Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Sri Sai Baba National Degree College ... on 7 October, 2021
Author: Arup Kumar Goswami
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami, Ninala Jayasurya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL Nos.306 and 307 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
W.A.No.306 of 2021
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary,
Higher Education (C.EA2) Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
.. Appellant
Versus
Sri Sai Baba National Degree College (Autonomous),
Hospital Road, Opp. Z.P. Office, Ananthapuramu,
Andhra Pradesh - 515001, Rep. by its Correspondent,
Pullalarevu Lakshminarayana Reddy, and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. K.V. Raghuveer,
GP for Higher Education, for
Additional Advocate General
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Sri Vijay Mathukumilli
Counsel for respondent No.2 : Mr. C. Sudesh Anand
Counsel for respondent No.3 : Mr. M. Karibasaiah
Counsel for respondent No.4 : Ms. S. Parineetha
W.A.No.307 of 2021
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary,
Higher Education (C.EA2) Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
.. Appellant
Versus
2 HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021
St. Josephs Educational Society,
Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh State,
Represented by its Secretary and Treasurer,
S.C. Rojamma, and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. K.V. Raghuveer,
GP for Higher Education, for
Additional Advocate General
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Sri Vijay Mathukumilli
Counsel for respondent No.2 : Mr. C. Sudesh Anand
Date of hearing : 02.09.2021
Date of judgment : 07.10.2021
COMMON JUDGMENT
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ) Heard Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing for the appellant/State. Also heard Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Sri Vijay Mathukumilli, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioners.
2. The common judgment and order dated 07.05.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.1327 of 2021, 2210 of 2021 and 2629 of 2021 is under challenge in the present writ appeals. W.A.No.306 of 2021 arises out of W.P.No.2210 of 2021, while W.A.No.307 of 2021 arises out of W.P.No.2629 of 2021. Though a writ appeal, being W.A.No.332 of 2021, was also preferred by the State insofar as W.P.No.1327 of 2021 is concerned, in view of the submission made by the learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 therein that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner- institution in the said case was closed down and the directions issued by 3 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021 the common judgment and order of the learned single Judge were in no way going to enure to the benefit of the said institution, this Court had disposed of the said writ appeal as infructuous, vide judgment and order dated 22.09.2021, making it clear that the appellant/State would be entitled to argue on merits in respect of the other appeals preferred against the common judgment and order.
3. The State of Andhra Pradesh had enacted the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Act, 2019 (for short, 'the Act of 2019') to establish Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission (for short, 'the Commission') to maintain standards of education, regulation of fee, service condition of teachers, safeguard the interests of students and to ensure public spiritedness, equity, excellence, financial stability and probity along with good governance and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of 2019 applies to all Higher Educational Institutions including Medical, Dental, Agriculture, Horticulture and Veterinary Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Commission, in terms of Section 4(1) of the Act of 2019, consists of, amongst others, a Chairperson, who is a retired Judge of the High Court, who has to be appointed by the Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in terms of Section 5(1) of the Act of 2019.
4. In the course of fee regulation, in terms of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules, 2019 (for short, 'the Rules of 2019') framed under Section 23(1) of the Act of 2019, the Commission had proposed to review and determine the 4 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021 fee structure for UG and PG Degree programmes, UG and PG Law programmes, UG and PG Physical Education programmes in Private Higher Educational Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the block period of 2020-21 to 2022-23. The Commission, in its meetings held on 18.06.2020, 23.06.2020, 29.06.2020 and 16.10.2020, had resolved to fix the fee structure for Under Graduate (UG) Degree courses in the Private Un-aided Degree Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the aforesaid block period. Accordingly, the Member Secretary of the Commission had forwarded the minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 16.10.2020 along with recommendations regarding fee structure, to the Government for issuing necessary Notification.
5. On such recommendations, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.1, Higher Education (C.E.A2) Department, dated 08.01.2021, in exercise of powers under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (for short, 'the Act of 1983'), notifying the fee structure for UG Degree Courses in the Private Un-aided Degree Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh as mentioned in the Annexures I, II and III along with Category-wise list of Colleges appended to the G.O., for the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23, subject to certain conditions stipulated therein. Relevant portion of the G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 reads as follows:
"NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 8 of the A.P. Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules, 2019 issued in G.O.Ms.No.49, Higher Education (U.E) Department, dated.11.10.2019 as 5 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021 amended subsequently from time to time and in pursuance of the resolutions of the A.P. Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission in their meeting held on dated.16.10.2020, the Commission recommended the fee structure for Under Graduate (UG) Degree courses in the Private Un-Aided Degree Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23 in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Further in exercise of the powers under section 7 of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act No.5 of 1983), Government hereby notify the fee as mentioned in the Annexures I, II & III along with Category wise list of colleges appended to this order for the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23, subject to following conditions:
(a) The fee is an all-inclusive annual fee including various fee like tuition fee, affiliation fee, cost of identity card, medical fee, inter college/inter university sports, games & cultural meet fee, computer/internet fee, College magazine and student activities, student health care scheme, student welfare fund, study tour, alumni fund, sports and games fee, examination fee including stationery, maintenance and amenities fee, extracurricular activities fee, development fee,
6 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021 Recognition fee, Common Services fee and other recurring expenditure.
(b) The aforesaid fee determined for all the UG Degree courses for the colleges mentioned in Annexure-I, Annexure-II and Annexure-III does not include hostel, transport, mess charges, Registration fee, admission fee and refundable deposits of library and laboratory fee.
(c) The minimum fee mentioned in Annexure-III shall be applicable for the new Courses/Colleges sanctioned during the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23.
(d) The same fee shall continue for the students admitted during the block period of 2020-21 to 2022-23 till they complete the course.
(e) The institutions whose affiliations are not extended by the Affiliating Universities for the academic year 2020-21 are not entitled to collect any fee.
(f) The institution shall not charge either directly or indirectly any other amount over and above the fee fixed in the Annexure-I, Annexure-II, Annexure-III. If any other amount is charged under any other head or guise i.e., donations, the same would amount to charging of capitation fee and in that case the institution shall be liable to be prosecuted under Section 9 of Act 5 of 1983 apart from imposing appropriate penalty under the APHERMC Act, 2019 as amended 7 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021 subsequently from time to time and the APHERMC Rules, 2019 as amended subsequently from time to time.
(g) In case of any deviation from these directions, the Commission will initiate serious penal action as per the provisions of the Act and Rules made there under.
(h) Under Section 12(4) & (5) of A.P. Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission(Amendment) Act, 2020, the commission has the power to review and determine the fee payable to the Higher Educational Institutions and review the fee determined, whether notified or not by the Government for any academic years/blocks.
(i) The institutions are informed that the fixation of fee structure by the Government will not by itself enable or permit the managements to run courses, if the courses are not recognized/permitted by the Government/ concerned University/any other statutory Authority.
5. This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance (FMU-H&T EDN) Department, vide their U.O.Note.No.FIN01-FMU0ASD(HTE)/8/2020-FMU-HTE, Computer No.1284349, dated.22.12.2020."
6. The writ petitioner-institution in W.P.No.2210 of 2021 is stated to be placed in Category-III, to which the fee structure specified in Annexure-III appended to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.1 is made applicable, 8 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021 while the writ petitioner-institution in W.P.No.2629 of 2021 is stated to be placed in Category-II, to which the fee structure specified in Annexure-II is made applicable. Aggrieved by such fixation of fee structure and categorization, the writ petitioners-institutions filed the respective writ petitions to quash the impugned G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 with a further prayer to direct the appellant/State and other authorities not to interfere with the right of the writ petitioners-institutions to admit students into UG Degree Courses as per the fee structure which is commensurate with the infrastructure and faculty possessed by the writ petitioners-institutions.
7. On the basis of the contentions of the parties, the learned single Judge had framed the following points for consideration:
"(1) Whether personal notice/communication need be served on the colleges in terms of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules, 2019 in view of the language employed in the said Rule? If not, whether failure to serve notice/communication personally on the colleges is violative of clause (1) and (3) of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules, 2019? If so, does it amount to procedural ultra vires? Consequently, the G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 is liable to be struck down on that ground?
9 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021 (2) Whether rules permit categorisation of colleges into '3' or more? If not, whether the fixation of fee after categorisation of colleges into '3' is sustainable? Consequently, whether the G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 is liable to be set aside by declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary?
(3) Whether the residuary State is required to adopt laws on bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh into two States? If so, whether the exercise undertaken by respondent No.2 for fixation of fee under Act 5 of 1983 and consequently, G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 is liable to be set aside?"
8. Point Nos.1 and 2 being inter-connected, the learned single Judge decided both the points by common discussion and they were answered in favour of the writ petitioners-institutions. In view of the findings recorded on point Nos.1 and 2, the learned single Judge opined that point No.3 need not be answered and accordingly, it was not answered. In view of the discussion held on point Nos.1 and 2, the learned single Judge had allowed the writ petitions with the following directions:
"(1) G.O.Ms.No.1 Higher Education (C.E.A2) Department dated 08.01.2021 issued by respondent No.1 is quashed to the extent of applicability to the petitioners herein while declaring the action of respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Rule 8 of the Rules 10 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021 2019, principles of natural justice, and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(2) Respondent No.2 is directed to issue intimation by registered post with acknowledgement due or serve such intimation through the staff of District Educational Officer of concerned districts under proper acknowledgement, calling for information in 21 schedules including the proposed fee structure for various courses and on submission of the same, respondent No.2 shall afford an opportunity strictly adhering to clause (3) of Rule 8 of Rules 2019 by issuing appropriate intimation in the manner stated above, so also before inclusion of the petitioners in particular category. (3) Till finalization of fixation of fee for various courses in the petitioners' institutions, the petitioners may be permitted to collect provisional fee for various courses from the students subject to fixation of fee by respondent No.2 strictly adhering to Rule 8 of the Rules 2019. No costs."
9. Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the appellant/State, submits that the learned single Judge was not justified in quashing G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 to the extent it is applicable to the writ petitioners-institutions, by opining 11 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021 that Rule 8 of the Rules, 2019, requires personal notice/communication to be served on the institutions individually. He further submits that on correct interpretation of Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2019, notices displayed in the website of the Commission would suffice. He also submits that categorization of the institutions based on the parameters fixed under Rule 8(4) of the Rules of 2019 cannot be considered to be illegal or arbitrary.
10. Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the writ petitioners-institutions, supports the impugned judgment and reiterates the submissions which found favour with the learned single Judge.
11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
12. In the instant case, a Notification dated 29.01.2020 was issued by the Member Secretary of the Commission indicating that the Commission proposed to review and determine fee structure for UG and PG Degree programmes, UG and PG Law Programmes, UG and PG Physical Education programmes in Private Higher Educational Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23 and, as such, the managements of all Private Higher Educational Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh were required to submit relevant data together with their Audited Financial Statements for the years 2017-18 and 2018- 19 in the prescribed schedules, online from 10.02.2020 onwards as per the guidelines available in the Commission's website. It was also indicated that the data shall be furnished programme-wise after payment of processing charges, as prescribed in the guidelines, through online 12 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021 payment gateway. The last date for online submission of data was fixed as 09.03.2020. Subsequently, on the request of Andhra Pradesh Private Degree Colleges Management Association dated 27.02.2020, the processing fee was reduced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per Programme for UG and PG Degree Programmes. The time for submission of data was also extended upto 21.03.2020 at the first instance and again upto 29.03.2020, on the request of Management Associations.
13. Thereafter, a Notification dated 19.06.2020 was issued by the Secretary of the Commission stating that pursuant to the Notification dated 29.01.2020, most of the Private Degree Colleges in the State had responded to the Notification and paid the processing fee and uploaded the required data online for fixation of fee for the block period 2020-21 and 2022-23, but some colleges (around 96) had neither paid the processing fee nor uploaded the required data till then. Accordingly, those colleges which had not responded to the said Notification were directed to pay the processing fee and upload the data online on or before 23.06.2020, failing which it was indicated that such colleges shall not be considered for fixation of fee by the Commission.
14. It appears that the time for uploading the data online was again extended upto 07.07.2020 without penalty and thereafter by issuing a public notice dated 10.07.2020, further time was granted till 20.07.2020 subject to payment of penalty of three times of the processing fee, as could be seen from the Notification dated 20.07.2020 issued by the Member Secretary of the Commission. However, acceding to the request of different Management Associations, the last date for uploading the data with penalty was extended upto 31.07.2020, by the aforesaid 13 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021 Notification dated 20.07.2020, and all the Colleges were directed to pay the penalty of two times of the processing fee and upload the data online on or before 31.07.2020, failing which it was stated that fee shall not be determined. Once again, a Notification dated 20.10.2020 was issued by the Member Secretary of the Commission giving last chance to the Colleges which had not participated in the process of uploading the data online, to upload the data by 21.10.2020 by paying penalty of two times of the processing fee.
15. Rule 8 of the Rules of 2019 is the central issue raised by the writ petitioners-institutions as well as dealt with by the learned single Judge and, therefore, it will be appropriate, at this stage, to refer to the said Rule, which reads as under:
"8. Fee Regulation (1) The Commission shall call for, from each Institution, its proposed fee structure well in advance before the date of issue of notification for admission for the academic year along with all the relevant documents and books of accounts for scrutiny;
(2) The Commission shall decide whether the fees proposed by the institutions is justified and does not amount to profiteering or charging of capitation fee;
14 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021 (3) The Commission shall be at the liberty to approve or alter the proposed fee for each course to be charged by the Institution;
Provided that it shall give the Institution an opportunity of being heard before fixing any fee or fees;
(4) The Commission shall take into consideration the following factors while prescribing the fee;
(a) The location of the Higher Educational Institution,
(b) The nature of the course,
(c) The cost of available infrastructure,
(d) The expenditure on administration and maintenance,
(e) A reasonable surplus required for growth and development of the Higher Educational Institutions,
(f) The revenue foregone on account of waiver of fee, if any, in respect of students belonging to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and wherever applicable to the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes and other Economically Weaker Sections of the Society, to such extent as shall be notified by the Government from time to time.
(g) Any other relevant factor.
15 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021 (5) The Commission shall communicate the fee structure as determined by it, to the Government, for notification under Act 5 of 1983;
(6) The fee or scale of the fee determined by the Commission shall be valid for a period of three years;
(7) The fee so determined shall be applicable to a candidate who is admitted to an institution in that academic year and shall not be altered till the completion of his/her course in the institution in which he/she was originally admitted. The Higher Educational Institutions shall not club and/or collect a fee which is more than the amount prescribed for that Academic year."
16. The learned single Judge had observed that the Notification dated 29.01.2020 is in the nature of general notification and it was neither served nor communicated to each Higher Educational Institution. The learned single Judge had also observed that it is the mandatory requirement under Clause (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2019 that the Commission has to call for the proposed fee structure by informing each of the institutions and it was evident that the Commission did not call for the information specifically except requiring the institutions to submit relevant data together with audited financial statements for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19 in the prescribed schedules online on or before 16 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021 09.03.2020. The learned single Judge took note of the stand of the authorities that the writ petitioner-institution in W.P.No.2210 of 2021 had paid the processing fee but did not submit the schedules online, while the writ petitioner-institution in W.P.No.2629 of 2021 had paid processing fee and submitted the schedules partly. Though the learned single Judge had noted that an e-mail was addressed on 27.07.2020 at 2.00 p.m. to 270 colleges along with attachment reminding them to pay the processing fee and get registered for fee fixation, it was erroneously observed that the institutions were asked not to upload the data or fill the performance indicator sheet instead of stating that they did not upload the data or fill the performance indicator sheet. Learned single Judge held that a close analysis of Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2019 makes it abundantly clear that communication has to be issued to each college individually calling for proposed fee structure for various courses, but no such procedure was followed.
17. Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2019 does not indicate in any manner that each and every institution has to be individually sent communication regarding the proposed fee structure. In our considered opinion, a Notification inviting all the Private Higher Educational Institutions to submit details along with prescribed fee would suffice to meet the requirement of calling for the proposed fee structure from each institution as required under Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2019. All that is required is issuance of a public notification which is admittedly done in the instant case. By Notification dated 29.01.2020, it was indicated that the Commission had proposed to review and determine the fee structure and the managements of all Private Higher Educational Institutions in the 17 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021 State have been notified the steps required to be taken by them in that regard. It is not the case presented by the writ petitioners-institutions that they were unaware of the Notification dated 29.01.2020. As can be seen from the Notifications issued by the Commission pursuant to the Notification dated 29.01.2020, number of opportunities were granted to the defaulting colleges to respond to the request of the Commission for payment of processing fee and uploading of requisite data. Further, the Notification dated 29.01.2020 would go to show that it was clearly indicated therein that the institutions which do not submit any proposals or which are not responsive, shall not be permitted to collect any fee for the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23 for the said programmes. Thus, the observation made by the learned single Judge that the Notification did not indicate that the institutions are under an obligation to submit their proposed fee structure is not correct.
18. Thus, in our considered opinion, quashing of G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 for the reasons recorded by the learned single Judge to the extent it is applicable to the writ petitioners-institutions, is not warranted in the attending facts and circumstances. However, we would like to observe that by way of abundant caution, henceforth, apart from displaying the Notification in the website, the Commission may issue an e-mail individually to all the institutions while any review of fee structure is undertaken.
19. A perusal of Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 2019 would go to show that the Commission is at liberty to approve or alter the proposed fee for each course to be charged by the Institution. The proviso to Rule 8(3) provides that the Commission shall give the Institution an opportunity of being 18 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021 heard before fixing any fee or fees. The proviso has to be understood to mean that in the event of Commission not approving the proposed fee for each course to be charged by the Institution, an opportunity of hearing is to be afforded. In the instant case, it appears that a notice was issued to the President of Andhra Pradesh Private Un-aided Degree Colleges Association to appear before the Commission on behalf of the member colleges in order to make appropriate recommendations to the Government in relation to fixation of pay. Such a procedure followed by the Commission in issuing notice to the President of the aforesaid Association cannot be held to be in consonance with the Rules, as rightly held by the learned single Judge. However, so far as the writ petitioners- institutions are concerned, as they did not take complete steps in the matter, non-compliance of the procedure under Rule 8(3) of the Rules does not come to the aid of the writ petitioners-institutions. However, we hold that in future exercise of review of fee structure, on the submission of proposed fee structure by the individual institutions, in the event of the Commission not approving such proposed fee for each course to be charged by the institution, an opportunity of hearing must be granted to such institution before fixing any fee or fees by the Commission itself.
20. The learned single Judge had opined that though no categorization is prescribed under the Rules, even if it is taken for the sake of convenience that categorization is required to be made, it must be preceded by an opportunity to the institution before categorization of such institution into a particular category and it is in that context, the learned single Judge had directed that an opportunity of hearing must be given to the writ petitioners-institutions before their inclusion in a 19 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021 particular category. While we agree with the observation of the learned single Judge, we would further observe that the Commission, in each and every case where fee structure is proposed by the institution and the Commission is of the opinion that such fee structure cannot be approved, must pass a reasoned order for not approving the fee structure proposed by the institution and proposing a particular fee structure so as to ensure a transparent process. The institutions which do not propose any fee structure or are not responsive, in terms of the Notification dated 29.01.2020, were prohibited to collect any fee for the block period 2020- 21 to 2022-23. It is relevant to note that when the writ petitioners- institutions did not submit requisite information, it is not understood how one of them was placed in Category-II and the other in Category-III.
21. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the direction No.1 in the order under challenge. Despite holding so, in order to grant an opportunity to the writ petitioners, we modify direction No.2 of the learned single Judge to the effect that within a period of four weeks from today, the writ petitioners may submit necessary particulars, including proposed fee structure. In the event requisite steps are taken by the writ petitioners for fee fixation, the Commission shall proceed to consider fee fixation in terms of Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 2019 and in the light of the observations made in this order. Till a decision is taken and notified in accordance with law, direction No.3 as issued by the learned single Judge would hold the field. In case the writ petitioners do not avail the opportunity granted to them within the time-frame given in this order, the petitioner in W.P.No.2210 of 2021 will be entitled to collect fee as prescribed for Category-III institutions and the petitioner in W.P.No.2629 20 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021 of 2021 will be entitled to collect fee as prescribed for Category-II institutions.
22. The writ appeals are, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
IBL