IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH MATHUR, J.
Shivangi Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others - Respondents
Writ - C No. 6606 of 2023
Decided On : 25-01-2024
NEET - Medical College Allotment - Government Order dated 21.10.2022 - 7
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a refund of fees and security amount deposited for the allotment of a medical college after being allotted a different college in the second counselling.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's case was covered under paragraph 7(a) of the Government Order dated 21.10.2022 and issued a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the refund of the permissible amount.
Issues: Refund of fees and security amount for college allotment, interpretation of Government Order provisions
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of paragraph 7(a) of the Government Order and held that the mandatory conditions for refund can be read down to be directory in nature, especially when the student subsequently indicates allotment in the second counselling and reasons for forsaking the allotment made in the first counselling.
Final Decision: A writ in the nature of Mandamus was issued commanding the refund of the permissible amount as per 7(a) of the Government Order dated 21.10.2022 to the petitioner within a period of two weeks.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. Abhinav N. Trivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party no.3 stand dispensed with.
2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.8,25,000/- and security amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited at the time of first counselling for the purposes of allotment of a medical college to petitioner.
3. It is submitted that petitioner participated in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for the under-graduate programme in year 2022 and was allotted F.H. Medical College, Agra in the first counselling. It is submitted that at the same time, petitioner was also participating in the counselling pertaining to NIMS University, Jaipur under the general category but prior to conclusion of counselling in Jaipur, F.H. Medical College, Agra was allotted to petitioner in the first counselling.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that subsequently on 26.11.2022, petitioner was allotted NIMS University, Jaipur in the second counselling. In the intervening period, petitioner submitted resignation with regard to first counselling vide letter dated 13.11.2022 on the ground that petitioner was dissatisfied with the College allotted and sought refund of the fees already deposited by petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner places reliance on paragraph 7(a) of Government Order dated 21.10.2022 to submit that petitioner is entitled for refund in terms thereof.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that petitioner in fact submitted her resignation on 17.11.2022.
7. It is submitted that petitioner's case instead of being covered by paragraph 7(a) of aforesaid Government Order is in fact covered by second Proviso to paragraph 7(a) of the Government Order.
8. For purposes of adjudication of present dispute, it would be necessary to advert to provisions of paragraph 7 of Government Order dated 21.10.2022, which is as follows:-
^^7- R;kx&i= fn;s tkus ds laca/k esa&
vH;FkhZ dks ek= lhV dk vkacVu (Allotment) izos'k ugha ekuk tk;sxkA vkoaVu ds i'pkr~ vH;FkhZ dks lacaf/kr dkyst@uksMy lsaVj ij mifLFkr gksdj izos'k izfdz;k lEiUu djus ds i'pkr gh izos'k ekuk tk;sxkA rRi'pkr~ gh izosf'kr vH;FkhZ izosf'kr lhV ls R;kxi= ns ldsxkA
¼d½ ;fn vH;FkhZ 'kS{kf.kd l= 2022&23 dh izFke dkamflafyx ls vkoafVr gksdj izns'k ds fdlh Hkh esfMdy@Ms.Vy dh lhV ij izos'k izkIr dj ysrk gS rRi'pkr~ vH;FkhZ vky bf.M;k ;k vU; izns'k dh dkmaflfyax ds ek/;e ls fdlh vU; lhV ij vkoaVu çkIr djrk gS vkSj og izns'k dh izFke dkamflfyax ls izosf'kr lhV ls R;kxi= nsuk pkgrk gS ¼R;kxi= ds le; vU; dkamflfyax ls vkoaVu dk izek.k i= izLrqr djuk vfuok;Z gksxk½ rks ,sls vH;FkhZ m0iz0 jkT; dh f}rh; dkamflfyax dh PokbZl fQfyax ls nks fnu iwoZ rd ¼mnkgj.kkFkZ ;fn f}rh; pØ dh dkamflfyax fnukad 24-11-2022 ls izkjEHk gksuh gS] rks vH;FkhZ 21-11-2022 dks lka; 04-00 cts rd½ viuh lhV ls R;kxi= ns ldrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vH;FkhZ }kjk tek dh x;h flD;ksfjVh /kujkf'k rFkk f'k{k.k 'kqYd ls fuEukuqlkj dVkSrh djrs gq, 'ks"k /kujkf'k okil dh tk;sxh%&
& jktdh; rFkk futh {ks= ds esfMdy@Ms.Vy dkystksa esa izosf'kr vH;fFkZ;ksa dh tek f'k{k.k 'kqYd ls 10 izfr'kr dh dVkSrh djrs gq, 'ks"k /kujkf'k rFkk /kjksgj /kujkf'k (Security Money) okil ns; gksxhA
& izFke pØ dh dkamflfyax ls vkoaVu ds i'pkr ;fn vH;FkhZ }kjk vkoafVr dkyst esa izos'k ys fy;k tkrk gS rFkk vH;FkhZ dks vky bf.M;k@vU; izns'kksa dh dkamflfyax ls dksbZ Hkh vkoaVu izkIr ugh gksrk gS] fQj Hkh vH;FkhZ O;fDRkxr dkj.kksa ls fu/kkZfjr frfFk ¼f}rh; pØ dh Pokbl fQfyax ls nks fnu igys rd½ ls iwoZ R;kx i= nsrk gS rks ,slh n'kk esa f'k{k.k 'kqYd esa ls 50 izfr'kr dh dVkSrh djrs gq;s 'ks"k /kujkf'k ,oa /kjksgj /kujkf'k (Security Money) okil fd;k tk;xkA
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&**
9. A perusal of aforesaid provisions makes it evident that there is provision for refund
The mandatory conditions for refund can be read down to be directory in nature, especially when the student subsequently indicates allotment in the second counselling and reasons for forsaking the al....
Uniform application of forfeiture clause by the MCC and the need for sufficient evidence and relevant guidelines for addressing issues regarding fee disclosure by colleges.
An educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year and has no right to demand the remaining course fee if the student surrenders the seat before the last date of counsel....
The court directed the timely decision on the petitioner's representation for refund of security amount, emphasizing the importance of expeditious handling of such grievances.
The court upheld the forfeiture of fees for candidates opting out of allotted seats, emphasizing reliance on the prospectus terms, dismissing the lower judgment.
The confiscation of fees and security deposit without authority of law violated Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.