HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 2544 OF 2006 Thursday, the Eleventh day of March, Two Thousand and Ten Between K.Lavanya Petitioner AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare (Edn.2) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. Respondents ORAL ORDER: The petitioner was admitted into first year M.Sc., Bio- Technology course in the fourth respondent institution in the academic year 2002-2003. She belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Social Welfare Department, second respondent herein, issued GO Ms. No. 90 dated 30.7.2002 providing for payment of tuition fee, etc. for scheduled caste candidates even if admitted in a private education institution. The petitioner paid admission fee of Rs.750/- and joined the institution. It appears that tuition fee and other fee payable for the first year were released in favour of the fourth respondent. For the subsequent academic year, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 56 dated 6.10.2003 restricting the financial help only to Rs.20,000/- as against the tuition fee of Rs.60,000/- per year levied by the fourth respondent. Though petitioner completed the course, the fourth respondent did not return certificates. Correspondence is said to have ensued between the Commissioner, Social Welfare – second respondent and the University. This writ petition is filed for a declaration that the action of the fourth respondent in not issuing the certificates of M.Sc., Bio- Technology even after completion of the course as illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary. A direction for issuance of the said certificates is sought. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and the learned Standing Counsel for the University. The petitioner was admitted in the fourth respondent institution against a seat in the Management category. She had full benefit of reimbursement of fee on the basis of GO Ms. No. 90 dated 30.7.2002. However for the second year she got reimbursement only to the extent of Rs.20,000/-. It is stated that the petitioner made representation and pursued the mater with the second respondent for reimbursement of entire fee, the fact remains that the fourth respondent did not receive reimbursement. Basically the fourth respondent is entitled to collect the fee from the students who are admitted against the seats under Management category. It makes little difference for them whether the fee is paid by the students directly or it is reimbursed by the Government or some other agency. The petitioner had legitimate expectation on the basis of GO Ms. No. 90 dated 30.7.2002 that for both years, fee shall be reimbursed and any alteration in the scheme would be enforced prospectively. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 shall ensure that the reimbursement for the second year is also made. At the same time, the fourth respondent cannot be required to issue certificates to the petitioner in anticipation of receiving the balance amount from the respondents 1 and 2. For the present, certificates can be issued to the petitioner on her paying balance of the tuition fee, etc. However, as and when the respondents 1 and 2 reimburse the fee, the fourth respondent shall be under obligation to refund the fee to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent to issue certificates in relation to M.Sc., Bio-Technology course to the petitioner, studied by her on payment of balance of the tuition fee and other fee payable by her. The respondents 1 and 2 shall reimburse the petitioner the fee paid by her for the second year of the course in the same manner as they did for the first year. As and when the fourth respondent receives that amount, it shall refund to the petitioner. No order as to costs. __________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J. March 11, 2010 MAS