Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 276 (AP)

S. Yashwanth Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-02-02

GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

body2023
ORDER : 1. Heard Sri T. Balaji, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2. Prayer made in the Writ Petition is as under: “….. to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in insisting to pay the final year B.Tech Tuition Fee of 70,000 SEK equalent to Indian rupees by forcibly taking the undertaking from the petitioners on 4.6.2022 even though all the petitioners have completed the B.Tech Final year course with the 3rd respondent college without considering the representation of the petitioners dated 27.4.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to extend the benefit for payment of tuition fee for the final year B.Tech 2021-2022 batch on par with the previous batch students (2017-2021) who were given such benefit because of the Covid pandemic and pass such other orders…” 3. The Respondent No.3-Sri Venkateswara University College of Engineering is offering a twin degree programme of B.Tech (in SVU) and B.S in Engineering degree from Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden-BTH in Sweden. 4. The Admission Booklet 2017-2018 of the Respondent No.3-College (Ex.P.4) states that the students who are admitted for this Course will study mandatory three years education at SVU College of Engineering and one year education at Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden. The Admission booklet further states that the SVU 4-year bachelor of Technology degree will be awarded by SVU by accrediting the one year (two semesters) mandatory education credits (includes UG project) from Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden through transfer of credits to SVU. 5. The present Writ Petitioners enrolled themselves for this course for the academic year 2018-2019 to 2021-2022. It is the case of the Writ Petitioners that they have completed the three years of course in the Respondent No.3-College, and that the balance of one year was to be pursued in Sweden in BTH Sweden. On account of COVID-19 pandemic which affected their immediate predecessors namely the batch of 2017-2018 to 2020-2021, the Respondent No.3-College has permitted their immediate seniors to pay the required tuition fee for pursuing the fourth year of their Engineering Course in India namely in the Respondent No.3-College. On account of COVID-19 pandemic which affected their immediate predecessors namely the batch of 2017-2018 to 2020-2021, the Respondent No.3-College has permitted their immediate seniors to pay the required tuition fee for pursuing the fourth year of their Engineering Course in India namely in the Respondent No.3-College. The Respondent No.3-College has permitted the immediate seniors to the present Writ Petitioners of the Batch belonging to 2017-2021 to take their final year examination also namely the 7th and 8th Semesters in the Respondent No.3-College at Tirupati. 6. It is also the case of the Writ Petitioners that since the pandemic situation did not subside by the time the Writ Petitioners had to take the 7th semester examination, the Respondent No.3-College has permitted the Writ Petitioners to apply for the examinations in the Respondent No.3-College itself without insisting on the Writ Petitioners to take the examination in Sweden. 7. After completion of 8th semester (which is the second semester in the final year), the Respondent No.3-College insisted the Writ Petitioners to pay the tuition fee in equal sum that they ought to pay to BTH in Sweden. It was indicated to them that if this demand is not complied with, they (Writ Petitioners) cannot be permitted to take the examination which is to be conducted by the Respondent No.3-College. 8. Having been aggrieved of the demand made by the Respondent No.3-College, the Writ Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. By Interim Order of this Court dated 16.06.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.15739 of 2022, this Court has considered the situation of the Writ Petitioners at length and passed a detailed Order giving certain directions taking into account the COVID-19 situation that was still prevalent on the date of passing of the Order. For the disposal of the present Writ Petition, this Interim Order of this Court dated 16.06.2022 is of significant relevance, and therefore, the same is extracted in its entirety as under: W.P.No.15739 of 2022 Notice before admission. Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education takes notices for the Respondent No.1. Sri B. Vijaya Bhaskar, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4. Post on 14.07.2022 for filing Counter Affidavits by the Respondents. Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education takes notices for the Respondent No.1. Sri B. Vijaya Bhaskar, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4. Post on 14.07.2022 for filing Counter Affidavits by the Respondents. I.A.No.1 of 2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for the Higher Education and the learned Standing Counsel for Sri Venkateswara University appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. In this application, the petitioners are seeking direction to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to extend the benefit of payment of tuition fee of B.Tech Final year of the petitioners on par with the previous batch students (2017- 2021), who were given such benefit because of the Covid Pandemic pending disposal of this Writ Petition. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Sri Venkateswara University vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners seeking extension of the benefit provided to the previous batch students on the ground that while granting benefit to the previous batch students, the Covid Pandemic is in serious condition and due to that reason, that batch students could not travel Sweden to prosecute 4th year course. In the present year, there is no such seriousness and the petitioners can travel to Sweden to prosecute their studies. However, they were permitted to continue their 4th year course in the Sri Venkateswara University as per the request made by the petitioners. As such, the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit extended to the previous batch students. Learned Standing Counsel also placed a document bearing No.CI/InfRelDTH/2021, dated 23.09.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent, wherein it is mentioned that the Executive Committee of the University resolved that the students, who joined under BTH Programme and now opting for staying back in Sri Venkateswara University for continuing their IV year B.Tech, will pay the total fee they are going to pay at BTH i.e., 70,000 SEK (payable in equivalent Indian Rupees) towards tuition fee. Having considered the submissions of the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, in our view, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the University is not fully acceptable due to the reason that even today the medical experts expressing their opinion that the 4th wave of Covid Pandemic is started and everybody has to follow the medical protocol for their safety. In the year 2021, the entire world suffered with 3rd wave of Covid Pandemic. In such circumstances, though transportation mode is available, insisting the petitioners, who are the students at the tender age to travel to Sweden to prosecute 4th year of B.Tech course, is not reasonable. Besides this, as and when some benefit was provided to the previous batch students (2017-2021), the same can be extended to the present batch students including the petitioners also. Not extending the same benefit to the petitioners on par with the previous batch students amounts to discrimination, which is in violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, in the prima facie opinion of this Court, the petitioners are entitled for the relief sought in this application. Accordingly, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to announce the result of the petitioners and issue Mark Memos and Certificates after obtaining undertaking from them stating that they will abide by the final orders to be passed in the main Writ Petition with regard to extending the benefit of payment of tuition fee on par with the previous batch students”. 9. In terms of the directions given by this Court on 16.06.2022, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has submitted that the students have paid the required examination fee and have taken the examinations. In compliance of the directions, the results were also declared and the successful students have already set themselves on sail in pursuing their future career. 10. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court that the Writ Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 have got certain backlogs and they would be appearing for the supplementary examinations in due course. 11. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4, on instructions, has informed this Court that Writ Petitioner No.7 has successfully passed and secured the degree, but is yet to pay the tuition fee for a sum of Rs.1,59,000/- to the Respondent No.3-College. He also submitted that in due compliance with the directions given by this Court, the Respondent No.3-College has permitted the Writ Petitioner No.7 to take examination and has declared the result without insisting for the payment of tuition fee, and therefore, appealed to this Court that the pecuniary interest of the University may also be secured. 12. He also submitted that in due compliance with the directions given by this Court, the Respondent No.3-College has permitted the Writ Petitioner No.7 to take examination and has declared the result without insisting for the payment of tuition fee, and therefore, appealed to this Court that the pecuniary interest of the University may also be secured. 12. At the outset, this Court noticed the following factors: i. That the Respondent No.3-College, taking into account the COVID-19 pandemic, has permitted the immediate predecessors batch (i.e., batch of 2017- 2021) to pursue final year course namely the 7th and 8th semester in the Respondent No.3-College upon payment of the regular fee without insisting on the fee to be paid for the final year course in Sweden. ii. That the Respondent No.3-College has permitted the predecessors batch (i.e., batch of 2017-2021) to appear for the examinations for the 7th and 8th semester in India itself after collecting the due amount as the tuition fee as well as the examination fee without insisting for the payment of foreign currency that ought to be paid to BTH in Sweden, in the event that they would go to Sweden to pursue the course. iii. The present Writ Petitioners were also permitted to pursue the 7th semester in the Respondent No.3- College without any demur. iv. The Writ Petitioners were also permitted to take the examination held for the 7th semester under similar circumstances as that of their predecessors without any demur. v. The Writ Petitioners were also permitted to pursue the 8th semester in the Respondent No.3-College. 13. The Writ Petitioners were compelled to approach this Court only at the stage when they had to take the 8th semester examination when the Respondent No.3-College insisted that the Writ Petitioners should pay the foreign exchange of a sum of 70000 SEK (that 35000 SEK x 2 semesters of 4th year). 14. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners submitted that insistence by the Respondent No.3-College for the payment of 70000 SEK is unjust, unreasonable and irrational because the issue of such payment would arise only in the event that the Writ Petitioners would go to Sweden to pursue the final year course that leads to the award of B.S degree. 14. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners submitted that insistence by the Respondent No.3-College for the payment of 70000 SEK is unjust, unreasonable and irrational because the issue of such payment would arise only in the event that the Writ Petitioners would go to Sweden to pursue the final year course that leads to the award of B.S degree. He also submits that under the circumstances, due to COVID-19 conditions, since the Writ Petitioners did not go to Sweden to pursue B.S course, neither the Writ Petitioners can insist for the award of B.S degree nor on the other hand Respondent No.3-College can insist on the payment of 70000 SEK to it in India. 15. It is the case of the Writ Petitioners that they are liable to pay only the tuition fee that they would be charged by the Respondent No.3-College for the final year Engineering Graduates as charged locally. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners submits that the tuition fee for the 4th year Engineering in the Respondent No.3-College is Rs.1,59,000/- per annum and he submits that all the Writ Petitioners (except Writ Petitioner No.7) have in fact paid the tuition fee of a sum of Rs.1,59,000/- each. 16. Under these circumstances, this Court is in agreement with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the present Writ Petitioners cannot be discriminated from their predecessors batch; that the insistence by the Respondent No.3-College that the Writ Petitioners should pay 70000 SEK is unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary, since they did not go to Sweden; that the Writ Petitioners are entitled for similar treatment as that of their predecessors batch as there is no change in the circumstances. 17. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 has made an Appeal to the effect that the Court should secure the payment of tuition fee from the Writ Petitioner No.7, as the said Respondent No.3-College has permitted the Writ Petitioner No.7 to take examination without raising objection and on account of due regard to the Interim Order passed by this Court and also to ensure that the career of the Writ Petitioner No.7 is not affected. Plea of the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to this effect is just and reasonable and this Court has the duty to secure the pecuniary interest of Respondent No.3-College. 18. Plea of the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to this effect is just and reasonable and this Court has the duty to secure the pecuniary interest of Respondent No.3-College. 18. In view of the above discussion, Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no Order as to the Costs. While disposing of this Writ Petition, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following directions: a) Writ Petitioner No.7 is directed to remit the tuition fee of Rs.1,59,000/- within six weeks from the date of uploading of this Order on the website of this Court. b) Respondent No.3-College is directed to cooperate with all the Writ Petitioners in respect of the Award of the degree of B.Tech and all other incidental measures/benefits that the students would be entitled in the normal course. 19. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of in terms of this order.