Kerala High Court
M.Shajila vs The University Of Calicut on 15 March, 2011
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29635 of 2004(C)
1. M.SHAJILA, AGED 24 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR,
3. THE SECRETARY, M.C.T. TRAINING
4. THE PRINCIPAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN
For Respondent :SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, CALICUT UTY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :15/03/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 29635 OF 2004
=====================
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner had joined B.Ed College of respondents 3 and 4 in the year 2004. The admission was secured in a management seat. Petitioner paid the tuition fee and other dues and commenced studies. The admissions were closed on 30/6/2004. On 7/7/2004, petitioner applied for TC for the reason that she secured admission in a college near to her native place and that too in the merit seat. Respondents 3 and 4 issued the TC, but however did not refund the tuition fee and the special fee collected from the petitioner. It is complaining of the above and seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to initiate necessary action against respondents 3 and 4 for the refund of the fee withheld by them that this writ petition has been filed.
2. The stand taken by respondents 3 and 4 is that the admission was secured by the petitioner in a management seat. It is stated that the admission was based on Ext.R6 prospectus which enabled them to collect tuition fee of `18,000/- and special fee of `4,500/-. It is stated that after the admissions were closed WPC No. 29635/04 :2 : on 30/6/2004, petitioner made an application and obtained TC. According to respondents 3 and 4, in such circumstances, the seat vacated by the petitioner had to be kept unfilled and that it was to avoid the consequent loss that they refused to refund the tuition fee and the special fee collected from the petitioner.
3. On behalf of the University also, a statement has been filed where it is stated that when a candidate admitted to a particular course in the self financing scheme discontinues in the middle of a course, TC will be issued only after remitting full fee of the course. It is further stated that if the request for TC is made before the closure of the admission, fee will be refunded.
4. Hence, it is obvious that a candidate discontinuing the course is entitled to refund of the fee only if such discontinuance is before the closure of the admission. In this case, admissions were closed on 30/6/2004 and the petitioner applied for TC only on 7/7/2004. As a result of this, one seat could not be filled up by the management. In such circumstances, to avoid loss being caused, if the management refused to refund the fee and special fee, this Court will not be justified in compelling the management to refund the same.
WPC No. 29635/04 :3 :
5. However, this Court would certainly have called upon the management to refund the fee, provided the petitioner was in a position atleast to demonstrate that the seat vacated by her was filled up by admitting some other candidate. In this case, there is total dearth of material in that behalf also. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek the assistance of this Court to refund the fee forfeited by the management.
Writ petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp