RSA No.2036 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No.2036 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.05.2011 Rajender Parsad .....Appellant Versus Moti Lal Nehru School of Sports and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.N.S.Panwar, Advocate for the appellant **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration alleging that he was resident of House No.W-24/326 Arya Nagar Sonipat and belonged to a respectable family. Defendants were running a School founded by Government of Haryana. Defendants had advertised admission for VIth class for the Sessions 2004-05. Applications were invited by the defendants in this regard. Nitin Kumar, son of the plaintiff was having excellent academic record and the plaintiff applied for his admission to VIth class with the defendant School. Nitin Kumar had passed Vth Class standard examination conducted by Sarswati Vidya Mandir Bitawada, Muzaffar Nagar. The entrance examination was conducted by the defendants for admission to VIth class. Nitin Kumar RSA No.2036 of 2010 (O&M) 2 qualified the entrance test and was called for interview and was selected for admission. Thereafter, ` 21750/- were paid by the plaintiff as requisite fee. At the time of admission, plaintiff was assured by defendant No.4 that the fee would be ` 15,000/- per annum. However, later on, plaintiff found that the said assurance given by defendant No.4 was wrong. Plaintiff was again directed to deposit ` 14,320/- with the School by 30th August, 2004. Plaintiff was again directed to deposit ` 33,900/- failing which his ward would be sent back home. Nitin Kumar was liable to be placed in category No.2 of the School prospectus but had been wrongly categorized in category No.4 by the defendants and, consequently, extra fee had been charged by the School. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the concession in fee was only available to the residents of Haryana. Separate merit list was prepared for admission to students of Haryana. Plaintiff had applied for admission of his son Nitin Kumar, mentioning his permanent resident as village and Post office Bitawadha, Muzaffar Nagar(UP). In the said application, Nitin Kumar was also shown to be a student of Sarswati Vidya Mandir Bitawadha, Muzaffar Nagar (UP). Hence, Nitin Kumar was placed in the merit list for candidates who were not residents of Haryana . Due to inadvertence, the accounts branch of the School accepted the fee from the plaintiff qua his son treating him as resident of Haryana. However, when the mistake came to light that Nitin Kumar had been selected in the category of students who were not residents of Haryana, the amount in question was demanded from the plaintiff. RSA No.2036 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Nitin Kumar was not eligible for admission in School as lowest percentage of residents of Haryana was around 74.5%,whereas, Nitin Kumar had obtained 50.4% marks at the time of admission. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether defendants have charged excess fees from the plaintiff and he is entitled to refund of excess fees as well as relief of injunction as claimed for?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 3.Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the suit?OPD 4.Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC?OPD 5.Relief.” The Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 29.1.2009. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 31.8.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. As per the prospectus issued by the School, 80% seats were reserved for the candidates having permanent residence in Haryana, whereas, 20% seats were meant for the candidates residing outside Haryana. It was further clarified in the prospectus RSA No.2036 of 2010 (O&M) 4 that the candidates, who were residents of Haryana were required to pay less fee,whereas, the candidates, who were not residents of Haryana, were required to pay higher fee. Separate merit lists were prepared by the School at the time of admission of students. Admittedly, the address given by the plaintiff in the admission form was of village and Post Office Bitawadha, Muzaffar Nagar (UP). Although the plaintiff is an employee of Electricity Department, Haryana but his son had failed to make it in the merit list prepared for residents of Haryana. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge May 16, 2011 arya