JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri Neeraj Tiwari learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. This petition has been filed praying for quashing of the office memo issued by the University dated 5.3.2011, fixing the examination fee for regular students of self-financed colleges on the ground that the said office memo is discriminatory as against aided colleges. 3. In effect the higher examination fee charged from the petitioners institution which are self-financed institutions have been challenged on the ground of discrimination. 4. The matter had been adjourned on several occasions and as an interim measure this Court had passed the following interim order on 13.2.2012: The petitioner is a college running the self-finance course. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the Sessions 2009-10 and 2010-11, the examination fee of the Government aided college and the self-finance course college were same. However, for the Session 2011-12, the University has fixed the examination fee for the students of the self-finance course almost three times of the examination fee fixed for the students of Government aided college. He submitted that for holding the examination of the students of self-finance course, no extra service are being rendered and, therefore, the fixation of separate and exorbitant examination fee is hit by the principal of quid pro pro. Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the University is reviewing the fixation of the fees and the matter has been referred to the Finance Committee. In the meeting of the Executive Council dated 20th January, 2012, it has been resolved to reduce the fees and the matter has been referred to the Finance Committee. The meeting of the Finance Committee will be held any time in the month of March, 2012. In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled for an interim relief. Let the students of the petitioner-institute may be allowed to appear in the examination on payment of fee fixed for the students of Government aided college. The same shall be subject to the decision of the Finance Committee and the decision of this Court. 5. The respondent University has filed a supplementary counter-affidavit alongwith an application which was directed vide order dated 24.8.2012 to come up today with records. The same shall be subject to the decision of the Finance Committee and the decision of this Court. 5. The respondent University has filed a supplementary counter-affidavit alongwith an application which was directed vide order dated 24.8.2012 to come up today with records. A copy of the said application and the affidavit has been served on the learned counsel for the petitioners. Alongwith the said affidavit the respondent University has enclosed the decision of the Finance Committee dated 28.3.2012 and the decision of the Executive Council dated 30.3.2012 indicating that the examination fee structure for self-finance institutions and aided institutions shall be the same. for 2012-13 and onwards. The said decision has already been brought on record as Annexure 2 and 3 respectively to the supplementary affidavit. 6. Sri Ashok Khare learned senior counsel contends that in view of the aforesaid decision taken by the University which is only for the session 2012-13 and on wards, the stand of the petitioner for the session 2011-12 has been virtually accepted by the University and therefore the petition deserves to be allowed in terms of the interim order passed by this Court. 7. Sri Neeraj Tiwari learned counsel for the University contends that the University has taken a decision and the same will be implemented hence forth. There is no indication about the session 2011-12 and it appears that the same was not deliberated upon as the matter was pending before this Court and the examinations have been conducted on the basis of the old fee pattern as indicated in the order dated 13.2.2012. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records and the stand of the University, this Court does not find any justification for having a different structure of examination fee for the students of the self-financed institutions at a higher rate. To my mind there is no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved namely the examination fees which is in relation to examinations that are common for the self-finance institutions and aided institutions. In the absence of any rational basis for the discrimination, the equality clause as contained under Article 14 of the Constitution of India appears to have been infringed by the University by imposing different fee for the same courses and for the same examination. In the absence of any rational basis for the discrimination, the equality clause as contained under Article 14 of the Constitution of India appears to have been infringed by the University by imposing different fee for the same courses and for the same examination. The status of the institution has no bearing on the nature of the examinations that are common for aided and self-financed institutions. No other material adverse to the petitioners has been placed to draw an inference otherwise. To the contrary the decision of the Finance Committee for the Session 2012-13 vindicates the stand on discrimination raised by the petitioners. 9. Accordingly the disputed fee as fixed by the respondent University for the session 2011-12 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 10. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the interim order dated 13.2.2012 and the conclusions herein above. 11. Since there is no challenge raised to the fee now settled for the session 2012-13 the same does not require any further adjudication by this Court. 12. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ——————