SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33537

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
Minor Sakthivel.V rep. by Father and Natural Guardian B.Vijay Karthikeyan – Appellant
Versus
All India Council for Technical Education, rep. by its Secretary – Respondent



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Sankar
For the Respondents:Mr.N.Dilipkumar Standing Counsel for R1, Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Govt. Advocate for R2, Mr.J.John Rajadurai for R3, Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan for R4

No fee refund if student withdraws after admission closure without vacancy being filled per AICTE guidelines.

Headnote:AICTE public notice governs refund of fees for students withdrawing from management quota admissions. Petitioner admitted to B.E. course, joined, then withdrew after admission closure on 30.11.2022, seeking refund of Rs.1,97,000/-. Court found vacancy not filled before last admission date, thus no refund entitlement. Issues framed around AICTE notice conditions for refund post-joining and whether excess admissions negate loss. Ratio: Refund contingent on vacancy filled by last admission date; excess intake irrelevant as guidelines strictly applied (paras 7-9). Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner admitted, joined, withdrew post-admission closure. (Para 2 , 6)
2. dispute over aicte refund conditions and excess admissions. (Para 3 , 4)
3. refund requires vacancy filled before last admission date. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. writ petition lacks merit, dismissed. (Para 10)

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the fourth respondent to refund a sum of Rs.1,97,000/- paid towards admission.

2.The petitioner was admitted to the B.E. Mechanical Engineering course in the fourth respondent college for the academic year 2020–2023 under the management quota. Subsequently, upon securing admission in a Government Agricultural College, the petitioner withdrew from the said course and requested the fourth respondent to refund the fees paid at the time of admission.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the public notice issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), contending that where a student withdraws and the resultant vacancy is filled before the last date of admission, the institution is bound to refund the fees collected. It was further contended that the fourth respondent had admitted students in excess of the sanctioned intake under the management quota and, therefore, had not suffered any financial loss.

4.Per contra, learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that, as per the AICTE public notice, refund of fees (after permissible deductions) is contingent upon the vacancy being filled before the last date of admission. In the present case, the petitioner withdrew after joining the course and the seat was not filled. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any refund.

5.This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.It is not in dispute that the petitioner was admitted under the management quota and had joined the course. The records produced by the fourth respondent disclose that admissions were approved and the admission process stood concluded on 30.11.2022. The petitioner, however, withdrew from the course only on 14.12.2022, i.e., after closure of admissions.

7.The AICTE public notice stipulates that where a student withdraws after joining the course, refund of fees arises only if the resultant vacancy is filled by another candidate on or before the last date of admission. In the present case, the vacancy caused by the petitioner’s withdrawal was not filled, as the admission process had already concluded.

8.In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim refund of the fees paid, as the conditions prescribed in the AICTE public notice are not satisfied.

9.The contention of the petitioner that the fourth respondent admitted students in excess of the sanctioned management quota and therefore suffered no financial loss cannot be accepted. The entitlement to refund is governed strictly by the terms of the AICTE guidelines, which do not provide for refund on such a ground.

10.In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition.

11.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top