Back
2018 Supreme(UK) 220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Rajat Rana and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) Nos. 1849, 1851 of 2017; 3433, 3462 of 2016 & 1565 of 2018
Decided On : 09-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vinod Tiwari
For the State : Mr. S.R. Joshi
For the Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University : Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal
For the Himalaya Ayurvedic Medical College & Hospital : Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal
For the Intervener : Mr. Neeraj Garg
The main legal point established in the judgment is that any fee revisions for professional educational institutions must be based on the recommendation of the Fee Regulatory Committee and should be prospective, as per The Uttaranchal Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006, Section 4.
Headnote:
Ayurvedic Medicine - Tuition Fee Increase - The Uttaranchal Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006, Section 4 - The judgment discusses the exorbitant rise in tuition fees for Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) students in private Ayurvedic Medical Colleges, the role of the Fee Regulatory Committee, and the unsustainable nature of the retrospective fee increase.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, students of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) in private Ayurvedic Medical Colleges, challenged the exorbitant rise in tuition fees and other fees, due to a Government order. The recovery of enhanced fee was stayed by the Court. The petitioners argued that the fee increase was unsustainable and retrospective.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the fee increase was unsustainable and quashed the orders and demand letters related to the enhanced fee. It directed that any future fee revisions must be based on the recommendation of the Fee Regulatory Committee and should be prospective. It also ordered the return of the enhanced amount to the students if already recovered by the colleges.
Issues: The main issue was the exorbitant rise in tuition fees for BAMS students in private Ayurvedic Medical Colleges, and the retrospective nature of the fee increase.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the fee increase was unsustainable as it was not based on any scientific calculation by experts or the body as contemplated under law, and was done retrospectively. It emphasized the importance of the recommendation of the Fee Regulatory Committee for any future fee revisions.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions were allowed, and the orders and demand letters related to the enhanced fee were quashed and set aside. The Court directed that any future fee revisions must be based on the recommendation of the Fee Regulatory Committee and should be prospective. It also ordered the return of the enhanced amount to the students if already recovered by the colleges.
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
The petitioners before this Court in all the writ petitions are studying Ayurvedic Medicine in private Ayurvedic Medical Colleges located in the State. These colleges are under the supervision and control of the Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University, which is a State University, which in turn is under overall supervision and control of the State Government.
2. As the issue raised in all the aforesaid writ petitions is common, therefore, these writ petitions are taken up together and decided by a common order. All the same, for the sake of convenience the facts of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1849 of 2017, Rajat Rana and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others, will be referred wherever facts are to be noted.
3. The petitioners are undergoing a course, which is known as Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS). It is a course which is spread over a period of four and a half years. The petitioners before this Court are of 2013-14, 2014-15 or 2015-16, batch. All of them are aggrieved by the exorbitant rise in their tuition fee and other fees, due to Government order dated 14.10.2015. The said order passed by the Principal Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand which is addressed to the Vice Chancellor of the University, inter alia, states that the tuition fee of BAMS course which is presently Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) is hereby increased to Rs. 2,15,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifteen Thousand only).
4. The Association of private medical colleges, which is also being represented before this Court by Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate, consequent to the above order approached Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University for its directions in the matter and the University vide its order dated 10.10.2016 passed a categorical order that the Government Order dated 14.10.2015 has to be followed with and an enhanced fee has to be taken from the students on the basis of the said Government Order.
5. This enhanced fee again is being charged not prospectively but retrospectively from the year 2013-14 onwards, and a demand notice to each of the students to the tune of Rs. 2,45,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Forty Five Thousand only) has been issued. Aggrieved, all the petitioners have filed the writ petitions before this Court.
6. The recovery of enhanced fee was stayed by this Court vide order dated 31.07.2017.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that consequent to the seminal judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2004) 8 SCC 139, inter alia, the fee in such colleges is to be determined by an expert Committee. In compliance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar (supra), the State Government has also passed an Act known as “The Uttaranchal Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006. As per the said Act, the fee was to be determined by a Committee constituted under Section 4 of the Act as under:-
(a) Retd. High Court Judge to be nominated by Chief Justice of High Court - Chairman
(b) Secretary, Medical Education (Ex-Officio) - Member
(c) Secretary, Technical Education (Ex-Officio) - Member
(d) Secretary, Law (Ex-Officio) - Member
(e) One Retd. Govt. Officer retired from a post Not below the rank of Secretary to the State Govt. nominated by the State Govt. - Member
(f) One Ex-Vice Chancellor of the State University To be nominated by the Governor - Member
(g) Two Eminent Educationist to be nominated by the State Govt. - Member
(h) Secretary, Higher Education (Ex-Officio) - Member Secretary
The Chairman of the committee will also nominate a Chartered Accountant of repute as may be defined in the rules.
8. Thereafter, there was an amendment in the year 2010 in Section 4 of The Uttaranchal Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 and the Committee was constituted as follows:
(a) A Retd. Judge of High Cour
