THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.27573 of 2010 Dated 07th December, 2011 Between: M.Shewetha and others …Petitioners And The Government of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary Backward Classes Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.Pandu Ranga Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 9: GP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent No.10: Sri C.Sudesh Anand The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not reimbursing tuition fee and other fees to the petitioners for M.Pharma courses as illegal and arbitrary. The grievance of the petitioners, who belong to SC and ST communities and joined M.Pharma courses during the academic year 2008-09, is that they were not disbursed full fee of Rs.1,04,875/- for the academic year 2008-09 and that the reimbursement was conﬁned only to the extent of Rs.20,000/-. The genesis for fee reimbursement is G.O.Ms.No.56, Social Welfare (SW Edn.2) Department, dated 06.10.2003, whereunder in respect of self-ﬁnance courses at under graduate and post graduate levels, the total fee reimbursement shall be only to the extent of Rs.20,000/- pa or the actual fee ﬁxed by the University or the Government whichever is less. Following the said G.o., the petitioners were reimbursed fee to the extent of Rs.20,000/- for the academic year 2008-2009. However, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 22.01.2010, by adding an addendum to G.O.Ms.No.56, to the eﬀect that the self- ﬁnance courses for which there is an applicable fee structure (A category) determined by AFRC should not be construed as self-ﬁnance courses for the purpose of G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 06.10.2003, and that the applicable fee structure for such courses shall be the same as ﬁxed by AFRC. Applying this G.O., the courses pursuing the petitioners are not treated as self-ﬁnance courses and full reimbursement of fee was allowed for the academic year 2009-10. The petitioners sought for application of the said G.O., in respect of the previous academic year i.e., 2008- 09. While the said G.O., does not either in express terms or by necessary implications is given retrospective operation, the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, placed reliance on the two communications, dated 11.05.2009, addressed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department, and dated 16.07.2009, of the Commissioner of Social Welfare to contend that even before the said G.O., was issued, a decision was taken for fee reimbursement in full. In my opinion, till G.O.Ms.No.14 was issued clarifying the position in G.O.Ms.No.56, the Government functionaries at whatever level they are cannot be permitted to deviate from the Government policy as reﬂected in G.O.Ms.No.56. With the modiﬁcation of the said policy by G.O.Ms.No.14, the petitioners were rendered eligible for full fee reimbursement for the academic year 2009-10 during which the said G.O., was issued. In this view of the matter, the two communications referred to above did not in any manner advance the case of the petitioners. At the hearing, it has come out that the petitioners have completed their courses and most of them have already paid full fee while leaving the courses. This circumstance also assumed relevance while denying relief to the petitioners. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.35204 and 35205 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 07th December, 2011 VGB