C.W.P.No.12267 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB OF HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** C.W.P.No.12267 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 24.01.2012 Nikhil Sheokand …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present :Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate, for Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vikas Mohan, Advocate and Ms. Sonal Datta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate, for Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 and 4. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for directing respondent No.2-Thapar University, Patiala to refund the whole fee with interest along with exemplary cost on account of unnecessary harassment with intention to defraud and causing loss to the student i.e. the petitioner against the mandate of the UGC/AICTE/MHRD guidelines. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner participated in All India Engineering Entrance Examination and secured All India Rank-12231. First counseling was held by respondent No.2-Thapar University, Patiala on 16.06.2009, wherein petitioner was not successful. Second counseling was held on 26.06.2009 in which the petitioner obtained a seat in the 39 seats belonging to the All India Quota C.W.P.No.12267 of 2010 -2- for outside Punjab general candidates in Mechanical Engineering. He took admission in the said course with respondent No.2. Third counseling was held by the respondent-University on 07.07.2009. Thereafter, the course commenced on 29.07.2009 when the classes were held for Mechanical Engineering in which the petitioner had taken admission. In the meanwhile, the Board of Central Counseling continued with its counseling schedule and the petitioner was allotted NIT, Kurukshetra where he took admission on 17.07.2009. He got admission in Civil Engineering at NIT, Kurukshetra. For the first time the petitioner moved an application dated 11.08.2009 to respondent No.2 for refund of the fee deposited by him for admission. As per Clause 11.6 of the prospectus issued by the respondent-University, refund of Rs.5,500/- was made to the petitioner which included University security, caution money and alumni fee but it did not refund the remaining amount of fee which had been deposited by the petitioner. At that stage the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act through his counsel from the respondent- University and one of the queries was that how many seats are lying vacant under the All India Quota in General Category of any stream which included Mechanical Engineering, vide letter dated 30.10.2009. Respondent-University supplied information on 17.11.2009 (Annexure P- 5) wherein he was informed that the total seats available for Mechanical Engineering of outside Punjab General Quota were 39 and the respondent-University had filled 43 seats under the Mechanical Engineering General category of candidates outside Punjab. It was also mentioned therein that out of these 43 seats, seats were also filled against unfilled seats of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes/ Physically Handicapped categories. It was also informed that there was no seat vacant under the Mechanical Engineering category after the last counseling. Armed with this information, petitioner approached this Court C.W.P.No.12267 of 2010 -3- claiming refund of the fee deposited by him. Upon notice being served, reply has been filed by the respondents. It has been submitted that it is after the second counseling that the petitioner was admitted. First counseling was held on 07.07.2009 thereafter the course commenced on 29.07.2009 and the classes were also started. Fourth counseling was held on 22.07.2009 by the respondent-University when 100% seats were filled up and the final counseling took place on 03.08.2009 when whatever seats were available were filled up. Thereafter, no further counseling was held nor any seats were filled up. On the basis of Clause 11.6 of the prospectus respondent- University submits that the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the fee as the seat which was vacated by the petitioner was never filled up and is still lying vacant. Whatever were the permissible refundable amount deposited by the petitioner stands refunded to him, which is Rs.5,500/-. It has been explained by the respondents that the information supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 17.11.2009 pertains to the status as it existed on 03.08.2009 when the last counseling was held. It has been specifically stated in the affidavit that after last counseling i.e. 03.08.2009 no seats have been filled up which have been vacated by the students in the respondent-University. The matter came up for hearing before this Court on 29.11.2011 when the following order was passed:- “CM No.11403 of 2011 Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 is taken on record. C.M stands disposed of. CWP No.12267 of 2010 It is not disputed that the petitioner was admitted against a general category seat meant for the candidates belonging outside the State of Punjab for whom there were 39 seats. The petitioner’s case is that even after his upgradation to NIT Kurukshetra, 43 candidates of general category belonging to outside State of Punjab were admitted C.W.P.No.12267 of 2010 -4- in the same academic session and pursuing their course. Let respondent No.2 to file an additional affidavit as prima-facie the above mentioned facts are impliedly admitted in para No.5 and 6 of his reply/affidavit. List again on 03.01.2012.” In response to the said order, an additional affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 wherein it has been stated that the admission process was closed on 03.08.2009 and the petitioner vide his letter dated 11.08.2009 requested for withdrawal of the seat and refund of the whole fee. In response to the same, refundable amount was refunded to the petitioner but the petitioner is not entitled to remaining amount. The academic session started on 20.07.2009 however, after the commencing of the session 2009-10 certain seats were either vacated by the students and some seats were vacated on account of upgrading of seats by students to the course of their choices. All seats in any case were filled up in the fifth counseling held on 03.08.2009. On 02.08.2009 total 02 seats were vacant which were meant for Punjab candidates in Mechanical Engineering discipline and 04 seats were vacant under General Category outside Punjab quota. 01 seat each was vacant under the reserved category of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes from Punjab. Those were available and therefore total 08 seats were filled up in the fifth counseling held on 03.08.2009 adding it upto 43 seats from outside Punjab General Category as no candidate came forwarded to take admission belong to the categories of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes/ Physically Handicapped category. This explains the position with regard to the admission of 43 General Category candidates belonging to outside State of Punjab quota. It appears that by this process although 04 seats in the category of All India quota for outside Punjab general candidates has been exceeded but the same does not exceed the total number of sanctioned seats to be filled up by the respondent-University in C.W.P.No.12267 of 2010 -5- Mechanical Engineering. In the light of the affidavit filled by the respondent the position has been clarified and the petitioner would not be entitled to refund of the fee as per prospectus. Rule 11.6 deals with refund of the fee, which reads as follows:- “11.6 Refund of fee: In case a seat, vacated by a student, gets filled in the subsequent round(s) of admission, the balance amount after deduction of Rs.1000/- from the total fee deposited will be refunded, otherwise the university security, caution money and alumni fee will only be refunded. All outstanding dues will, however, be recovered before such refund is made.” As per this rule, the student is entitled to refund of the fee only in case the seat vacated by him is filled up by any other candidate and does not remain vacant. In the present case, as the petitioner vacated his seat when he moved an application on 11.08.2009 claiming refund of the fee deposited by him which is after the commencing of the course and after the last date of counseling and closure of admission i.e. 03.08.2009 after which no seat was filled up. It is categorical averment of the respondent and additional affidavit has also been filed to the effect that after 03.08.2009 no seat has been filled by the candidate belonging to the category to which the petitioner belongs. Rather it is the stand of the respondent-University that no seat has been filled in any stream of Engineering in the Ist semester after 03.08.2009. If that be so, petitioner is not entitled to the refund as has been claimed by him through the present writ petition. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. 24.01.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE