Karnataka High Court
Mr Blesson Reji vs The Principal on 1 March, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO.39622/2014 [EDN-RES]
BETWEEN :
Mr.Blesson Reji,
Aged about 20 years,
S/o. Reji Kunjukunju,
I year Student
Diploma in Fire and Industrial Safety,
Mangalore Institute of Fire
and Safety Engineering,
2nd Floor, Cee Pee Complex,
NH48, Pumpwell,
Mangalore - 575002.
Permanent resident of
Gilgalil Bless Villa,
Parakode Post North,
Adoor Pathanamthitta,
Kerala - 691554. ...Petitioner
(By Dr. S.Armugam, Adv.)
AND :
1. The Principal
Srinivas Institute of Technology,
Volachil, Adyar,
Mangalore - 574143.
-2-
2. The President,
Srinivas Group of Colleges,
Sri Shama Rao Foundation,
Volachil, Adyar,
Mangalroe - 574143.
3. Registrar,
Visveswaraya Technological University,
Jnana Sangama,
Belgaum - 590018.
4. The Principal,
Mangalore Institute of Fire,
and Safety Engineering,
2nd Floor, Cee Pdee Complex,
NH-48, Pumpwell,
Mangalore - 575002. ...Respondents
(By Sri G.S. Sharath Gowda By
Sharath and Associates, Adv. for R1 & R2
Sri Abdul Ansar Adv. For Sri P.Karunakar,
Adv. For R3.)
This Writ Petition is filed under article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to issue Transfer Certificate and
Conduct Certificates of the petitioner last studied in 1st
B.E. Computer during 2013-14 in the respondent
college to further his career.
This W.P. coming on for preliminary hearing, this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to issue Transfer Certificate -3- and Conduct Certificate of petitioner from the respondent-college without demanding the course fee.
2. The petitioner was admitted in First B.E. (Electrical and Electronics Engineering) in the 1st respondent college during the academic year 2012-13. The petitioner had obtained the admission through management quota by paying fee amount of Rs.98,250/-. During admission to the respondent college, the petitioner had submitted his SSLC, PUC, TC and Conduct Certificate. He discontinued B.E. course and joined Diploma course in Fire and Industrial Safety in Mangalore Institute of Fire and Industrial Safety Engineering, Mangalore for the academic year 2014-15. Hence he requested the respondent to return the original certificates submitted by him at the time of admission. Since the respondent demanded course fee of Rs.3,00,000/-, the petitioner is before this court seeking for the return of certificates. -4-
3. The learned counsel Dr.S.Arumugam appearing for the petitioner placing reliance on the UGC scheme would contend that retaining the certificates in original and forcing the retention of admitted student would limit the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. As such, it is not permissible for institution, deemed to be universities to retain the colleges/institution leaving certificate, marks sheet, caste certificate and other documents in original. Action of the respondents in demanding the course fee to return the documents/certificates of the petitioner is illegal and contrary to the notification issued by UGC. The learned counsel would further place reliance on the judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this court in Mr. Jibin George Vs. the Principal and others in W.P.NO.38116/2014 dated 28.10.2014 to contend that the institution cannot retain the certificates/documents of the students. Accordingly he -5- seeks for return of the documents/certificates without insisting any fees towards course fee.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri. G.S.Sharath Gowda appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this court in Miss. Smruthy B.S. Vs. D.A.Pandu Memorial and other in W.P. No.13792/2009 dated 18.03.2014 to contend that the petitioner-student has left B.E. course in the midstream. The institution has not collected course fees from the petitioner and never anticipated that the petitioner may leave the course in the midstream. In view of the petitioner leaving the course in the midstream of the academic year, the seat became vacant, for which the institution has to bear the financial loss. The conduct of the petitioner has not only caused loss of revenue to the respondent institution but also deprived the seat for another meritorious student who was interested to become an engineer. Hence, the -6- respondents are justified in claiming the course fees to return the documents/certificates. However, in view of the interim order passed by this court, the respondents have returned the documents/certificates to the petitioner subject to the result of the writ petition. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner not to demand the course fee is not sustainable.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. The issue involved in this case, whether the respondents are justified in demanding the fees when the petitioner-student left the college in the midstream is no more res-integra. The Division Bench of this court while dealing the case of Miss. Smruthy B.S. (supra), placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and other reported in (2003)6 SCC 697 has held that the Hon'ble Supreme -7- Court in the said judgment, never ruled that the college cannot demand the student who leaves in the midstream, for payment of balance fees of the whole course. In Miss. Smruthy B.S. case, on account of the petitioner therein, getting M.B.B.S. course for the next academic year, given up the B.D.S. course opted by him, in the midstream. In such circumstances, the Division Bench has held that the petitioner-student leaving the course in the middle has deprived the government seat to another eligible candidate for B.D.S. course under government quota. He has not only caused loss of revenue to the respondent college but also deprived the seat of M.B.B.S. who was willing to become a Doctor. In such fact situation, it was held that the respondent college is entitled to demand the course fee from the student who left in the midstream. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as the petitioner left B.E. course and joined diploma course. However, the learned counsel -8- for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner left B.E. course not voluntarily but he was ineligible to continue his studies since he has not acquired the required qualification of passing the earlier semesters. As such it cannot be equated with the student who was before this court in W.P.13792/2009. The learned counsel vehemently contends that ineligibility of the student cannot be construed as student leaving the course in midstream.
7. At this juncture, this argument of the learned counsel cannot be countenanced for the reason that irrespective of the fact that the eligibility or ineligibility of the student to continue the studies, leaving the course in the midstream is an admitted fact. Undisputedly, the petitioner has joined diploma course leaving B.E. course in the midstream. He has deprived another meritorious student to become an engineer besides causing loss of revenue to the respondents which is manifest from his conduct. Hence, this court is -9- of the considered opinion that the respondents demanding the course fee from the petitioner cannot be found fault with. Further, the judgment of the Division Bench in Miss. Smruthy B.S. was not brought to the notice of the Coordinate Bench of this court in Mr. Jibin George case. Moreover, the Division Bench judgment is binding on this court. Hence, the dictum pronounced by the Division Bench is applied to the facts of the present case. The notification of the UGC referred to by the petitioner though indicates that retaining of the certificates of the student by the institution is not permissible, but the same does not refer to the demanding of the course fee.
For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PN/JS