matter referred to the Director of BC Welfare, and the Government upon considering the proposal submitted by him, issued orders in G.O.Ms. No.18, dated 27-06-2008, prescribing guidelines for sanction of post-matric scholarships and reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee for eligible BC students in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Para 7 thereof reads as follows: After careful examination of the proposal of Director. BC Welfare and keeping in view of the commitment for saturation of post-matric scholarships and reimbursement of tuition fee to all eligible BC students, Government hereby agree for sanction of post-matric scholarships and reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee to the eligible BC students from the year 2008-09 onwards on saturation basis on par with Social Welfare Department for Category "A" (Convenor quota) students only and prescribe the following guidelines: (i) .Since saturation is the commitment the formula stipulated in GO.Ms. No.42, Backward Classes Welfare (A2) department, dated 17-09-1997 and guidelines issued vide Memo. No.1004/B2/2005. BC Welfare (B2) Department, dated 22-02-2006 allocating not more than 20% available budget to professional courses are dispensed with. (ii) The scholarship committee in each district will post fact review and monitor sanction, disbursement and aquittances of post-matric scholarships as envisaged in G.O.Ms. No.42. Backward Classes Welfare (A2) Department, dated 17-09-1997. No.1004/B2/2005. BC Welfare (B2) Department, dated 22-02-2006 allocating not more than 20% available budget to professional courses are dispensed with. (ii) The scholarship committee in each district will post fact review and monitor sanction, disbursement and aquittances of post-matric scholarships as envisaged in G.O.Ms. No.42. Backward Classes Welfare (A2) Department, dated 17-09-1997. (iii) Reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee shall be sanctioned to all the eligible BC students based on the existing fee structure for various courses permitted by Government/ University. (iv) The College Managements shall not collect tuition fee/special fee from BC students eligible for reimbursement. The amount reimbursed by the Department shall be deducted by the Management at the time of collecting the fee from the students. (v) The information regarding sanction of post-matric scholarships and reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee, college-wise and student wise will be made available on the web-site instead of publication through press. 25. Accordingly, the Director, BC Welfare, was directed to take necessary action. 26. As directed by the Government, the Director of BC Welfare, issued orders in Lr.No.B2/8502/07, dated 30-06-2008, and communicated the same to all concerned, including the Registrar of the University. The said order reads as follows: I have to inform that in the G.O. cited (G.O.Ms.No.18 BCW (B2) Department, dated 27-06-2008, the Government in BCW Department agreed for sanction of post-matric scholarships and reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee to the eligible BC students in the State of Andhra Pradesh on saturation basis on par with Social Welfare Department for Category A (Convenor quota) students only and prescribed certain guidelines. Among other things, it was prescribed that the college managements shall not collect tuition fee/special fee from the BC students eligible for reimbursement. The amount reimbursed by the Department, shall be deducted by the management at the time of collecting fee from the students. In view of the above, I enclose herewith a copy of the G.O. cited and request to issue instructions to all the concerned under your jurisdiction not to collect tuition fee/special fee from the BC students eligible for reimbursement at the time of admission. I request to treat this as most urgent and intimate this office about the action in the matter. 27. Thereafter, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.19, Backward Classes Welfare (B2) Department, dated 02-07-2008, raising the income ceiling limit from Rs.33,500/- to Rs. I request to treat this as most urgent and intimate this office about the action in the matter. 27. Thereafter, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.19, Backward Classes Welfare (B2) Department, dated 02-07-2008, raising the income ceiling limit from Rs.33,500/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- for claiming scholarships in non-professional colleges and from Rs.44,500/- to Rs.1,00,000/- for claiming scholarships in professional courses. 28. After issuance of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, it appears from the record placed by the Government, that the President, BC Welfare Association, addressed letter dated 05-07-2008 to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, requesting to issue necessary amendment to the above G.O. Pursuant thereto, the Honble Minister for BC Welfare, called for a meeting on 08-07-2009 in his Chambers, to discuss the issues raised in the said letter, and as people and press raised doubts, desired to issue necessary clarifications with respect to implementation of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008. The Honble Minister for BC Welfare, further opined as follows: As it is a Government decision to sanction post-matric scholarships/ reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee on par with Social Welfare Department, Category B students for Medical/Dental courses may also be considered as was done in Social Welfare Department. 29. Based on the above directions of the Honble Minister for BC Welfare and telephonic instructions issued by the Secretary to Government, BC Welfare Department, dated 10-07-2009, the Director of BC Welfare, has vide his letter dated 10-07-2009 addressed to the Secretary to Government. BC Welfare, submitted the estimated amount required for reimbursement of tuition fee to B category students admitted in MBBS/BDS course. In continuation to the said letter, the Director of BC Welfare, addressed letter dated 11-07-2009 to the Secretary to Government, BC Welfare Department, in respect of reimbursement of tuition fee to MBBS/BDS students admitted under B category, which reads as follows: I invite the attention of the Government to the reference cited, wherein the estimated amount required towards reimbursement of tuition fee to B category BC students admitted in MBBS and BDS courses has been informed to the Government, it was estimated that an amount of Rs.483.20 lakhs is required. In continuation of the above, I have to inform that the estimated amount pertains to one year only. To consider all batches of students i.e. 1st year to 4th year, an amount of Rs.1932.80 lakhs or say Rs.19.50 crores is required. In continuation of the above, I have to inform that the estimated amount pertains to one year only. To consider all batches of students i.e. 1st year to 4th year, an amount of Rs.1932.80 lakhs or say Rs.19.50 crores is required. This is for information of the Government. 30. Thereafter, as desired by the Honble Minister for BC Welfare, the Director of BC Welfare, issued executive instructions in Memo No.B2/8502/2007, dated 14-07-2008, regarding reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee to eligible BC students, as follows: 1. From the year 2008-09 all the eligible BC students who are pursuing professional and nonprofessional courses in Government, University, Private Aided and Un-aided Institutions shall be sanctioned Post Matrie Scholarships/Special fee and Tuition fee Reimbursement .on par with Social Welfare Department. 2. The Colleges/Managements shall not collect tuition fee from the eligible BC students for renewal as well as fresh students. The department will reimburse the tuition fee to the colleges/ managements concerned. 3. For the purpose of sanctioning scholarships and tuition fee reimbursement for all courses, duration and rates shall be on the lines of Social Welfare Department. 4. For self-financing and para-medical courses, reimbursement of tuition fee shall be on the lines of Social Welfare Department. 31. Thereafter, along with the remarks of the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and the Principal Secretary. Finance, the file was placed before the Minister for Social Welfare, who made an endorsement that entire tuition fee may be reimbursed on par with SC/ST candidates for category B also. However, the Minister for Finance, made an endorsement agreeing for relaxation from next year, to which the Honble Chief Minister gave his consent. 32. Thereafter, on 26-08-2008, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.50, BCW (B@) Department, dated 27-06-2008, by substituting 7(iv) (a) to (d), namely the executive instructions issued by the Director of BC Welfare in his letter dated 14-07-2008. Now, as of today, as directed by the Honble Chief Minister, the file is required to be placed before the Council of Ministers, for ratification. 33. From the above; it is clear that the Government have taken a decision to extend the benefit of reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.18, BCW (B2) Department, dated 27-06-2008, to eligible BC Students admitted against B category seats on par with students admitted against A-category seats, from the next year onwards i.e. 2009-10. 33. From the above; it is clear that the Government have taken a decision to extend the benefit of reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.18, BCW (B2) Department, dated 27-06-2008, to eligible BC Students admitted against B category seats on par with students admitted against A-category seats, from the next year onwards i.e. 2009-10. REASONING OF THE COURT In re question No.1: 34. In the above background of the facts, as stated above, it may be noticed whether the students admitted against B-category EAMCET ranking based Management seats, are entitled to the benefit of tuition fee and special fee reimbursement in terms of G.O.Ms.18, BCW (B2) Department, dated 27-06-2008. 35. As can be seen from the notings from the file produced by the Government, it is clear that the benefit of reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee in terms of GD.Ms. No.18, dated 27-06-2008, is applicable only to all eligible BC students admitted against A-category seats. However, it is the case of the University authorities that since in G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 21-05-2008, it is mentioned "competent authority quota under" A" and "B" categories", they having entertained doubt as to whether the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008 can be given to eligible BC students admitted against B-category seats, sought clarification from the Director of BC Welfare, and based on the positive clarification given by him, they informed the petitioners, who were admitted against B-category seats that they are exempted from paying the fee and they are entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms. No.18, dated 27-06-2008. 36. Admittedly, no written clarification is given by the Director of BC Welfare, informing the University authorities that the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008 can be given even to eligible BC students admitted against B-category seats. On the other hand the material placed before the Court, would show that the Director of BC Welfare, vide his orders in Lr.No.B2/ 8502/07, dated 30-06-2008, communicated to all concerned, including the Registrar of the University, in very clear terms informed that the Government in G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 27-06-2008, has agreed for sanction of post-matric scholarships and reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee to the eligible BC students in the State of Andhra Pradesh on saturation basis on par with Social Welfare Department, for Category A (Convenor quota) students. 37. 37. The fact that the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008 is given only to eligible BC students admitted against A-category seats and not to students admitted against B-category, is further evident from the material placed before the Court, and it would be appropriate, if a reference is made to the same. The Principal, Narayana Medical College, realizing that the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, are applicable only to eligible BC students admitted against A-category seats, and not to students admitted against B-category seats, addressed letter dated 16-09-2008 to the Registrar of the University, stating as follows: Kindly refer to the references cited above, copies of which are enclosed herewith for your kind ready reference. While referring to the G.O. first cited, the Director, BC Welfare Department, informed that the Government agreed for sanction of post-matric scholarships and reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee to the eligible BC students in the State of Andhra Pradesh on saturation basis on par with Social Welfare Department for category A (Convenor quota) students only. But the University while allotting the students during the counselling under category B to our college stated in the allotment order that the candidates were exempted from payment of tuition fee. Since the G.O. clearly states that the category A (Convenor quota) students are only eligible for the reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee, the students under category 8 are not eligible for reimbursement of tuition fee. Hence, I request that the University may kindly direct the 12 students (list enclosed along with fee receipt and receipt of original certificates issued by the University) who were selected under category B and allotted to our college for payment of Rs.2,00,000/each towards tuition fee at an early date. 38. Pursuant to the above, the Registrar of the University, addressed letter dated 20-10-200S to the Director of BC Welfare requesting him to give clear instructions with regard to applicability of G.O.Ms. No.18, dated 26-07-2008 to students admitted against B-category competent authority seats, and requested him to take further action for sanction of scholarships to candidates admitted under competent authority seats under B category on par with other students admitted under A category into MBBS, BDS, BAMS, BHMS and BNYS courses for the academic year 200S-09. No.18, dated 26-07-2008 to students admitted against B-category competent authority seats, and requested him to take further action for sanction of scholarships to candidates admitted under competent authority seats under B category on par with other students admitted under A category into MBBS, BDS, BAMS, BHMS and BNYS courses for the academic year 200S-09. In response to this letter, the Director of BC Welfare, vide Rc.No.B2/S005/200S, dated 13-11-2008, informed the Registrar of the University as follows: With reference to your letter cited, I am to inform that in G.O.Ms.No.18, BCW (B2) Department, dated 27-06-200S, the Government agreed for sanction of post-matric scholarships and reimbursement of tuition fee to the eligible Backward Classes students in the State of Andhra Pradesh, on saturation basis on par with Social Welfare Department for Category A (Convenor quota) students only. 39. From the above letter of the Director of BC Welfare, it is clear that the benefit of G.O.Ms.No. 18, dated 27-06-2008 is applicable only to A-category Competent Authority Seats. 40. While so, a parent of one of the students of Katuri Medical College, Chinakondrupadu, Guntur, on 04-02-2009, represented to the Vice Chancellor of the University that the College Principal called her and other similar students who were admitted against B-category seats not to attend the college from 27-01-2009 because the college did not receive the exempted fee from the Government, and requested him to direct the college to permit his daughter to attend the classes regularly and allow her to appear for internal and practical exams until the Government release the exempted fee. 41. Upon receipt of similar complaints from similarly situated students, and in spite of the University being clarified that G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008 is applicable only to A-category Competent Authority Seats, the Registrar of the University, based on the orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University, addressed letter dated 10-02-2009, requesting the Commissioner, BC Welfare Department, to take necessary action for consideration for sanction of scholarships to the candidates admitted under B category competent authority seats on par with other category students admitted under A category into MBBS, BDS, BAS, BHMS and BNYS courses for the academic year, 2008-09. Simultaneously, on the same day, the Registrar of the University, based on the orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University, addressed letters to the Principals of all the colleges stating as follows: In view of the above, I am to request you to implement the G.Os. strictly and not to insist the eligible BC/SC/ST/ minority candidates for payment of tuition fee and special fee admitted under A and B category seats. I am also to inform you to send proposals for sanction of tuition fee and other fee for the fee exempted candidates to the concerned Welfare Departments. In view of the above, I am to inform to permit the BC/ST/ST students admitted under A and B category to attend the classes of 1st year MBBS 2008-09 batch of your college who are eligible for reimbursement of tuition fee and scholarships and not to insist them to pay the fee. I am also to inform you to pursue the matter with the Government for reimbursement of fee and scholarships. 42. In response to the letter dated 10-02-2009 of the Registrar of the University, the Director of BC Welfare, addressed letter dated 19-02-2009 to the Registrar of the University, stating as follows: But in the references 3rd cited, you have requested the Principal of Katuri Medical College, Chinakandrupadu, not to insist the eligible BC/SC/ST / Minority candidates for payment of tuition fee and special fee admitted under A and B category seats and in the reference 4th cited you have requested this office to consider for sanction of scholarships to the candidates admitted under B category on par with the students admitted under A category. In this connection, you are hereby informed that the clarification issued in the reference 2nd cited (letter dated) 13-11-2008) holds good and no further instructions were received from the Government in the matter. This is for your information and to communicate to all the colleges under your jurisdiction. 43. In this connection, you are hereby informed that the clarification issued in the reference 2nd cited (letter dated) 13-11-2008) holds good and no further instructions were received from the Government in the matter. This is for your information and to communicate to all the colleges under your jurisdiction. 43. In spite of the above, the Registrar of the University, addressed letter dated 09-03-2009 to the Principal Secretary to Government, HM and FW Department, stating inter alia, as follows: Hence, I am to request you to take further necessary action for sanction of scholarships of the candidates admitted under competent authority (convenor quota) seats under B category on par with other category students admitted under A category into MBBS, BDS, BAMS and BNYS courses for the academic year 2008-09 and issue necessary amendment to the existing G.Os. as the B category candidates are also selected under convenor quota. 44. From the above correspondence, it is clear that the University having come to know that the G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, is applicable only to A-category Competent Authority Seats, started addressing the officers concerned to issue necessary amendment to the G.O., extending the benefit of reimbursement to eligible BC students admitted against B-category also. 45. The fact that G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, is applicable only to students admitted against A-category seats only, is evident from the letter dated 04-03-2009, addressed by the District BC Welfare Officer, Medak District, to all the Principals of Government/Aided/Private Colleges/Professional/P.G. Colleges in Medak District, stating as follows: I invite your kind attention to the references cited, wherein it has been informed that the Government in BCW Department agreed for sanction of post-matric scholarships and reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee to the eligible BC students on saturation basis on par with Social Welfare Department for Category A (Convenor Quota) students only and prescribed certain guidelines. Hence, all the Principals of this District are hereby directed to send/ recommend fresh application for Category A (Convenor Quota) students only. Further, I am to inform to disburse Post-matric scholarships and reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee to Category A (Convenor Quota) students only, the remaining amount should be remitted in Government account through challan. Otherwise, the Principal concerned will be held responsible for disbursement of scholarship and reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee and action will be taken as per rules in addition to recover of amount. 46. Otherwise, the Principal concerned will be held responsible for disbursement of scholarship and reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee and action will be taken as per rules in addition to recover of amount. 46. In spite of making it clear that reimbursement of tuition fee and special fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, is applicable only to students admitted against A-category seats, the Registrar of the University, addressed letters dated 13-04-2009 and 26-05-2009, to the Principals of the colleges as well as the Director of BC Welfare, which are similar to the letters dated 10-02-2009 to the Principals of the Colleges. 47. On 25..05-2009 and 26-05-2009, based on the representations of the students, the Registrar of the University, addressed letters to the Principal Secretary to the Government in HM and FW Department and the Secretary, A.P. State Council for Higher Education, requesting them to take necessary action for amendment of para 7 of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008. In reply to this letter, which appears to have been forwarded by the Secretary, A.P. State Council for Higher Education, the Director of BC Welfare, addressed letter dated 06-06-2009, to the Registrar of the University, and while denying the allegations that the University after consultation with the Director of BC Welfare Department, has given fee exemption to eligible candidates admitted under competent authority (A and B category) and requested them to follow the G.Os. scrupulously and Government will not be responsible for any deviations. 48. Admittedly, the present problem had arisen because of the poor understanding of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, by the University authorities. When G.O.No.18, dated 27-06-2008 in very specific terms stated that it is applicable only to A-category Competent Authority Seats, there was no occasion for the University to entertain a doubt. However, in view of the mentioning of the phrase "competent authority quota under "A" and "B" categories", in G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 21-05-2008, the University entertained a doubt and sought clarification from the Director of BC Welfare, and based on the alleged oral clarification, which is denied by the Government, made the admissions informing the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 21-05-2008, was issued by the Government in the context of amending the Admission Rules, issued by the Government in G.O.Ms. No.136, dated 30-04-2007. No.136, dated 30-04-2007. The phrase "competent authority quota under "A" and "B" categories", came to be mentioned in the G.O., while the Government was making a reference to the representation made by the President, A.P. Private and Medical Colleges Management Association, which reads ads follows: In the letter 3rd read above, the Managements Association of Andhra Pradesh Private Medical and Dental Colleges has requested the Government to allow them to fill up left over vacant seats in the competent quota under "A" and "B" categories after the final round of counseling in order not to lose the seats since admissions in MBBS/BDS course are required to be completed by a particular date according to Medical Council of India norms. In the meeting on 2nd April, 2008 the Managements Association of Andhra Pradesh Medical and Dental Colleges have also requested to conduct interview for the candidates applying for admission in their College under the management quota Le. under "C" category, in order to avoid multiple blocking of seats by the same candidate in more than one college: that the colleges should be allowed to submit merit list prepared by them under management quota for "C" category, for scrutiny and approved from time to time till the final date of admission is over. 49. When G.O.No.181, dated 21-05-2008, was not a G.O. governing the reimbursement of scholarships reimbursement either directly or remotely, but related to the amendment of Admission Rules, the University authorities instead of seeking clarification, ought to have implemented the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms. No.18, dated 27-06-2008 only in respect of eligible BC students admitted against A-category Competent Authority Seats and refused to extend the same to students admitted against B-category seats, which the University did not do. 50. Apart from the correspondence, as noted above, which make it clear that eligible BC students admitted against B-category seats, could not have been informed by the University authorities that they are exempted from paying the fee, the University, given the nature of seats against which the petitioners were admitted, could not have unilaterally extended the benefit of G.O.No.18, dated 27-06-2008. Apart from the correspondence, as noted above, which make it clear that eligible BC students admitted against B-category seats, could not have been informed by the University authorities that they are exempted from paying the fee, the University, given the nature of seats against which the petitioners were admitted, could not have unilaterally extended the benefit of G.O.No.18, dated 27-06-2008. As per the Admission Rules, 50% of the total seats, which are called A-category seats, are Competent Authority Seats, while 20% of the total seats, which are called B-category seats, are "EAMCET Ranking Based Management Seats", and while the rest of the seats, which constitute 30%, which are called C-category seats, are "Management Seats". Given the fact that B-category seats, are not purely Competent Authority Seats, but are "EAMCET Ranking Based Management Seats", and having regard to the fact that the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, clearly state that the benefit of tuition fee reimbursement is applicable only to A-category Competent Authority Seats, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, and therefore, the University authorities were not justified in informing the petitioners that they are exempted from paying the fee and are entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008. Accordingly, question No.1 is answered. In re question No.2: 51. Though B-category seats are not purely Competent Authority Seats, but are EAMCET ranking based Management seats. It appears that the Government have taken a decision to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008, to students admitted against B-category seats also on par with students admitted against A-category seats. No doubt, the Government have taken a decision to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 27-06-2008 to the eligible BC students admitted against B-category seats also on par with students admitted against B-category seats, but the fact remains, the Government decided to extend the said benefit only from the next year onwards. However, even before concrete decision was taken, the University authorities have assured the petitioners who were given admission against B category seats that they are exempted from payment of tuition fee and that their fee will be reimbursed by the Government. 52. However, even before concrete decision was taken, the University authorities have assured the petitioners who were given admission against B category seats that they are exempted from payment of tuition fee and that their fee will be reimbursed by the Government. 52. Now that it has become clear that the University is responsible for the present embarrassing situation, it may be noticed whether the private colleges should be directed to recover the tuition fee from the petitioners or the University or the Government. It is the case of the petitioners that they belong to poor BC families, and they took admission against B-category seats, because they were informed that their admission is against the Competent Authority Seats, and they need not pay the fee as they are exempted from paying the same. It is their further case that had they been informed before joining the course that they are not entitled to the benefit of reimbursement of fee in terms of G.O.Ms. No.18, dated 27-06-2008, then they would not have taken admission against B-category seats; and would have preferred some other courses, which required them to pay less fee. While it is the case of the University that since it is a creature of a statute, established by the Government, and since they make admissions, as per the instructions given by the Government, from time to time, and having regard to the fact that the Government issued G.O. with regard to reimbursement of tuition fee, and they having assured exemption of fee to the petitioners who were admitted against B-category seats under bona fide interpretation of the provisions of the G.O., and that too after obtaining necessary clarification from the authorities concerned, if any dispute arises in its implementation, resulting in monetary burden, then it is not the University, but the Government should shoulder the burden of solving the dispute. 53. While conducting counselling for the academic year 2008-09, the University treated B-Category (EAMCET ranking based Management seats) also as competent authority seats and admitted the petitioners against the B-category seats, and assured them that they need not pay the tuition fee as they are exempted from paying the fee, and accordingly had put the stamp on the admission letters of the students that they are exempted from payment of fee. Thereafter, the private unaided professional college managements sent proposals to the Government for reimbursement of the fee. Thereafter, the private unaided professional college managements sent proposals to the Government for reimbursement of the fee. The Government, in turn, informed the private managements that as per the G.Os. issued in this regard, students admitted against B-category seats are not entitled for reimbursement of fee. On receipt of the said information from the Government, the respective private college managements demanded the students to pay the tuition fee. The students approached this Court by filing writ petitions stating that they are poor BC students, and that but for (sic. because of) the exemption granted by the competent authority, they took admission against B-category seats, otherwise they would not have opted for B-category seats. As there is no fault on their part in getting admitted against B-category seats, they are not liable to pay the fee and as assured by the University, the Government is required to reimburse the fee, as they took admission against B-Category seats under the impression that they are exempted from payment of fee, as the University had put the stamp on their admission letters that they are exempted from payment of fee. The argument of the respective college managements is that the entire admission process is looked after by the University and the University conducts the counselling for admission as per the instructions issued by the Government from time to time, they have no role to play in the admission process and the entire fee collected at the time of admission from the students is kept with the University, and after completion of admission process and finalization of admissions and after sliding down of all the seats only, the fee collected by the University from the students, would be remitted to the colleges, in respect of the students allotted to a particular collegeis. 54. As noted earlier, as per the provisions of the Capitation Fee Act, the Government on its own or through the University, is required to fulfil its obligation of making admissions under the Capitation Fee Act. The Government have appointed the University as its representative to discharge its obligations arising under the Capitation Fee Act. Once the Government delegated its power to the University, all the acts done by the University are deemed to have been done by the Government, unless and otherwise it is clarified by the Government that the University alone is responsible for the acts done by it. Once the Government delegated its power to the University, all the acts done by the University are deemed to have been done by the Government, unless and otherwise it is clarified by the Government that the University alone is responsible for the acts done by it. If the representative appointed by the Government, in the course of making admissions, exceeds its limits, then the Government should take the responsibility, of making good the liability arising out of the consequences of such actions of its representative. In fact, a duty is cast upon the Government to ensure that the representative in whom it delegated its power, exercises such power in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rules made there-under as also the executive instructions issued by them from time to time. Having regard to the definition of "competent authority" as defined in the A.P. Education Act, 1982 once the Government delegated its power to the University to perform the functions of the Competent Authority, the Government should be deemed to be held liable for the acts committed by its representative, namely the University. In this context, it is relevant to state that the Government have appointed the University as "Competent Authority" in exercise of its rule making power conferred under Section 15 of the Capitation Fee Act. The University being the representative of the Government, is bound to exercise its authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rules made thereunder and the executive instructions issued by the Government from time to time, and not according to their whims and fancies. 55. From the discussion made in answer to question No.1. It becomes clear that the University authorities, have misunderstood the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time and had put the stamp on the admission letters issued to the petitioners during the course of admissions stating that the students admitted under B-Category seats are entitled for fee exemption. Even though the University authorities have exceeded the power conferred upon them, yet the Government have not taken any remedial steps to rectify the mistakes immediately, if not within a reasonable time, and by the time, it issued clarifications, not only the admissions have come to a close but by the first year of the four year MBBS/BDS course has also come to an end. 56. 56. Since the Government have not taken remedial steps to correct the actions of its representative, namely the University, and the University having made admissions as representative of the Government, and based on the assurance given by the University that they need not pay the fee, the petitioners, who are poor BC students, took admission into MBBS/BDS course against B-category seats, I am of the considered opinion that in the middle of the course, it would not be proper to direct the petitioners to pay the tuition fee, for it is the specific case of the petitioners that had they been informed at the time of admission that they would be required to pay the fee, they would not have joined the course. It is their further case that if at this stage they are called upon to pay the fee, the only option left to them is to discontinue their studies. 57. As per the Medical/Dental Council of India Rules, once admissions are closed, no admission can be made and if the petitioners unable to pay the fee are forced to discontinue their studies, and having regard to the fact that the Medical/Dental Council of India Rules, do not permit making admission once the admissions are closed, the seats that may fell vacant due to discontinuance of the petitioners would go into the drain. Considering the fact that under the Constitution of India, the Government has a social responsibility of taking care of welfare of its citizens, I am of the considered opinion that it would not be proper for the Government to refuse to reimburse the fee of the students and drive them to discontinue their studies for nonpayment of fee, for if the students for nonpayment of fee are forced to discontinue their studies, then their discontinuance, would not only not be in the interest of the students-petitioners, but also not be in the interest of the State, inasmuch as in the discontinuance of studies of the petitioners, it is not just for the petitioners, but the Government would stand to lose the precious human resource of Doctors. 58. 58. Since in the admission of the petitioners against B-category seats, neither the petitioners nor the unaided private college managements are at fault, and the University, as representative of the Government, while discharging its obligations of making admissions under the provisions of the Capitation Fee Act, at the time of admitting the petitioners against B-category seats, informed that they are exempted from paying the fee, I am of the considered opinion that for the acts and misdeeds, if any, committed by the University in the discharge of its obligations under the provisions of the Capitation Fee Act, the Government should take the responsibility of reimbursing the fee to the petitioners, who were admitted against B-Category seats. Hence, there shall be directions to the Government to reimburse the tuition fee in respect of the petitioners who were admitted into MBBS/BDS course against B-category. 59. Accordingly, question No.2 is answered. 60. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.