Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1697
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Jaswant Singh, Girish Agnihotri, JJ.
Adesh University, Bathinda And Another - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab And Others - Respondent
CWP No. 7941 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 15-07-2020
Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Jatinder Singh Gill, Advocate, for the Appellant-University; Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / State.(Applicant in CM No. 5721 of 2020), Mr. Deepinder Singh Patwalia, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for the Applicants-Respondent Nos. 3, 5 & 6 (in CM No. 6264 of 2020)
Private institutions have the freedom to fix their own fee structure, but state regulation should be minimal to prevent exploitation and maintain fairness in the admission process.
Headnote:
FEE STRUCTURE - PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES - Punjab Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Fee and Making of Reservation) Act, 2006, Section 7 - The court discussed the legal provisions and interpretations of the Act, emphasizing the freedom of private institutions to fix their own fee structure, while being regulated to prevent profiteering and capitation fees. The court highlighted the need for state regulation to be minimal and only to maintain fairness in the admission process and to prevent exploitation.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Punjab sought to vacate a stay on a corrigendum that revised fees for a private university's post-graduate courses. The university had already conducted admissions based on the unrevised fee structure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the state's action was arbitrary and that the university should be permitted to charge fees based on the prospectus issued before the corrigendum. The court balanced the equities by staying the corrigendum and requiring the university to refund any excess fees if the petition failed.
Issues: The issues included the rationale for fixing the fee structure, the enforceability of the revised fee structure mid-admissions, and the state's arbitrary action in revising the fees without considering the university's infrastructure and facilities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the freedom of private institutions to fix their own fee structure, while being regulated to prevent profiteering and capitation fees. It highlighted the need for state regulation to be minimal and only to maintain fairness in the admission process and to prevent exploitation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the state's application to vacate the stay on the corrigendum and also dismissed the students' application seeking a stay on the notices requiring them to deposit refunded fees.
JUDGMENT
CM No. 5721 of 2020
1. The instant Civil Miscellaneous has been filed by the State of Punjab seeking for vacation of stay granted vide order dated 18.6.2020, whereby the operation of corrigendum dated 19.5.2020 (P-15) was stayed qua the petitioner University, thereby permitting the petitioner University to charge the unrevised fees.
2. That this Court while issuing notice of motion and notice re: stay vide order dated 10.6.2019 formulated two issues. Response was sought from the respondent state on the said issues. Relevant order passed by this Court on 10.6.2019 reads as under:-
At this stage, the arguments have been entertained only on the following two issues:-
(i) the rationale / basis, upon which, the competent authority under the Punjab Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Fee and Making of Reservation) Act, 2006, as amended till 17.04.2020, has fixed the consolidated fee for the Post-Graduate (PG) Courses in the petitioners-University for the session 2020-2021; and
(ii) as to how the revised fee structure vide the Corrigendum dated 19.05.2020 (Annexure P-15) can be enforced qua the ongoing admission process initiated on 11.03.2020 vide issuance of the prospectus (Annexure P-11) based on the Admission Policy dated 14.02.2020 (Annexure P-10), and more so, when some of the students have already deposited the pre-revised rate of fee at the time of admissions in the first counselling held on 24.04.2020. "
3. On 18.6.2020, despite the fact that on 10.6.2019 while issuing notice of motion& notice re: stay, the state in casual manner without seeing the gravity and urgency of the case, instead of filing an affidavit or addressing arguments on the issues, sought more time. On this account keeping in view the fact that time is essence in admission matters, this Court passed the following order: -
At the time of hearing today, counsel for the respondents has prayed for more time to file the affidavit in compliance of the directions contained in the previous order, in spite of being well aware of the urgency and strict time schedule to be adhered for the admissions to PG Courses and notice regarding interim directions having been issued.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners points out that the schedule for second counselling has been notified and the last date fixed for expressing willingness to participate in the second counselling is 24.06.2020.
Faced with this situation, we are constrained to consider passing of the interim directions without the affidavit to be filed by the State.
Counsel have been heard on Stay.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner being a private university created under the enactment by the State Legislature has been fixing the fees to be charged from the students in terms of the provisions of the Adesh University Act, 2012, the rates of which are also approved by the State in each year of the admissions inter alia to PG Courses. Prima facie, we are of the considered opinion that once Prospectus has been issued and implemented, it cannot be allowed to be changed mid-admissions so as to disrupt the process of admissions. Prospectus controls the method and procedure for admission to the courses. Govt. could have objected to the fees fixed by the University before the commencement of the first Counselling, wherein concededly some of the admissions have been made based on the Fee structure earlier approved (P10) by the State Govt. and duly notified in the prospectus (P-ll). Hence the State Govt. ought not to have interfered/altered the conditions of the prospectus to the disadvantage of the parties/Stakeholders.
Therefore, to maintain the balance of equities and convenience, it would be just and proper that the admissions to PG Courses be permitted to be made on the strength of the Prospectus (P-11) laying down the fee structure, which had been notified, advertised, adopted and followed, in the first counselling.
Accordingly, operation of the Corrigendu
