JUDGMENT :

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:

“(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued by quashing the office order dated 26.09.2020 (Annexure P13) and the notification dated 9th August, 2017 (Annexure P3).

(ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued by directing the respondents to remove the anomaly/disparity in the fee structures of the petitioners.

(iii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to maintain the parity in the fees structure and charge the tuition fees as was being charged for the year 2016-17, and is being charged for the year 2018-19 and 2019-20 for the NRI vacant/unfilled seats allotted to state general quota seats.”

2. On 28.06.2017, respondent No.2 invited online applications from the eligible and qualified candidates of NEETUG2017. On 15.07.2017, merit list was prepared and notified by the Himachal Pradesh University i.e. respondent No.3 and the first counselling was scheduled to commence w.e.f. 18.07.2017 to 26.07.2017. The petitioners were called for counselling on 19.07.2017. After completion of first round of counselling, 20 seats of NRI quota remained unfilled/vacant due to the non-availability of NRI candidates.

3. On 09.08.2017 a notification was issued by respondent No.2 Directorate of Medical Education & Research clearly stating therein that Council had decided to raise the tuition fees at par with the fees prescribed for the State general quota seat in the private medical college of the State and, accordingly, the fees has been enhanced from Rs.60,000/to Rs. 5,50,000/. This notification was assailed by one of the candidate Sunidhi Pathania by filing CWP No. 1840 of 2017. However, the same was dismissed by this Court as being not maintainable on 17.8.2017.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the said Sunidhi Pathania approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed Sunidhi Pathania to continue with the course by paying the fees payable by the general merit candidate. At the same time, one Nidhi Sharma, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the said petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to assail the action of the respondents regarding fixation of fees before this Court.

5. For completion of facts, it needs to be stated that a similar petition was filed by one Aakriti Vashishta before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1009/2017. However, the same was dismissed by passing the following order:

“We are not inclined to entertain this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

The Writ Petition is dismissed.”

6. It is averred that the action of the respondents in fixing exorbitant fees of Rs.5,50,000/is discriminatory as the respondents themselves for the subsequent years 2018-19 and 2019-20 fixed a fees which is far low I.e.only Rs.60,000/as compared to the fees levied upon the petitioners, who have been admitted to the course in the year 2017-18.

7. The prospectus of the Himachal Pradesh University, issued by the respondent for admission to MBBS and BDS courses for the Session 2017-18 inter alia provides in Clause 10(ii) of ChapterIII (Distribution of seats and admission criteria) as under:

“10(ii) The vacant/unfilled seats, if any, under NRI Quota will be filled up as per directions of the Government of Himachal Pradesh for which separate notice will be issued in due course of time.”

8. Since some of the NRI quota seats for admission to MBBS for the Session 2017-18 remained unfilled, the State Government in its wisdom took a conscious decision in the Cabinet meeting held on 2.8.2017 that the unfilled NRI seats in Government Medical Colleges shall be filled up as paid seats from Himachali Bonafide Candidates in order