Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANGEET LODHA, RAMESHWAR VYAS, JJ.
Deepesh Singh Beniwal S/o Late Shri Yashpal Singh Choudhary - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, Near Udyog Bhawan Metro Station, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13535 of 2020
Decided on : 31-05-2021
Article 226 , 13 , 21 , 142 , 30 and 19 - Constitution of India - Jaipur National University, Jaipur Act, 2008 - Section 33 - Karnataka Educational Institution Act, 1984 - Section 5 - Delhi School Education Act, 1973 - Section 24 , 18(4) and 18(5) - Admissions Rules, 2008 - Madhya Pradesh Private Medical and Dental Postgraduate Course Entrance Examination Rules, 2009 - Advocate by profession - Seeking admission to MBBS - Deposit of annual fee - Challenging condition imposed by respondents private medical institutions - Whether charging of advance tution fee as is being done by private medical colleges in State of Rajasthan is approved by it and if not, then what action has it taken against such private medical colleges till today - Whether students or their parents have ever raised any grievance regarding condition of bank guarantee before private medical institutions or state instrumentalities - Whether educational institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure’, categorically held that in educational institutions, there can be no profiteering motive and capitation fee cannot be charged - Whether state-owned or state-recognised- in recognition of their “right to education” under Constitution - Whether education is a profession or not, it does appear that education will fall within meaning of expression “occupation - Whether student would leave institute midstream - Whether fee structure proposed by institution was justified –
Finding of the Court:
facts, circumstances and material brought on record in writ applications, it is evident respondent- University had no jurisdiction and/or authority to alter conditions relating to fee structure once process of admission to MBPS and/or BDS Courses commenced which indicated fee to be charged from students as one determined by Fee Regulatory Committee of State, once RAJASTHAN PRE-MEDICAL TEST for admission to MBBS had been conducted and results had been declared and a selected list had also been prepared on that basis and students allotted to institutes including medical college of respondent-University - In other words, once process of selection had started on basis of terms and conditions spelt out in INFORMATION BOOKLET and further detailed out while allotting students to concerned colleges, including constant medical College of respondent-University, then it was not within jurisdiction and competence of respondent- University to effect any changes in criterion relating to fee structure contrary to one which has been determined by ‘Fee Regulatory Committee’ constituted by State of Rajasthan - Accordingly, fee structure determined by ‘Fee Fixation Committee’ constituted by respondent University in supersession of fee structure already proposed by ‘Fee Regulatory Committee’ constituted by State of Rajasthan pursuant to directions of Supreme Court was held not sustainable in eyes of law - question with regard to determination of fee structure is not directly raised before us in present petition and therefore, we are not required to delve into said questions any further more so when special leave petition preferred by respondent no herein, against Bench decision of this Court in is pending consideration before Supreme Court –
Result: writ petition is allowed
ORDER :
Sangeet Lodha, J.
1. This writ petition (PIL) has been filed by the petitioner, an advocate by profession, challenging the condition imposed by the respondents private medical institutions that the students seeking admission to MBBS Course to submit bank guarantee against the annual fees for next 3½ years of course duration in addition to deposit of annual fee for the first year of the course, at the time of admission.
2. The relief clause contained in the writ petition reads as under:
(ii) the State and the private medical colleges be directed not to seek submission of bond/bank guarantee as a matter of course on the pretext of Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education as no such directions have been given by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
(iii) that the action of the respondents in calling upon the students to submit bond/bank guarantee at the time of admission against the tution fee for remaining course duration of three and half years be declared arbitrary, illegal and bad in the eyes of law.
(iv) by an appropriate, writ or direction the respondent private medical colleges be directed to submit a chart as to in past five academic years how many students have submitted bonds or bank guarantees or advance fees for one or more years.
(v) by an appropriate, writ or direction the respondent number 5 be called upon to submit as to whether charging of advance tution fee as is being done by private medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan is approved by it and if not, then what action has it taken against such private medical colleges till today.
(vi) pass any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the interest of justice.”
3. On 17.12.2020, while issuing notices to the respondents, an interim order was passed by this Court in the following terms:
It is made clear that the students admitted to the course shall be under an obligation to deposit the full fee of first year as stipulated but shall be provisionally exempted from furnishing the bank guarantee for remaining 3½ years, subject to outcome of present writ petition/stay petition.”
4. Aggrieved by the interim order passed by this Court as aforesaid, the respondent Nos.6, 7, 9 & 13 preferred a Special Leave Petition (‘SLP’) (Civil) No. 15950/2020, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 24.12.2020, while issuing notices passed the interim order in the following terms:
5. Later, vide order dated 4.1.2021, the SLP preferred was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the observations/ directions as under:
The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 07.01.2020.
The application for impleadment is allowed.
The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
6. Pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court
Fee structure determined by the ‘Fee Fixation Committee’ constituted by the respondent University in supersession of fee structure already proposed by the ‘Fee Regulatory Committee’ constituted by th....
Private educational institutions can set their own fee structures, provided they do not engage in profiteering or capitation fees, adhering to principles established in precedential Supreme Court cas....
Point of law: The right to establish an educational institution can be regulated; but such regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere ....
The respondents could not impose the conditions under the impugned clauses 10, 13, 21, and 22 while approving the fee structure in the petitioners' institute, as the conditions were not lawful and we....
The determination of fees for private medical colleges must be conducted by the Fee Regulatory Committee as per the Act of 2006, and the State Government cannot unilaterally extend previous fee struc....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
