Civil Writ Petition No. 10274 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 10274 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.07.2010 Shiv Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus Panjab University and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. G.S. Sathi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10274 and 10281 of 2009. The petitioners are SC/ST category, who are admitted for MBA course of two years duration. As per the prospectus, the SC/ST were required to deposit tuition fee of Rs. 1,25,000/- for the 1st year session 2008-09. This session comprised of three trimesters. They concededly has completed the 1st year. For the 2nd year, the respondents are demanding fee of Rs. 2,00,000/- instead of Rs. 1,25,000/- for admission in the 2nd year session 2009-2010. The Civil Writ Petition No. 10274 of 2009 2 petitioners would claim that this is in violation of fee structure disclosed in the prospectus and, accordingly, they filed this writ petition to impugn the same. As per the fee structure, Rs. 2,00,000/- has been charged from General category student and different fee structure has been kept for SC/ST category candidates, which was to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/-. The counsel for the petitioner would maintain that this demand of Rs. 75,000/-, more than what was provided in the prospectus, would be in violation of the condition of the prospectus and hence cannot be made operative in this manner. In support, the counsel has drawn my attention to the judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 6914 of 2000 titled as Kamal Bhatia and others versus State of Punjab and others decided on 19.09.2000, Navdeep Singh versus I.I.T.I. College of Engineering, Village Pojewal, District Nawanshahar and others 2003 (2) The Punjab Law Reporter 215 and Civil Appeal No. 4159 of 2003 titled as Cochin University of Science and Technology and another versus Thomas P. John and others, decided on 06.05.2008. Notice of motion was issued. By way of interim direction, the petitioners were required to furnish the bank guarantee and accordingly were permitted to continue in the 2nd year of MBA course by depositing Rs. 1,25,000/- instead of fee demanded. All the petitioners have, accordingly, deposited sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- and have furnished bank guarantee. In the reply filed, it is pointed out that the Committee was constituted by the Vice Chancellor under the chairmanship of Registrar to go into the fee structure for MBA Courses run by the Civil Writ Petition No. 10274 of 2009 3 University. In its meeting held on 15.07.2008, the issue was thoroughly deliberated and the following recommendations were made: 1. That whatever the difference of fee between SC category and General category, the same may be claimed from the Ministry of Social Welfare. If the difference of fee is reimbursed by the Ministry concerned, then the existing fee structure will stay. 2. If the Ministry of Social Welfare reimbursed the fee difference to the concerned Department, then this fee concession will be further extended to SC/ST Category students of all other Teaching Departments of the University. 3. If the Ministry concerned is not in a position to reimburse this fee difference, then the fee of the SC/ST category students may be enhanced to the level of the General Category, i.e. Rs. 2 lacs. It is further disclosed that the petitioners were informed about the recommendations of the Committee and asked to deposit balance of Rs. 75,000/-. The petitioners had submitted a joint representation against the same to the Vice Chancellor. In the meantime, the recommendations made by the Committee were approved by the University Senate in its meeting held on 28.08.2008. The stand is that it is not a mid-course enhancement but at the time of fresh admission for 2nd year. The undertaking, if any, in the prospectus was for 1st year and cannot bind the University to continue with the same fee structure for the 2nd year as well. Civil Writ Petition No. 10274 of 2009 4 The decision of the Committee is infact not to enhance the fee structure. Though initially the students may have to pay this fee but the same can be claimed from the Ministry of Social Welfare. That is what is the decision of the Committee and the difference of fee is required to be reimbursed by the Social Welfare Ministry of the State concerned. In fact, the University had approached the Ministry of Social Welfare and in response, it was intimated that the fee cannot be reimbursed in single lot to Registrar of the University and it would be for the petitioners-students to seek their reimbursement individually, if otherwise authorised. It is also pointed out that the majority of the petitioners would not be eligible for SC/ST concession because they belong to upper layer i.e. High Income Group among SC/ST categories having income above Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum. Having regard to the factual position as noted above, it is really not possible to hold that there is enhancement of fee and that the provisions of the prospectus are being violated in any manner. The ratio of law laid down in the case of Kamal Bhatia (supra) may not directly apply to the facts of the present case. This was a case where the concession given in the prospectus was withdrawn after the entrance test had already been conducted. For the first year, the fee as prescribed in the prospectus was charged. The second year would be a new admission. Still, the decision is not to charge the complete fee in a way that the provisions in the prospectus are being violated. It is also clear that eligible candidates are entitled to get it reimbursed from the Government, which appears to be a fair approach. Reference made to the case of Cochin University of Science and Technology (supra) again would not mean much as Civil Writ Petition No. 10274 of 2009 5 the ratio in the case may not apply to the facts of the present case. There the students studying in the University were seeking equation with the subsequent batch admitted where the fee structure was reduced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rather observed that periodic revision is also visualized. While saying so, reliance is placed on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education and Anr. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 697. One of the observation made in the case of Islamic Academy is that the fee for entire course i.e. for all years could not be charged up-front and prescribed free for only one semester/year could be charged. The periodic revision of fee structure is permissible though fee fixed is not be charged for a period of three years. No fee structure is being changed. There is an alternative left with the petitioners to seek reimbursement from the Government concerned and reimbursement in one go has been refused. Under these circumstances, it cannot be termed as case of enhancement of fees. The action of the University thus cannot be faulted. The writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the concerned Government for seeking reimbursement of their enhanced fee which they are now required to pay. July 19, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE