HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 22715 of 2011 Between: Md.Muzzamil Nayeem … Petitioner and Government of A.P., rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government and others … Respondents This court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22715 of 2011 ORDER :- The petitioner seeks admission in the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course in the 5th respondent institution viz., Shahdan Institute of Medical Sciences in ‘Category-B’ seat falling under the management quota. 2. The petitioner appeared in the EAMCET-2011 and secured 7158th rank. His minority rank is said to be 874. He also secured 86.66% marks in the intermediate examination. Respondent No.5- institution issued public notification in three Urdu daily newspapers viz., “Siasat” & “Munsif Urdu” on 23.07.2011 and “The Hindu”, an English daily newspaper on 24.07.2011 inviting applications from the intending candidates for admission. 27.07.2011 was the last date for receipt of applications till 03:00 PM, and 28.07.2011 was the date of counselling at 03:00 PM. The petitioner, who submitted application, was not given admission on the ground that he did not submit bank guarantee as security. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Sri Ram, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, to 7, Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.3, Sri Mir Masood Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.8, Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.9, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Ch.Gunaranjan, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. 4. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that denial of admission on the ground that the petitioner has not furnished bank guarantee is illegal, as there is no law nor any obligation in that regard. He contends that the State Government has issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.162 HM & FW (E1) Dept., dated 20.07.2010, fixing the fees payable to minority medical colleges. As per the said G.O., the only obligation of a candidate seeking admission is to pay fees but not bank guarantee. Therefore, insisting on furnishing bank guarantee is contrary to the said G.O. and would amount to demanding capitation fee. Learned counsel also submits that respondent No.5-Institution did not follow transparent procedure by not indicating the amount for which a candidate should furnish bank guarantee. Alternatively, the counsel submits that sufficient time was not given to comply the demands of the college for furnishing bank guarantee thereby deprived the petitioner of admission. 5. Sri S.Sriram, learned counsel, on the other hand submits that respondent No.5-institution did not demand payment of entire fee, but it only required that the candidates shall furnish bank guarantee as a measure of security for the balance period of study in the event of the student leaving the institution even without completing the course. Learned counsel also submits that the conditions which are required to be specified were fully indicated in the application form which includes that a candidate should produce a letter from any nationalised bank towards issuance of bank guarantee for the remaining period of Study. There is no vagueness in indicating the amount as it is fully indicated that the bank guarantee should represent the fee for the remaining period of study. He further submits that the petitioner attended counselling on 28.07.2011 before the admission committee with a demand draft for Rs.6,00,000/-, and failed to produce bank guarantee letter from the bank. He further submits that the annual income indicated by the petitioner in his application showed Rs.1,50,000/- per annum and it did not reveal the sources from which he would meet the expenditure by paying the required fee of Rs.6,00,000/- per annum. Learned counsel further submits that sufficient time was available to the petitioner since the notification was published on 24.07.2011 and the counselling was conducted on 28.07.2011. Respondent No.5- institution fixed counselling on 28.07.2011 in compliance with the instructions of the University issued in its letter, dated 22.07.2011, in reference No.9043/MBBS/BDS/ EAI/Minority/2011. Since the petitioner failed to furnish bank guarantee as per the requirements, he was not given admission in the college. 6. Sri Mir Masood Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.8, submits that respondent No.5 institution duly followed the procedure and accordingly respondent No.8 secured admission by complying all the requirements on the notification. 7. I have considered the aforesaid contentions and the material on record. The admitted facts are that respondent No.5-institution issued a notification in the newspapers calling for applications from the intending applicants for admission. It was notified that 27.07.2011 was the last date for submission of applications and the counselling was on 28.07.2011. A perusal of the application shows that a candidate seeking admission shall submit the enclosures as follows: ENCLOSURES: - 1. Copy of SSC/Equivalent Exam Memo of Marks. 2. Copy of Intermediate/12th Exam Memo of Marks. 3. Latest TC/Migration Certificate. 4. Letter sanctioned from any Nationalised Bank towards issuance of Bank Guarantee for the fees for the remaining period of study. 5. Equivalency/Eligibility Certificate issued by Dr.NTRUHS, if applicant has studied other than Board of Intermediate (A.P.)/outside the state/Country. 6. Copy of Passport/Driving Licence/Voter ID/Ration Card as proof of residence of Parents. 7. Copy of Passport/Driving Licence/Voter ID of two references, self-attested by them. 8. Bona fide & character Certificate from the last institution to be enclosed, which would mention the status of his/her behavioural pattern specially in terms as to whether he She has displayed persistent violent or aggressive behaviour or any desire to harm others. (This is required as per Ltr.No.MCI-34(1)/2009-Mad/5191 to 5401 dated 30.04.2009) 9. Copy of income certificate issued by the MRO towards fee reimbursement by Government if eligible and applicable. 8. Clause 4 indicates that a candidate should enclose a letter from a nationalised bank towards issuance of bank guarantee for fees for the remaining period of study. The petitioner admittedly has not enclosed such a letter, which is evident from the absence of entry in the relevant column. Therefore, the petitioner failed to comply with one of the requirements. The petitioner also does not appear to dispute the same. His contention is, since the amount of the bank guarantee has not been indicated, he was disabled from complying with the said condition. I am unable to accept the said contention. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is not aware of the yearly fees payable for a management quota seat. On the other hand, it is his case that he obtained a demand draft for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- which represents one year fees. As noticed above, clause 4 has clearly indicated that the bank guarantee is for the remaining period of study. Reading the said clause along with the annual fees payment, it cannot be said that the clause is vague. 9. There is no dispute that the notification was published on 23- 24.07.2011 and the last date for submission of application on 27.07.2011 and the counselling was on 28.07.2011. There is also no dispute that respondent No.3-University by its letter, dated 22.07.2011, had stipulated that respondent No.5 institution should conduct its counselling on 28.07.2011 and commence clauses from 01.08.2011. 10. In view of the same, it is not possible to accept the contention that sufficient time was not given to the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner in his affidavit stated that even on the date of counselling i.e., on 28.07.2011, he asked two weeks time to comply the said condition. 11. It is true that there is no stipulation in the orders of the State Government referred to above that bank guarantee should not be insisted upon. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 relied upon a decision of the apex court reported in Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka[1], wherein it was held as follows: “ It must be mentioned that during arguments it was pointed out to us that some educational institutions are collecting, in advance, the fees for the entire course i.e., for all the years. It was submitted that this was done because the institute was not sure whether the student would leave the institute midstream. It was submitted that if the student left the course in midstream then for the remaining years the seat would lie vacant and the institute would suffer. In our view an educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year. If an institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then, at the highest, it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in midstream. If any educational institution has collected fees in advance, only the fees of that semester/year can be used by the institution. The balance fees must be kept invested in fixed deposits in a nationalised bank. As and when fees fall due for a semester/year only the fees falling due for that semester/year can be withdrawn by the institution. The rest must continue to remain deposited till such time that they fall due. At the end of the course the interest earned on these deposits must be paid to the student from whom the fees were collected in advance.” 10. In the light of the aforesaid view taken by the apex court, I am unable to accept the contention that respondent No.5 Institution cannot insist for furnishing bank guarantee. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ NOUSHAD ALI, J September 30, 2011 Lmv HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 22715 of 2011 Date: 30.09.2011 lmv [1] 2003(6) SCC 697