Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 363 (UTT)

Rajat Rana v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-07-09

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioners before this Court in all the writ petitions are studying Ayurvedic Medicine in private Ayurvedic Medical Colleges located in the State. These colleges are under the supervision and control of the Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University, which is a State University, which in turn is under overall supervision and control of the State Government. 2. As the issue raised in all the aforesaid writ petitions is common, therefore, these writ petitions are taken up together and decided by a common order. All the same, for the sake of convenience the facts of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1849 of 2017, Rajat Rana and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others, will be referred wherever facts are to be noted. 3. The petitioners are undergoing a course, which is known as Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS). It is a course which is spread over a period of four and a half years. The petitioners before this Court are of 2013-14, 2014-15 or 2015-16, batch. All of them are aggrieved by the exorbitant rise in their tuition fee and other fees, due to Government order dated 14.10.2015. The said order passed by the Principal Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand which is addressed to the Vice Chancellor of the University, inter alia, states that the tuition fee of BAMS course which is presently Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) is hereby increased to Rs. 2,15,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifteen Thousand only). 4. The Association of private medical colleges, which is also being represented before this Court by Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate, consequent to the above order approached Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University for its directions in the matter and the University vide its order dated 10.10.2016 passed a categorical order that the Government Order dated 14.10.2015 has to be followed with and an enhanced fee has to be taken from the students on the basis of the said Government Order. 5. This enhanced fee again is being charged not prospectively but retrospectively from the year 2013-14 onwards, and a demand notice to each of the students to the tune of Rs. 2,45,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Forty Five Thousand only) has been issued. Aggrieved, all the petitioners have filed the writ petitions before this Court. 6. The recovery of enhanced fee was stayed by this Court vide order dated 31.07.2017. 7. 2,45,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Forty Five Thousand only) has been issued. Aggrieved, all the petitioners have filed the writ petitions before this Court. 6. The recovery of enhanced fee was stayed by this Court vide order dated 31.07.2017. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that consequent to the seminal judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2004) 8 SCC 139 , inter alia, the fee in such colleges is to be determined by an expert Committee. In compliance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar (supra), the State Government has also passed an Act known as “The Uttaranchal Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006. As per the said Act, the fee was to be determined by a Committee constituted under Section 4 of the Act as under:- (a) Retd. High Court Judge to be nominated by Chief Justice of High Court - Chairman (b) Secretary, Medical Education (Ex-Officio) - Member (c) Secretary, Technical Education (Ex-Officio) - Member (d) Secretary, Law (Ex-Officio) - Member (e) One Retd. Govt. Officer retired from a post Not below the rank of Secretary to the State Govt. nominated by the State Govt. - Member (f) One Ex-Vice Chancellor of the State University To be nominated by the Governor - Member (g) Two Eminent Educationist to be nominated by the State Govt. - Member (h) Secretary, Higher Education (Ex-Officio) - Member Secretary The Chairman of the committee will also nominate a Chartered Accountant of repute as may be defined in the rules. 8. Thereafter, there was an amendment in the year 2010 in Section 4 of The Uttaranchal Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 and the Committee was constituted as follows: (a) A Retd. Judge of High Court Judge nominated by the State Government - Chairman (b) Principal Secretary/Secretary, Medical Education (Ex-Officio) - Member (c) Principal Secretary/Secretary, Technical Education (Ex-Officio) - Member (d) Principal Secretary/Secretary, Law (Ex-Officio) - Member (e) A retired Government officer retired from a post not below the rank of Secretary to the State Government nominated by the State Government - Member (f) One Ex-Vice Chancellor of the State University nominated by the Governor - Member (g) Two eminent Educationist nominated by the State Govt. - Member (h) A renowned Chartered Accountant as defined in the rules nominated by the State Government - Member (i) Principal Secretary/Secretary, Higher Education (Ex-Officio) - Member Secretary 9. The noticeable change in the above composition is that for the retired High Court Judge, who was earlier a nominee of the Chief Justice is now to be a nominee of the State Government. Be that as it may, the Committee at the relevant time was in existence and it was the power and the duty of the Committee to determine as to what fee is liable to be charged, inter alia, from a BAMS student in a private unaided Ayurvedic Medical college. This could not have been done by the State Government without there being a recommendation of the Committee who had to examine the objective realities before fixing the fee. In any case, the increase in the fee is nearly three times i.e. from Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) to Rs. 2,15,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifteen Thousand only). This is unreasonably high in any case. 10. Learned counsel for the State would argue that this increase in fee has been done after seven years. The last fixation was in the year 2007. This may be true, but again it is wrong to increase fee in the manner it has been done, for the reason that firstly, the students who have taken admission did that knowing that they have to pay a fee of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only), secondly, the increase in fee is not based upon any scientific calculation by experts or the body as contemplated under law and, thirdly the fixation is retrospectively done. The order of the State Government therefore is unsustainable. 11. In view of the above, all the writ petitions are allowed. Orders dated 14.10.2015 and 10.10.2016, notice dated 18.11.2016 and the demand letters dated 31.05.2017 are hereby quashed and set aside. It is, however, made clear that in future the Government and the University will always be at liberty to revise this fee, but it must be based on the recommendation of the Fee Regulatory Committee, and should be prospective. 12. Orders dated 14.10.2015 and 10.10.2016, notice dated 18.11.2016 and the demand letters dated 31.05.2017 are hereby quashed and set aside. It is, however, made clear that in future the Government and the University will always be at liberty to revise this fee, but it must be based on the recommendation of the Fee Regulatory Committee, and should be prospective. 12. It is made clear that in case any private medical college has already recovered this fee from the students, the enhanced amount shall be returned to the students forthwith within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Principal of the college concerned.