HC relief to MBBS aspirant, holds Medical College cannot Retain Fees If Student Resigns From Allotment Made In First Counselling Itself
Allahabad: Noting that fees deposited by a student at the time of counselling is as a quid pro quo for studies imparted to such student, the Allahabad High Court has directed an institution to refund over Rs 10 lakh fee deposited by a student at the time of first counselling, who is now seeking admission elsewhere.
Justice Manish Mathur clarified that in case a student resigns from the allotment made in the first counselling itself, clearly no studies have been imparted to such a student and therefore permitting such a College to retain fees deposited by a student would in fact amount to unjust enrichment.
The case concerned a petitioner, Sharma, who sought a refund of Rs 8,25,000/- and a security amount of Rs 2,00,000/- deposited during the first counseling for the allotment of a medical college seat.
The petitioner participated in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for the undergraduate program in 2022 and was allotted F.H. Medical College, Agra in the first counselling. 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.
Subsequently, the petitioner was allotted NIMS University, Jaipur in the second counselling. However, in the intervening period, the petitioner submitted resignation with regard to first counselling on the ground that petitioner was dissatisfied with the College allotted and sought refund of the fees already deposited by petitioner. Reliance was placed on paragraph 7(a) of Government Order dated 21.10.2022 to seek refund.
Deliberating the issue, the court considered the provisions of paragraph 7(a) of the Government Order dated 21.10.2022, which addresses the refund of fees in cases where students resign from the first counseling's college allotment and are allocated a medical college in the second counseling. However, the student must resign officially, mentioning the specific reasons, and attach a certificate showing they were allocated a Medical College in the second counseling.
The court emphasized that the mandatory condition requiring specific reasons and the annexation of a certificate regarding allotment in the second counseling could be read as directory, given the beneficial nature of the provision. The judgement highlighted that fees are deposited as consideration for education, and allowing a college to retain fees without imparting education would amount to unjust enrichment. It noted;
"In the considered opinion of this Court, although it has been couched in mandatory terms that at the time of resignation from allotment made in first counseling, reasons thereof and annexing of certificate pertaining to allotment in the second counselling has been made but in view of the beneficial provision pertaining to refund of fees, such a mandatory condition can be read down to be directory in nature particularly in case where the student subsequently also indicates allotment of a seat in the second counselling and indicates reasons for forsaking the allotment made in the first counselling. The reason for reading down aforesaid condition although couched in mandatory terms, is quite evident that fees is deposited as a consideration for studies imparted by a College. In case a student resigns from the allotment made in the first counselling itself, clearly no studies have been imparted to such a student and therefore permitting such a College to retain fees deposited by a student would in fact amount to unjust enrichment."
"It is the opinion of this Court, that fees deposited by a student is as a quid pro quo for studies imparted to such student. This is more so, as in the present case where subsequent rounds of counselling including mop up rounds of counselling have taken place."
The court found that the petitioner's case substantially complied with the conditions outlined in paragraph 7(a) of the Government Order. Consequently, a writ of Mandamus was issued, commanding the relevant authority to refund the permissible amount within two weeks from the date of the order.
To view the original order, click on the link below:
