Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 916 (ALL)

LAKSHYA KUMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA

2016-03-14

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The daughter of the petitioner appeared in the State Entrance Examination (UPSEE-2015) conducted by Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Uttar Pradesh (University) and was ranked at 10833. She was allotted the Kamla Nehru Institute of Physical and Social Sciences in district Sultanpur in the branch of Electronics and Communication Engineering. She deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- against the confirmation of a seat on 8 July 2015. Subsequently on 21 July 2015, she decided against accepting the allotment of admission and sought a refund. On the complaint made by the daughter of the petitioner, the University Grants Commission (UGC) addressed a letter to the Registrar of the University to examine the matter to which the University responded on 28 September 2015, a copy of which is marked to the petitioner. That has given rise to the petition. 2. The basis of the petition is the guidelines which have been framed by the UGC, New Delhi on 23 April 2007 and the public notice (Advt. No. AICTE/Legal/04(01)/2007, which was issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). According to the petitioner, both these notices contain a direction that after a student has obtained admission and withdraws before the commencement of the course, a wait listed candidate should be admitted against the vacant seat and the entire fee collected should be refunded after retaining an amount of Rs. 1,000/-. The petitioner contends that this provision is applicable and hence his daughter would be entitled to a refund of an amount of Rs. 14,000/- after the University retains an amount of Rs. 1,000/- from the amount paid at the time of registration. 3. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 17 February 2016, the University has filed a counter-affidavit in these proceedings through its Registrar. The University has stated that after the entrance examination is conducted, students are at that stage required to deposit only an amount of Rs. 500 for registration for the purpose of counselling and document verification. Thereafter students are furnished with an opportunity to participate in counselling and to lock “the college of their own choice”. The allotment of institutions is made after this process is completed on the basis of merit and the choice which is indicated by the students. 500 for registration for the purpose of counselling and document verification. Thereafter students are furnished with an opportunity to participate in counselling and to lock “the college of their own choice”. The allotment of institutions is made after this process is completed on the basis of merit and the choice which is indicated by the students. After the institution is allotted to a successful candidate, the candidate is required to confirm his or her seat by depositing an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as a confirmation fee against which a confirmation slip is generated. The purpose of generating a confirmation slip is to calculate the actual number of vacant seats for the next round of counselling. At this stage, it is open to the candidates either to deposit an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for confirmation of the seat or to quit the process of counselling so as to leave the seat open for the next round of counselling. The University retains the amount of Rs. 15000/- which is non-refundable for the reason that the students must seriously participate in the counselling, otherwise students would lock their choice and obtain a letter of allotment and subsequently not turn up to take admission. If this were to take place, the University will not be in a position to calculate the actual number of vacant seats for the second round of counselling for other students who have not obtained admission in the first round. This amount of Rs. 15,000/- is adjusted against the annual fee and the University transmits the amount to the college where the students have taken admission. The amount is kept in a separate account of the U.P. State Entrance Examination. The balance which remains after transmission of the amount to respective colleges is spent on the development of Government Engineering Colleges in the State and not for the use of the University. The Government Degree Colleges charge a low fee and as a result of this, these colleges are unable to generate funds for their work. Moreover, it has been stated that the sanction of the State Government is taken for the utilization of the amount. For the current session, it has been stated that 26,589 students deposited an amount of Rs. The Government Degree Colleges charge a low fee and as a result of this, these colleges are unable to generate funds for their work. Moreover, it has been stated that the sanction of the State Government is taken for the utilization of the amount. For the current session, it has been stated that 26,589 students deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- each after counselling, out of which, until date, the University has transmitted the amount deposited by 20,365 students to the concerned colleges against the annual fee for 2015-16 where they have taken admission. For 2015-16, the process is going on since the University transmits the amount to the college after a demand being raised. 4. As regards, the submission based on the circulars of UGC and AICTE, it has been stated that these apply only to a situation where a student has taken admission in a college and has left the course of study under which circumstances, guidelines have been laid down. After withdrawal of admission, wait listed candidates are required to take admission against a vacant seat upon which the fee is to be refunded. In the present case, it is stated that the student who has locked one seat after depositing an amount of Rs. 15,000/- and has not turned up for admission causes a serious prejudice since the seat cannot be included in the next round of counselling resulting in irreparable loss to other students as well as the seat being left vacant not only for the current session but for the next three sessions. 5. At the outset, it would be necessary to note that the circulars of the UGC and AICTE which have been relied upon by the petitioner, do not cover a situation such as the present. We extract hereinbelow the relevant part of the circular issued by UGC: “It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission that Institutions and Universities including institutions deemed to be universities are admitting students to various programmes of studies long before the actual starting of academic session; collecting full fee from the admitted students; and, retaining their schools/institutions leaving certificate in original. The Institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by such dates. 2. The Institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by such dates. 2. The Commission is of the view that the Institutions/Universities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. However, it would not be permissible for Institutions and Universities to retain the School/Institution Leaving Certificate, mark sheet, caste certificate and other documents in original. 3. 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 starting 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.” 6. The public notice which has been issued by AICTE is in the following terms: “In the event of a 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 a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one 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 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.” 7. 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.” 7. Finally, it may be necessary to also advert to the UGC guidelines on the subject which provide as follows: “Fee and financial aid 3.1 The students are entitled to prior and full information about amount, components, frequency and mode of any kind of payment including fees or charges of any other kind and refund rules. If a student withdraws before the beginning of the course, the students should be refunded the entire fee given to it with a maximum deduction of Rs. 1000. [As notified by UGC on 23 April 2007, F.No. 1-3/2007 (CPP II)].” 8. The public notice which was issued by UGC on 23 April 2007 dealt with a specific issue. It covers cases where institutions, long before the actual commencement of the academic session, collect the full fee from admitted students and retain the original certificates. The Institutions and Universities were confiscating the entire fee paid, if a student fails to join the course by the date prescribed. As a result, in the view of the UGC, this precluded candidates from exercising other options for joining institutions of their choice. In this background, the public notice states that if a successful candidate withdraws before the start of the course, the wait listed candidate should be given admission against a vacancy and the entire fee collected from the student should be refunded after retaining an amount of not more than Rs. 1,000/- per student. If the student leaves the course after joining it and if the seat which consequently fall vacant is filled in by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution returns the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent. 9. The public notice issued by AICTE is in similar terms. The UGC guidelines also cover a situation where a student has withdrawn before the beginning of the course. In the counter-affidavit which has been filed by the University, the distinction in a case, such as the present, is duly clarified. 9. The public notice issued by AICTE is in similar terms. The UGC guidelines also cover a situation where a student has withdrawn before the beginning of the course. In the counter-affidavit which has been filed by the University, the distinction in a case, such as the present, is duly clarified. The guidelines and circulars issued by UGC and AICTE are applicable in a situation where a student seeks to withdraw the admission, in which event, a wait listed candidate can be admitted against the seat. In the present case, when the student, after depositing an amount of Rs. 15,000/- blocks one seat which is allotted to him or her and does not turn up for admission, the University is precluded from including the seat in the next round of counselling. This results in an irreparable loss both to other students and to the institutions, as the seat cannot be included in the next round of counselling. If the student were to take admission and thereafter withdraw, the UGC guidelines would, undoubtedly, become applicable and the student would be entitled to the entire amount of fee deposited after the retention of an amount not exceeding Rs. 1,000/-. In such a case, no prejudice is caused for the reason that a wait listed candidate can be allotted a seat. The petitioner’s daughter participated in the counselling clearly cognizant of the governing norms and Regulations. Moreover, we may also note that the brochure which has been issued for the U.P. State Entrance Examination also stipulates that a candidate who has deposited a confirmation fee of Rs. 15,000/- in an earlier round of counselling, is not required to submit the confirmation fee again in a subsequent round of counselling. The purpose of the provision which has been made by the University is to ensure that once an allotment is made to a candidate under the process of counselling, a candidate proceeds to take admission to the institution where the allotment has been made. 10. We clarify that after taking admission, if a candidate seeks to withdraw from admission, the principles which have been laid down by the UGC and AICTE would apply. The present case does not fall in that category since the petitioner had sought to withdraw from admission granted after the allotment of the institution and before the admission was taken. 10. We clarify that after taking admission, if a candidate seeks to withdraw from admission, the principles which have been laid down by the UGC and AICTE would apply. The present case does not fall in that category since the petitioner had sought to withdraw from admission granted after the allotment of the institution and before the admission was taken. The reason why the University has made such a provision has already been explained above. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ——————