Kerala High Court
Rakesh Krishnan.R vs The Principal on 26 May, 2013
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/4TH KARTHIKA, 1939
WP(C).No. 30743 of 2017 (P)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------------
RAKESH KRISHNAN.R,
AGED 20 YEARS,
S/O ADVOCATE T.S.RAJASENAN,
5TH SEMESTER B.TECH STUDENT,
ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING,
MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, THRIKKAKARA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682021, RESIDING AT KRISHNANJALI,
EDATHIPARAMBU, KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686013.
BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THE PRINCIPAL, MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, THRIKKAKARA
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682021.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (IHRD),
PRAJOE'S TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695014.
3. THE REGISTRAR,
A.P.J ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
CET CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695016.
4. ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE
FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES IN KERALA, T.C.NO.1553-4,
PRASANTHI BUILDINGS, M.P. APPAN ROAD,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695014,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, IHRD
R3 BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC, KTU
R4 BY SMT.MARY BENJAMIN, SC, ADMISSION SUPERVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR PROF. COLLEGES
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-10-2017,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 30743 of 2017 (P)
---------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF
EXAMINATIONS, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
DATED 26.05.2013.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF
EXAMINATIONS, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
DATED 25.05.2015.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CANDIDATE'S DATA SHEET.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT MEMO DATED 05.08.2015.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED NORMS FOR INTER-COLLEGE
TRANSFER (B.TECH).
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 13.07.2016.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT DATED 28.06.2016.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25.07.2016.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT DATED 26.07.2016.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT DATED 28.07.2017.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
13.09.2017.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
DATED 20.06.2017.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.09.2017.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------------------------
EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER ON
22/7/2016
//True Copy//
P.A. To Judge
Bb
C.R.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
SHIRCY V., JJ.
---------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2017
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this, the 26th day of October, 2017.
J U D G M E N T
P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
A student who was pursuing his third semester B.Tech in the College of Engineering at Chengannur, coming under the jurisdiction of the second respondent, sought for and obtained a transfer to the first respondent institution, which is also coming within the purview of the second respondent. Though the transfer was granted and the petitioner was permitted to satisfy the fees as payable in respect of merit candidates, it subsequently came to be varied by issuing Ext.P11, demanding the W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2017 : 2 : balance amount, on comparing the fees payable by management quota candidates, which made him to have the same challenged by filing the present writ petition.
2. The course and proceedings have been sought to be justified by the first respondent by filing a statement dated 05.10.2017, also producing copy of the 'undertaking' given by the petitioner, that he will be liable to satisfy the balance fees, should such a situation arise, by way of Ext.R1(a). The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit as well.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent University and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Admission Supervisory Committee ('ASC').
4. The sequence of events is as follows:
The petitioner, on coming out successful in the 'KEAM' (Kerala Engineering Architecture Medical) conducted by the Government/Department authorities, W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2017 : 3 : secured admission for B.Tech in the year 2015 in the College of Engineering, Chengannur, under 'merit quota'. By virtue of the admission secured by him in the merit quota, the petitioner was liable to satisfy only a fee of Rs.35,000/- per year, which, accordingly was satisfied by him, as evident from Ext.P4 allotment memo. He was pursuing the studies accordingly. While pursuing the studies in the third semester, there arose a vacancy in the first respondent institution, when the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application, for getting a transfer to the said institution. As a matter of fact, norms for inter- college transfer for B.Tech have been revised and issued by the respondent University, as borne by Ext.P5. According to the petitioner, such transfers could be permitted between self-financing colleges (including under Government control) and since the institution, by name, College of Engineering, Chengannur, where the petitioner got admission and the first respondent institution are self-financing institutions, such transfer from the former, to the latter, is possible. By virtue of W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2017 : 4 : Clause 8 of Ext.P5, admission was to be given, based on the 'GPA' obtained in the first semester and as such, he was eligible to get admission to the first respondent institution, whose application was accordingly considered and admission was given for joining the course.
5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has already satisfied the fees of Rs.35,000/- for the 3rd and 4th semesters for pursuing his studies in the former institution, ie., College of Engineering, Chengannur, Alappuzha District, as evident from Ext.P8. In the said circumstance, he was permitted to continue the studies in the transferred institution, ie., in the first respondent college and while so, he satisfied the annual fee payable for the next year as well, in the first respondent institution, as borne by Ext.P10, remitting a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards the tuition fees and such other amounts, under other relevant heads. This by itself is the proof to show that the petitioner was permitted to join the first respondent institution as a 'merit quota' W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2017 : 5 : candidate and was pursuing the studies in the said institution. It was all of a sudden, that Ext.P11 memo came to be issued on 13.09.2017, requiring the petitioner to satisfy the balance tuition fee of Rs.60,000/- (at the rate of Rs.30,000/- for the 2nd and 3rd year) for the academic years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 within 15 days, which was issued with reference to the proceedings dated 25.08.2016 of the University. The petitioner felt aggrieved, who has approached this Court in the said circumstance, by filing the present writ petition, with the following prayers:
"For these and other reasons to be urged at the time of hearing, it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to call for the connected records peruse the same and:-
i). to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing Exhibits P11, and in the case of the petitioner Exhibit P12, as arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and unjust.
ii). to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 1st respondent to allow the petitioner to complete his B. Tech Course as per the fees prescribed under the state merit quota while W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2017 : 6 : he joined the course in the year 2015.
iii). to declare that Exhibit P12 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner and the petitioner is liable to pay only fees prescribed for B. Tech Course under state merit quota in the year 2015.
iv). to issue such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
6. The learned counsel submits that, Ext.P11 has been issued, based on Ext.P12 proceedings, dated 20.06.2017 of the Admission Supervisory Committee. The said order reads as follows:
"As per the reference cited, the fees for inter collegiate transferred students is mentioned below.
1. The transfer applicants in the management quota can be admitted to the same quota under management and has to pay an Annual Fees of Rs.65,000/-
2. If the students admitted under Merit quota in the Parent College is transferred to the New College, they can be admitted in the merit seat quota, if available, and only if they have higher CEE Rank than the highest rank of candidates admitted under the Management quota, with a fee structure of Rs.35,000/- per W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2017 : 7 : Year. Otherwise, they may be admitted under management quota."
7. It is submitted across the bar that the said order/proceeding issued by the Admission Supervisory Committee could be made applicable only prospectively, as the same does not have any retrospective operation. The petitioner had already joined in the first respondent institution and is pursing his studies, satisfying the fees as a 'merit candidate', as discernible from the materials already placed on record, including Ext.P10. This being the position, there is absolutely no rhyme or reason to convert the status of the petitioner from 'merit quota candidate', to a 'management quota candidate', which will only be an instance of unlawful gains to the first respondent institution and hence, bad in law. The learned counsel also submits that, the reliance sought to be placed on the 'undertaking' given by the petitioner vide Ext.R1(a) and produced along with the statement dated 05.10.2017 filed on behalf of the first respondent, is not correct or sustainable. What is stated therein is W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2017 : 8 : that, if there is any change in fee structure 'in his category', for admission to the third semester, he was willing to satisfy the same as per norms and orders of the Kerala Technical University. In so far as no such change in fee has been stipulated by the University, that too in respect of the category of admission given to the petitioner (as a merit candidate), no enhancement is justifiable at the hands of the first respondent and hence, Ext.P11 is bad in all aspects.
8. The learned counsel for the first and second respondents submits that Ext.P5 (norms issued by the University) is only with regard to the regulation of the transfer to be effected, which has to be based on the 'GPA', if the number of applicants are more than the number of seats available. The said document in no way stipulates anything with regard to the payment of fees; more so, since the fee was not fixed/finalized at that point of time. The petitioner, in his reply affidavit, has conceded in paragraph 5, that at the time of giving the inter-college transfer to the petitioner, no fee structure W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2017 : 9 : was given by any authority.
9. The learned Standing Counsel for the University submits that the scope of Ext.P5 is only with regard to the regulation of admission to be given, for which, the higher GPA obtained in the first semester is to be made the yardstick and nothing more. The learned Standing Counsel also points out that the quantum of fees is a matter for the Educational Institution/Government and that the University does not have any say in this regard, in respect of a self- financing institution. This being the position, the reliance sought to be placed on Ext.P5, to govern the transfer of a candidate with reference to the status, ie., whether as 'a merit candidate' or a 'management quota candidate', is without any substance. The said norms cannot have any application, if the demand/supply ratio is something else, ie., if no sufficient number of applicants are available in relation to the number of seats available in that particular institution. Only if the number of applicants are more than that number of seats available, some or W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2017 : 10 : other device has to be put forth, so as to select the person concerned and it is in the said circumstance, that the 'higher GPA in the first semester' is identified and declared as the norm to be accepted, as pointed out by the University.
10. The learned counsel for the first and second respondents points out that, 'three' vacant seats were available in the first respondent institution when the transfer was sought for. The other two students who were having only lesser ranks than the last candidate who was admitted on 'merit basis' in the said institution (as in the case of the petitioner herein) were treated as management quota candidates and higher fee was demanded and satisfied accordingly. In the case of the petitioner herein, it is stated that he had already satisfied the fees of Rs.35,000/- as a merit candidate in the former institution (College of Engineering, Chengannur) and he gave Ext.R1(a) 'undertaking', that once the fee was fixed, he was ready to satisfy the balance, if at all any. It was accordingly, that accommodation was given to the W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2017 : 11 : petitioner for the time being and he was permitted to pursue the studies, satisfying the fee at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per year.
11. Since the fee to be collected was to be finalised without delay, clarification was sought for from the Admission Supervisory Committee by writing a letter dated 20.06.2017. This was considered and the Admission Supervisory Committee clarified the position in the following terms:
"1. The transfer applicants in the management quota can be admitted to the same quota under management and has to pay an Annual Fees of Rs.65,000/-
2. If the students admitted under Merit quota in the Parent College is transferred to the New College, they can be admitted in the merit seat quota, if available, and only if they have higher CEE Rank than the highest rank of candidates admitted under the Management quota, with a fee structure of Rs.35,000/- per Year. Otherwise, they may be admitted under management quota."
The learned Standing Counsel for the 'ASC' points out, that Ext.P12, as such, is not an order issued for the first W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2017 : 12 : time, but a clarification as to how the issue has to be dealt with. The said document by itself does not abrogate or supplement the liability to satisfy the fees and the students have to satisfy the same, based on the level secured in the KEAM.
12. According to the counsel for the first and second respondents, KEAM rank is the basis for giving admission both in the 'merit quota' as well as in the 'management quota'. Being a self-financing institution, though it is stipulated that the 'management quota' admission will also be there (to show the fee structure) the entire admissions were done by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, both in 'merit quota' as well as in the 'management quota'. The last candidate admitted in the merit quota in the first respondent institution, was having the rank of 3582, whereas, in the case of management quota, it was 9461. The candidate in the merit quota had to satisfy a fee of Rs.35,000/- per year, whereas, the candidate in the management quota was to satisfy a fee of Rs.65,000/-. In the case of the petitioner, W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2017 : 13 : his rank was much below, at 12432 and by the farthest stretch of imagination, he would not have been in a position to secure admission even in the 'management quota', at that point of time. Merely for the reason that he secured admission in the 'merit quota' in some other college of lesser acceptance, the petitioner cannot expect entry to any of the seats available in the first respondent institution and to pursue the studies satisfying the fees payable by a merit quota candidate. Even otherwise, since the student who got admission as the last candidate in the 'management quota' was satisfying a sum of Rs.65,000/- per year, under no circumstance could the petitioner imagine that he could pursue the studies as a 'merit candidate' in the said institution, satisfying a lesser fee of Rs.35,000/-. We find considerable force in the said submission.
13. A contention is put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never given to understand that he might have to satisfy a higher fee of Rs.65,000/- in the first respondent W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2017 : 14 : institution, if at all he was given admission there. We find it difficult to accept the said submission as well, for the obvious reason that, by virtue of admitted rank position of the petitioner (Rank No:12432), he could have never aspired for any such selection and accommodation as a 'merit candidate' in the first respondent institution; the last admission given in the 'merit quota' having been given to rank No. 3582 and the last admission given in the 'management quota' was to rank No.9461.
14. Admission in different Educational Institutions is based on the profiles of the Institution as well; of course, based on the options exercised by the students. Number of students aspiring to have admission in a remote or less meritorious institution (where the faculty may not be of the requisite calibre/competence, infrastructure may be less, the commutation and such other facilities available may be of much lesser extent) may be comparatively less; under which circumstance, a student with less merit may be in a position to secure admission there, as a 'merit candidate'. But, the position W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2017 : 15 : will be entirely different, if a college of proven profile and demand is concerned, where the number of students who aspire for admission may be quite high. Merely for the reason that a student got admission in the 'merit quota', in a college having lesser demand, it cannot be said that he has to be rated always as a 'merit candidate', if he gets admitted later in a more wanted Institution, by virtue of availability of a seat. The students, who are continuing in the latter Institution as 'management quota' candidates, paying higher fees are compelled to pay such higher fees, as they could not bag the prescribed extent of marks to get admitted as a 'merit candidate' and to pursue the studies paying lesser fees. The petitioner, having secured only the rank of 12432, much less than the rank of the last student admitted in the management quota (rank No:9461) in the said Institution, the petitioner cannot legally aspire to continue the studies there, satisfying only a lesser fee than the fee that is being paid by the aforesaid 'management quota' candidate. This alone has been W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2017 : 16 : clarified by the Admission Supervisory Committee as per Ext.P12. As such, the petitioner has not secured any vested right to get transfer and pursue studies in the first respondent institution as a 'merit candidate', merely for the reason that he was given admission as a merit candidate in the College of Engineering, Chengannur. This being the position, the demand raised by the first respondent, vide Ext.P11, to satisfy the balance fee of Rs.60,000/- is perfectly correct and sustainable and not assailable under any circumstance.
15. However, since the petitioner has put up a case that he was not aware of the higher extent of fees, he was liable to satisfy, if admission was given in the first respondent institution; the petitioner, if sought, can be given a chance to go back to the College of Engineering, Chengannur, if the seat vacated by him is still remaining vacant there and the said institution is willing to admit the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel for the University submits that by virtue of Clause 9 of Ext.P5, the students will have only one option for transfer and W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2017 : 17 : further, as per Clause 12 of the very same document, the transfer once approved by the receiving college will be final. But the fact remains that, at the time of giving transfer, as admitted by all the sides, the actual fee structure was not finalized and the students were never told as to the extent of fees payable.
In the said circumstance, if the petitioner finds it difficult to satisfy the fees as demanded by the first respondent institution vide Ext.P11 and wants to go back to the former institution to pursue the studies, subject to availability of the seat vacated by the petitioner and willingness of the said institution to admit the petitioner, he shall express the desire in this regard within 'two weeks' by submitting necessary proceedings before the first respondent and also before the respondent University, upon which, it shall be acted upon and further steps shall be pursued accordingly. On such event, the petitioner will be liable to pay only the proportionate higher fees till his continuance in the first respondent institution. Or else, it would be for the W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2017 : 18 : petitioner to satisfy the fees as demanded by the first respondent vide Ext.P11 so that he can pursue the studies in the said institution.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE Sd/-
SHIRCY V., JUDGE Bb/30/10/2017 [True copy] P.A to Judge