\é \ $0 9;; IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIoN (c) No. (”Q/Z of 2009 PETITIONERS r/ 1. Dr'. (Major) Thakur‘ Aji‘r Singh, son of Lafe Shri Vashwanf Singh, aged 52 years, Occupafion — Service, presem‘ly working as Medical Officer in Chhat‘risgarh S’rm‘e Power Holding Company Limited Dispensary, Bilaspur & residenT of OB—l, CSEB Coiony, Tifr‘a, Bilaspur (CG) . Smi. SariTa Singh, wife of Dr'. (Major) Thakur Aji’r Singh, aged 49 years, residen‘r. of‘ OB-l, CSEB Colony, Tifra, Bilaspur (CG) , Suja‘fa Singh, daugh’rer of Dr‘. (Major) Thakur Aji’r Singh, aged 21 years, OccupaTion S‘rudem‘, presen‘Hy sTudying in 4“" Semester of MBBS Course in ChhaHisgarh Insfi‘rufe of ‘Mediéal' Sciences (CIMS), Bilaspur Ci residem‘ of OB~ 1, CSEB Colony, Tifra, Ku. {R o RESPONDENTS Bilaspur'. SfaTe of Through Depam‘rriem‘ Educafion, D.K.S. Bhawan, Roipur. . The Sfafe of Chhal‘fiSgar‘h, Man‘rmloyo D.K.S. Bhowan, Ruipur'. The r Dean, Insfifufe Sciences Bilaspur. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE STITUTION OF INDIA Chhaf'risgar'h, The Direcfor, Educafion, Secretary, of Medical Manfralaya, Medical I ChhaT‘risgarh of Medical (CIMS), WRITN CON /1. Vs 057 HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) N0. 7222 of 2009 PETITIONERS : Dr. (Major) Thakur Ajit Singh & Others. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. RESPONDENT TITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Raj eev Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy G.A. for the State/respondents. O R D E R (Delivered on .27 day of September, 2010) By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to exempt the petitioner No. 3 from payment of tuition fee and further, to refund the entire amount of tuition fee paid by the petitioner No. 1 in case of petitioner No. 3 with interest at the rate of 17% per annum. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner No. 3 is the daughter of'petitioner No. 1 and 2. The petitioner No. 3 was admitted to M.B.B.S. course on 31.08.2007 in the Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (for short ‘the CIMS’) and is pursuing her M.B.B.S course. The petitioner No. 1, on account of undergoing family planning operation, was granted green card. Thus, the petitioner No. 3 became entitled to exemption from payment of fee in medical/engineering course, under circular dated 30.11.1989‘ (Annexure P/1). The grant of exemption from payment of tuition fee / WRIT PE for medical/engineering colleges was also provided clearly in the green card (Annexure P/2). The petitioner No. l made a representation to the respondent No. 3 for grant of exemption from payment of tuition fee to the tune of Rs; 1,98,000/— (payment quota) as per Govemment policy for green card holders. A reminder was sent thereafter on 24.07.2009, 01.06.2009, 24.06.2009. The petitioner No. l, Vide letter dated 17.07.2009 (Annexure P/4), was asked to produce the order of the State Government in respect of grant of exemption in tuition fee. The petitioner No. 1 supplied copy of circular dated 30.11.1989, under letter dated 24.07.2009 (Annexure P/S). The petitioner No. 1 preferred a representation to the Secretary, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, Public Health, Family Welfare & Medical Education Department, on 27.10.2009 (Annexure P/8). According to the petitioners, the petitioners did not get any positive response. Thus, this petition. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, ’ learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner No. 3 is entitled to exemption from payment of tuition ’fee in M.B.B.S. course under ’ circular dated 30.11.1989. CIMS was taken over by the State Govemment ~on 01.12.2007 and as such, CIMS became a Govemment Medical College. Shri Shrivastava would further submit that the petitioner No. 3 is entitled to refund of tuition fee in accordance with the abovestated circular and the green card. He would further submit that the petitioner No. 3 was not admitted against the payment seat. The circular dated 30.1 1.1989 has neither been altered, amended nor rescinded. Thus, the same is applicable to the case of the petitioner No.3 also. He would rely on an information submitted under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the Dean, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur, wherein Dr. Priyanka Khandelwal paid Rs. l lac and was admitted against the payment seat. H0wever, by order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 11.08.2004 passed in Priyanka Khandelwal V. State of MP. & Others], 'the petitioner therein was exempted from payment of tuition fee. He would further rely on a decision of this Court dated 05.02.2010 in Rajesh Kumar Agrawal v. State ofChhattisgarh & Othersz, and the orders dated 23.01.2004 in Dr. D.R.B.Trivedi v. State of MP. & Othersg, 23.02.2004 in Dr. ‘ 5 Renu Chauhan v. State ofMP. & Others", passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior. \r\ 1‘. n: 4. On the other hand, le’arned counsel appearing for the State/respondents would submit that the petitioner No. 3 has taken admission against the payment seat. The benefit of exemption can be claimed only by those candidates who were admitted to Government colleges in free seat. When the petitioner No. 3 has taken admission to the M.B.B.S. course, CIMS was- managed and run by Guru _‘ Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, and the fee schedule was decided by the University..The CIMS was taken over by the State Government l 2 W.P. No. 28450/2003 & Other connected matters. 3 W.P. No. 2482/2004 & Other connected matters. 4 W.P.No. 119/2004 W.P. No. 345/2004 ”)3 subsequently on 01.12.2007. The Director of Medical Education, by its order dated 21.07.2008 (Annexure R/l) has fixed the tuition fee to the tune of Rs. 39,000/— in all Government colleges at Raipur, Jagdalpur and Bilaspur. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled to any' relief and the petition may be dismissed. Subsequently, in the affidavit dated 26.6.2010, the State Government took a stand that the petitioner No. 3 is not entitled to exemption in tuition fee as her father, i.e. the petitioner No. 1 was holding green card issued by the then State of Madhya Pradesh. The State of Chhattisgarh has neither issued any order nor circular in respect of exemption from payment of tuition fee, relying on letter dated 22.04.2008 (Annexure R/2) addressed to the Joint Director, Directorate, Medical Education. I URDr.A Wk a I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. I f‘ The State Government by circular dated 31$ October, 2002; issued by the General Administration Department of the State of Chhattisgarh, clearly stated that all the circulars issued prior to 31.10.2000 by the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh wOuld be applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh until the same is cancelled or amended by the State Government. No document has been produced by the State Government 'tO‘ indicate that the circular dated 31.11.1989 has ever been cancelled by the State of Chhattisgarh. The State Government, vide letter dated 29.02.2008 (Annexure R/l) addressed to the Joint Director, Medical Education, reiterated the same stand as issued by circular dated 3 1 .10.2002. The circular dated 30.11.1989 provides for grant of exemption in payment of tuition fee in case of admission t0 medical/engineering colleges, which reads, inter—alia, as under: W—Wmmaugmwmml W W a? aw W Qa‘ W WW1 Wm a} alifW rm Wm; 2—8—83—W—1i1% 5, &:n‘ai 5—1—1985, gm straw &1i mi § 1% WW mm mafm a? 31W die—m W a?! nix-ET W 26—1—1985 u mad ml ' XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX um/Wu qmavt 1i w mm \rx l-._ n1 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX (4) W$WWWW§§§% m—wwmmwgmgwui‘ieimw %‘l awaimiatfu‘arehSmWmam—r WWW q-q‘ wiarmi' ad ia—ém $1 W—mmau‘aumumngmw mummmu'l WW$WQ€WWW #mWmm§QW%%anmm¢I—w Wm$g§madriil§a§l fl aim-e 33: aqua m mint 1%; am mmamam§€wm$§l '(ai'eti W Qif WRaR W aim—mm Hum 3 /14155/14304, Was 30—11—1989) Indisputably, the petitioner No. 1 is a green card holder, and thus, he is entitled to the benefit of exemption of payment fee tuition fee for the petitioner No. 3‘ who 'wa's admitted to the medical college, in accordance with the circular dated 30.1 1 .1989. i The question that the petitioner No. 3 was admitted against payment seat or not, a letter of the petitioner No. 1 to the Dean, MS, dated CI 26.03.2009 (Annxur P/3) clearly indates that the petitioner No. 3 ee ic was admitte on paymen of a tuition fee of Rs 1,98,000/— (payment d t . quota). However, the fact rmains that she was admitted a mecal e to di collee and as sch, she may be entitled to exemptio from payment g u n nm fd of tuition fee for admission, to the extent the Goverent has ixe the tuition fee or Governmen Medica colleges; and not beyond that. t is also not disputed that CIMS was taken over by the State Government on 01.12.2007 and the petitioner No. was admted on 31.08.2007. The petitier No.3 would be entitled to only exemtion from payment of tuition fee, proportionately from p 01.12.200, and not prior to that. 7 ax I 5$3 The State Government as filed circulars dated 11.01 . 1985 issued by h the General Adminisation Department by the undivided State of tr , Madhya Pradesh, wherein in one of the circulars, there was a provision for grant of 5% additional marks in the case o aointmen to government service, in second circular, it was ppt provde for grant or pririty in appointment an he hird circlar id o d t t u deals it relaxa in aximum age to he extent of 2 years Th wh tion m t . e said circulars are not applible to the facts invoed in this case. However, it is not disputed that the nstant case is covered by circar dated 30.11.989 (Annexure P/l) and the validity of the sam has been acceped y cirlar date 31.10.202 issued by te e t b cu d 0 h f‘l M f t l I 3 it on f ca lv i ul 1 (Vb General Administration Department of the State of Chhattisgarh, as it is not the case of the State/respondents that at any point of time, the circular dated 31.10.2002 which has adopted the circular dated 3 l .1 1.1989 by the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh was annulled, modified or cancelled. Thus, unhesitatingly, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the circular dated 30.1 1.1989 (Annexure P/l). 13. Reliance of the petitioners on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 05.04.2010 in Iiajesh Kumar Agrawal (supra), is not relevant to the facts of the case. The petitioner has not claimed \ refund of the fee paid to the CIMS, but refund of tuition fee which the petitioner No. 3 is entitled to, on account of being daughter of the green card holder i.e. the petitioner No. l. 14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner No. 3 is entitled to exemption/refund of the amount of tuition fee, as per circular dated 30.11.1989 (Annexure P/l), which has been fixedby the State Government w.ef the date, CIMS was taken over by the State Government and it became a Government ' Medical College. 15. There shall be no order asto costs. Frnrjl‘; T—(i Sw‘ i . 1 i Satish K. Agnihotri Judge L Amit