IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 3802 of 2005(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- GOPALAN MADAMBATTU, AGED 48, S/O. RAMAN, VALLIKUNNU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE PRINCIPAL, INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT UNIVERSITY. 2. THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THENJIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY SRI.E.S.ASHRAF, S.C. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.3802/2005-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 29/06/2004 G.O.(RT).NO.867/04/H. EDN. ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 30/09/2004. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 04/10/2004. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.R.T.NO.718/03/H. EDN. DTD. 26/05/2003. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER DTD. 08/07/2003. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 3802 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th July, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to refund to him the excess fee collected from the petitioner on behalf of his daughter. The petitioner's daughter was an engineering student in the Institute of Engineering and Technology, Calicut University for the academic year 2003-04. The admission was granted in the management quota on the basis of the ranking obtained by her in the common entrance examination. As per the relevant Government Order governing fee structure, students who are admitted in unaided professional colleges in the government quota are required to pay fees only in accordance with the corresponding fees prescribed for such course in the Government Colleges. The students admitted in the management quota for the same course are required to pay higher fees. It is the case of the petitioner that his daughter had a higher rank than many of the other students who were admitted in the Government quota at a later point of time. Consequently, persons who had obtained lower ranks paid lesser amounts as fees while the petitioner's daughter paid the full fees applicable to persons WPC 3802/2005 2 admitted in the management quota. Therefore, he requested for refund of the excess fee collected. However, his request was not acceded to. In the above circumstances he filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 proceedings issued by the University of Calicut. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Calicut University. According to the University 50% of the students are admitted in the management quota and the persons so admitted are required to pay the fees applicable to such quota, which is substantially higher than the fees paid by the students admitted in the merit quota. According to the University, if persons admitted in the management quota are later accommodated in the Government quota, the seats in the management quota would remain vacant causing loss to the College as well as the University. It is also contended that the petitioner had never applied for changing her seat from the management quota to the government quota. Therefore, it is contended that there was no occasion for the authorities to change the petitioner's daughter from management quota to the Government quota after she had accepted admission and joined the Engineering course. In view of the above, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. WPC 3802/2005 3 3. This writ petition was filed as early as in the year 2005. Therefore, the petitioner's daughter would have completed her course and would in all probability be pursuing some lucrative employment. As contended by the second respondent – University the petitioner had not made any request for application for changing her admission from the management quota to the Government quota at any time. Therefore, there was no occasion for the authorities to consider her request at the appropriate point of time. Consequently, the respondents cannot be found fault with for having admitted candidates who had obtained lower ranks than the petitioner in the Government quota, even assuming that the allegation of the petitioner is true. In the above case, there is no evidence to show that any person who had been ranked lower to the petitioner had been so granted admission. The above being the situation, I do not find any grounds to grant any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. 4. In view of the above this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 3802/2005 4 WPC 3802/2005 5