VERY IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Fixing the fees is not the function of the Court, it is the function of the Government and the appropriate authorities and, therefore, the concerned authorities shall be free to evolve the fee structure for private professional colleges, in such appropriate manner as they think just and equitable to all concerned.
2. From the Academic Year 1997-98, it shall be the responsibility of the authorities concerned to prescribe the fee payable in private professional colleges.

Headnote:EDUCATION-Admission to private medical, engineering and certain other professional colleges Scheme governing-Tentative orders passed by this Court for Academic Years 1993-94. 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 Fees fixed for each of Academic Years shall be confined to that respective year only-Certain directions made which shall be in addition to, in continuation of and in clarification of earlier Orders-Government to evolve fee structure with in a period of three months-With effect from Academic Year 1977-78, it shall be responsibility of authorities concerned to prescribe fee payable in these colleges.
       Held: The following orders are made which shall be of general application. These directions shall be in addition to, in continuation of and in clarification of the earlier Orders including the Order dated llth August, 1995, as extended by Order dated 10th May, 1996.
       (i) It is directed that the fees fixed for each of the Academic Years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 shall be confined to that respective year only.
       (ii) The fee structure and all other directions provided in this Court s Order dated August 11,1995 (applicable for the Academic Year 1995-96) shall also apply to and continue to apply for the Academic Year 1996-97. The N.R.I, quota and all other particulars shall be the same. There shall be no change in that behalf.
       (iii) It is made clear that the Order dated May 10, 1996 shall apply to all States including the State of Maharashtra. In other words, the Order applies to the professional colleges in all the States, irrespective of the fact whether such colleges or the States are parties to the said order or not.
       (iv) It is made further clear that with effect from the Academic Year 1995-96 free seat students shall pay the fees prescribed in the Order dated August 11, 1995, even though these students may have been admitted during the Academic Year 1993-94, or for the that matter during the Academic Year 1994-95.
       (v) There shall be no change in the fees for engineering colleges. The N.R.I. quota for them shall remain at five percent.
       (vi) A request is made on behalf of the engineering colleges that the governments, in particular, the Karnataka government should be directed to specify a last cut-off date for allotment of students, whether in free seats category or in the payment seats category, and that if all the seats are not filled up, in any of the above categories by the said last cut-off date, the colleges should be left free to fill up those seats on their own account and in their discretion.
       (vii) So far as the thirty five percent payment seats in medical colleges in the State of Karnataka are concerned (i.e., after providing for fifty percent free seats and fifteen percent N.R.I. quota), the said seats shall be filled in the same proportion as between Karnataka and non-Karnataka students as has been specified for the Academic Year 1995-96, viz., twenty percent for Karnataka students and fifteen percent for non-Karnataka students. It is further directed that if any of the seats in twenty percent meant for Karnataka students remain vacant, they shall be filled by students from among the non-Karnataka students. The allotment of the students shall be governed by the 1993 Admission Rules of Karnataka aforesaid. (Paras 3 & 4)
       Further held : Fixing the fees is not the function of this Court. It is the function of the Government, the affiliating Universities and the statutory professional bodies like. University Grants Commission, Indian Medical Council and All India Council for Technical Education. At least now, we expect the concerned authorities to move in the matter with promptitude and evolve an appropriate fee structure. While doing so, it is made clear, they shall not feel shackled lby the Orders made by this Court from time to time relating to fee structure. It shall be open to them to evolve such fee structure as they think appropriate, in such terms, and subject to such conditions as they feel are in the interests of the student community, the private professional colleges as also in public and national interest. We hope and trust that the fee structure to be evolved by them would take into consideration the ground realities and would be realistic and practical from the point of view of all concerned. In particular, we request the Central Government, including the Ministry of Education (Ministry of Human Resources Development), to take immediate steps to convene a meeting of all the concerned authorities as contemplated by Paragraph 6 of the Scheme and ensure that a proper fee structure is evolved for the medical, dental and engineering colleges throughout the country. It shall be open to the authorities to fix separate fee structure for each of the State, if such a course is warranted. It may also be open to the authorities to fix different fee structure having regard to the location of the colleges, to wit, a college in the city of Bombay may be allowed a different level of fees than a similar college (with similar facilities) situated in a rural area. To reiterate, the Central Government and the authorities concerned shall be free to evolve the fee structure in such appropriate manner as they think just and equitable to all concerned. We hope and trust that this would be done within a period of three months from today and the matter brought to the notice of this Court forthwith. We wish to make it clear that with effect from the Academic Year 1997-98, it shall be the responsibility of the authorities aforesaid to prescribe the fee payable in these colleges. (Para 5)

ORDER

In Unnikrishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.1, a Constitution Bench of this Court had evolved a scheme governing admission to private medical engineering and certain other colleges, keeping in view the positive features of the relevant Central and State enactments. The idea behind the scheme has been set out in Paragraph 205 of the Judgment. In Paragraph 206, it was stated that the scheme evolved therein "is in the nature of guidelines which the appropriate governments and recognising and affiliating authorities shall impose and implement in addition to such other conditions and stipulations as they may think appropriate as conditions for grant of permission, grant of recognition or grant of affiliation, as the case may be". Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Paragraph 6 of the Scheme, in particular, dealt with the fees to be charged by the professional colleges. It would be appropriate if we extract the said clauses :

"(6)(a) Every State Government shall forthwith constitute a Committee to fix the ceiling on the fees chargeable by a professional college or class of professional colleges, as the case may be. The Committee shall consist of a Vice-Chancellor, Secretary for Education (or such Joint Secretary, as he may nominate) and Director, Medical Education/Director Technical Education. The Committee shall make such enquiry as it thinks appropriate. It shall, however, give opportunity to the professional colleges (or their associations), if any, to place such material, as they think fit. It shall, however, not be bound to give any personal hearing to anyone or follow any technical rules of law. The Committee shall fix the fee once every three years or at such longer intervals, as it may think appropriate.

(b) It would be appropriate if the U.G.C. frames regulations under Section 12-A(3) of the U.G.C. Act, regulating the fees which the affiliated colleges, operating on no-grant-in-aid basis, are entitled to charge. The Council for Technical Education may also consider the advisability of issuing directions under Section 10 of the A.I.C.T.E. Act regulating the fees that may be charged in private unaided educational institutions imparting technical education. The Indian Medical Council and the Central Government may also consider the advisability of such regulation as a condition for grant of permission to new medical colleges under Section 10-A and to impose such a condition on existing colleges under Section 10-C.

(c) The several authorities mentioned in sub-paras (a) and (b) shall decide whether a private educational institution is entitled to charge only that fee as is required to run the college or whether the capital cost involved in establishing a college can also be passed on to the students and if so, in what manner. Keeping in view the need, the interest of general public and of the nation, a policy decision may be taken. It would be more appropriate if the Central Government and these authorities (U.G.C., I.M.C. and A.I.C.T.E.) coordinate their efforts and evolve a broadly uniform criterion in this behalf. Until the Central Government, U.G.C., I.M.C. and A.I.C.T.E. issue orders/regulations in this behalf, the Committee referred to in the sub-para (a) of this para shall be operative. In other words, the working and orders of the Committee shall be subject to the orders/regulations, issued by Central Government, U.G.C., I.M.C. or A.I.C.T.E., as the case may be.

2. Pursuant to the directions contained in Paragraph 6, a tentative exercise was done by the authorities including certain State Governments, which was placed before this Court. This Court was, however, not satisfied with the manner in which it was prepared and the unrealistically high level of fees suggested. In that view of the matter, certain tentative orders were passed for the Academic Year 1993-94 including the fees to be charged by the said institutions. The Order is dated October 7, 1993, reported in 1993(4) S.C.C. 276. The idea then was that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

1996 Supreme(SC) 1227

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis