Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1 (UTT)

Prankur Goel v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-01-02

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to direct Respondent no. 2 to admit the petitioner for upcoming session into the M.B.B.S. Course in their Institution. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to refund back the fee along with other expenses to petitioner.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner took admission in M.B.B.S. Course in the respondent Medical College i.e. Swami Rama Himalayan University for the academic session 2014-2015. Due to ill health, petitioner could not participate in the examination for that session. Petitioner submitted a sum of Rs. 6,23,500/- as a fee for the first year. Petitioner was declared fail in three subjects, namely, Anatomy, biochemistry and Physiology in M.B.B.S. course for 2014 batch. After the petitioner was declared fail in three subjects, he applied for answer sheets under the Right to Information Act. The answer sheets were not provided to the petitioner by stating that the answer sheets were destroyed after three months of examination. Thereafter, petitioner got re-admission for M.B.B.S. Course and paid Rs. 4,00,000/-, Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 2,94,000/- respectively for the year 2015-2016. Petitioner also obtained No Dues Certificate from the Institution. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the result of the first examination for 2014 was declared on 20.10.2016 and the reply under the Right to Information Act was given to the petitioner on 14.12.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, after depositing Rs. 9,94,000/- as admission fee, the petitioner did not attend any class. Thereafter, he appeared in the examination in 2015-2016. There also, the petitioner was declared fail. He asked for the answer sheets, which were not supplied to him. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that something wrong was done with the petitioner, which is clear from the fact that respondent-Institution, did not provide answer sheets to the petitioner. He submitted that, in such circumstances, at least, fee deposited by the petitioner for the session 2015-2016 should be refunded back to him. 5. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the petitioner’s examination was conducted on 15.07.2015. He submitted that, in such circumstances, at least, fee deposited by the petitioner for the session 2015-2016 should be refunded back to him. 5. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the petitioner’s examination was conducted on 15.07.2015. At that time, petitioner was a regular candidate; but, he did not appear in the examination. Petitioner appeared in supplementary examination in the month of October, 2015 in which he was declared fail in three subjects, namely, Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry. Again, in the month of August, 2016, petitioner, after taking re-admission, appeared in the examination. He was declared fail in Anatomy and Physiology. In Biochemistry, petitioner’s result was withheld due to use of unfair means in the University Examination. Thereafter, supplementary examination was conducted in the month of October, 2016 in which petitioner remained absent. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that, in such circumstances, the fee deposited by the petitioner cannot be refunded. 6. As far as the first prayer made in the writ petition is concerned, the admissions are over and the petitioner has not been admitted in that Course. Therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondent no. 2 to admit the petitioner for next academic session at this stage and the prayer no. 1 of the petitioner is rejected. 7. So far prayer no. 2, which relates to refund of the fee to the petitioner, is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this prayer may be decided by directing the respondent no. 2 to take a decision on his representation. This prayer of the petitioner has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. He submitted that representation of the petitioner will be decided in accordance with law. 8. Considering the above submission and considering the statement of the learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that in case, petitioner makes a representation for refund of his fee, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent no. 2 in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.