If student has withdrawn from course, college not entitled to full fees : Karnataka High Court
The petitioner’s in this case secured a order from the court where respondent college had to return the petitioner’s original documents and return the course fee paid on the grounds that the petitioner had withdrawn from the course prior to commencement was upheld by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru through the learned division bench led by HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MGS KAMAL in the case of Vaibhav Khosla v. State of Karnataka and Ors. W.P. No.30619 OF 2018 (EDN-MED-ADM). Brief facts of the case that the petitioner in this case appeared for the 2018 Post Graduation National Eligibility cum Entrance Test by the Karnataka Examination Authority after completing the MBBS course. A seat in MD Psychiatry was allocated by the defendant college and deposited ₹7,74,500 for it and all original documents with Karnataka Examination Authority. But later, accepted into Christian Medical College in Ludhiana in MS Orthopedics. So, defendant’s medical school seat was surendered and asked them to return their original documents. This was done long before the consultation deadline and the start of the course. After the petitioner submitted his seat, the college asked him to deposit ₹25.32,000, the fee for the entire three-year program and they would not return their original documents. The counsel for petitioner contended that they had surrendered his seat just before the deadline for consultation and long before the start of the Course. After the petitioner submitted the seat, Karnataka Examination Authority held another consultation tour on 30.05.2018. The Defendant then sent a notice to the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs 25.32,000. The defendant is not entitled to demand the full course fee for a period of three years because he has renounced the seat long before the counseling deadline and start of the course. The counsel for respondent contended if the original documents are returned, the college will not be able to recover the full course fee from the petitioner as he had withdrawn from the course, the college was deprived of enrolling another person on the course and it was therefore argued that it was entitled to a full refund of the course fee for itself. The Karnataka High Court held the college had no legal right to charge the full course fee and ordered the defendant to return the petitioner’s original documents to him and not to insist on the full 3-year course fee of ₹25.32,000 as the petitioner has withdrawn from the program. before starting. The Court, Islamic Education Academy and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors (2003) 6 SCC 697, where the Supreme Court says educational institutions can only charge prescribed fees for one semester or one year. If the institution is concerned that a student may be let down, it requires at most students to provide a security or bank guarantee for their balance fees. may request. The court did not accept the college’s claims, considering that the petitioner had withdrawn from the school. course before the deadline for consultation. According to the Islamic Education Academy and another, the Supreme Court, institutions have no legal right to charge full course fees from students leaving the program. On 24 September 2019, the Court granted an interim injunction to the applicant and instructed the institution to return the original documents. The petitioner agreed not to claim the refund of ₹7,74,500 deposited with the institution and disposed off the petition.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL W.P. No.30619 OF 20181. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT) VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560001. PETITIONER 2 2. 3. 4. 5. THE DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION IN KARNATAKA ANAND RAO CIRCLE BENGALURU 560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY SAMPIGE ROAD 18TH CROSS MALLESWARAM BENGALURU 560012 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH T BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. RAJARAJESHWARI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL 202 KAMBIPURA MYSURU ROAD BENGALURU 560074 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEAN. 6. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA POCKET 14 SECTOR 8 DWARAKA NEW DELHI 110077 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS BY MR. LAXMI NARAYANA AGA FOR R1 & R2 MR. N.K. RAMESH ADV. FOR R3 & R4 MR. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY ADV. FOR R5 MR. N. KHETTY ADV. FOR R6) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R 2 3 AND 5 TO RETURN ALL THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR TO R 3 KEA AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF THE ADMISSION ORDER DATED 16.5.2018 AT ANNEX H. 3 DIRECT R 5 NOT TO INSIST ON PAYMENT OF THE TUITION FEE OF RS.25 32 000 FOR THE ENTIRE DURATION OF THREE YEARS OF THE MD PSYCHIATRY COURSE AND RETURN ALL THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER IN ITS CUSTODY TO THE PETITIONER. DIRECT R 3 AND 5 TO REFUND THE FEE OF RS. 7 74 500 COLLECTED FROM THE PETITIONR AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF THE ADMISSION ORDER DATED 16.5.2018 AT ANNEX H & ETC. THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY ALOK ARADHE J. DELIVERED THE In this writ petition the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 3 & 5 to return the original documents submitted by the petitioner to Karnataka Examination Authority at the time of issuance of order of admission dated 16.05.2018 as well as a direction to respondent No.5 not to insist on payment of tuition fee of Rs.25 32 000 for the entire duration of three years of MD Psychiatry course. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Karnataka Examination Authority and respondent No.5 to refund the fee of Rs.7 74 500 deposited by the petitioner at the time of admission to the aforesaid course on 16.05.2018. 4 Facts leading to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner completed the MBBS course from Government Medical College Amritsar in the State of Punjab and has been conferred the medical degree by the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences Punjab. The petitioner appeared in the Post Graduate National eligibility cum Entrance Test 2018. The petitioner was registered with Karnataka Examination Authority which is designated authority for conducting counseling for admission to P.G. Medical Courses in the State of Karnataka. The petitioner was not allotted any seat in the first and second round of counseling conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority. The petitioner had also applied for admission to P.G.Medical Course in Baba Farid University of Health Sciences Punjab. The candidature of the petitioner was not considered for admission. Therefore he filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for a direction to the University to consider his case for admission to PG Medical course as per his ranking in P.G.NEET Examination 5 In pursuance to the direction issued by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana the petitioner was granted in Christian Medical College Ludhiana M.S.Orthopedics and was admitted to the course on 24.05.2018. The petitioner had also participated in the mop up round and counseling conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority on 16.05.2018 and was allotted a seat in M.D.Psychiatry course in the college run by respondent No.5. The petitioner thereupon deposited a sum of Rs.7 74 500 as well as all his original documents with Karnataka Examination Authority. However subsequently when the petitioner was admitted in the Christian Medical College Ludhiana in MS Orthopedics Course the petitioner immediately informed the Karnataka Examination Authority as well as the respondent No.5 College by an e mail dated 29.05.2018 that he is surrendering his seat in MD Psychiatry Course in respondent No.5 Medical College. It is pertinent to note that the last date for counseling to the PG Course was 31.05.2018. The petitioner thereafter visited Bangalore and submitted a communication to respondent No.2 stating that he is surrendering the seat and requested for handing over 6 the original documents. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation on 28.05.2018. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner had surrendered his seat immediately prior to the last date of counseling and much before commencing of the Course. After the petitioner had surrendered the seat the Karnataka Examination Authority had conducted another round of counseling on 30.05.2018. The respondent No.5 thereafter sent a communication dated 03.06.2018 to the petitioner to deposit a sum of R.25 32 000 . In the aforesaid obtaining factual matrix the petitioner has approached this court seeking the reliefs as stated supra. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this court by an interim order dated 24.04.2019 passed by Division Bench of this court fairly stated that in compliance of the aforesaid order the original documents have already been returned to the petitioner and the petitioner has already given up the relief of refund of Rs.7 74 500 which was deposited by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondent No.5 is not entitled to 7 seek the payments of the entire course fee for a period of three years from the petitioner as the petitioner had given up the seat much prior to the last date of counseling and much before the commencement of the course. the other hand learned counsel respondent No.5 submitted that if the original documents are returned to the petitioner the right of the management to recover the fee for three years would not be frustrated. It is further admitted by learned counsel for respondent No.5 that after the petitioner had surrendered the seat another round of counseling was held on 30.05.2018 by Karnataka Examination Authority. It is urged that since the petitioner had not prosecuted the course therefore the respondent No.5 was deprived from admitting any person to the Course in question and therefore is entitled to recover the course fee of entire three years course from the petitioner. In support of his submissions learned counsel for respondent No.5 has placed reliance on division bench decision of this court dated 18.03.2014 in the case of MISS SMRUTHY B.S. 8 VS. D.A.PANDU MEMORIAL R.V.DENTAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL & OTHER. 7. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. Para 8 of the decision of Supreme Court in ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS 6 SCC 697 in para 8 is extracted below for the facility of reference: It must be mentioned that during arguments it was pointed out to us that some institutions are collecting advance the fees for the entire course i.e. for all the years. It was submitted that this was done because the institute was not sure whether the student would leave the institute midstream. It was submitted that if the student left the course in midstream then for the remaining years the seat would lie vacant and the institute would suffer. In our view an prescribed fees for one semester year. If an institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then at the highest it may require that student to give a bond bank 9 guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in midstream. If any educational institution has collected fees in advance only the fees of that semester year can be used by the institution. The balance fees must be kept invested in fixed deposits in a nationalized bank. As and when fees fall due for a semester year only the fees falling due for that semester year can be withdrawn by the institution. The rest must continue to remain deposited till such time that they fall due. At the end of the course the interest earned on these deposits must be paid to the student from whom the fees were collected in advance. The supreme court in the aforesaid decision held that the educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester year. If an institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then at the highest it may require that student to give a bond bank guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in midstream. If any educational institution has collected fees in advance only the fees of that semester year can be used by the institution. 10 Thus it is evident that the institution has only a right to recover the prescribed fee for one semester year. In the instant case the petitioner has not left the course midstream. The petitioner has admittedly surrendered the seat on 24.05.2018 before the last date of counseling. It is also not in dispute that after the petitioner had surrendered the seat another round of counseling was held on 30.05.2011 by the Karnataka Examination Authority. It is not the case of the Respondent No.5 that the petitioner has left the course midstream. Therefore in view of the law laid in ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER supra the respondent No.5 has no right in law to demand the remaining course fee of three years course from the petitioner. Admittedly in compliance of the order dated 24.04.2019 the original documents have been returned to the petitioner. The interim order has already been given effect to. Therefore the prayer for return or original documents does not survive. The petitioner has already given up the right to seek refund of Rs.7 74 500 deposited by 11 him as is recorded in the aforesaid order sheet. Therefore no orders are required to be passed with regard to prayer clause (c). Thus for the aforementioned reasons the writ petition is disposed of in terms indicated above. Sd Sd 