Karnataka High Court
Miss Smruthy B S vs D A Pandu Memorial on 18 March, 2014
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K L MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
Writ Petition No. 13792 of 2009 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
MISS SMRUTHY B S
D/O B.R. SUBRAMANYAM
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
NO. 259, 5TH CROSS,
NRUPATUNGA NAGAR,
J.P. NAGAR 7TH PHASE,
BANGALORE - 560 076 ... PETITIONER
[By Sri T P Rajendra Kumar Sungay, Adv.]
AND:
1. D A PANDU MEMORIAL
R.V. DENTAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL
NO.CA 37, 24TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE,
J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
2. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS
AUTHORITY
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 012
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ... RESPONDENTS
2
[By Sri M R Naik, Sr. Adv. for
M/s Naik & Naik Law Firm, Advs. for R1;
Sri N K Ramesh, Adv. for R2]
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1, TO
RETURN HER ORIGINAL 10TH AND PUC MARKS CARDS/TRANSFER
CERTIFICATE/STUDY CERTIFICATE AND OTHER ACADEMIC
RECORDS WHICH WERE RECEIVED BY THEM AT THE TIME OF
HER ADMISSION TO THE B.D.S. COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC
YEAR 2008-09, FORTHWITH WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
MANJUNATH, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned Single Judge by his order dt.6.6.2009 has referred the matter to the Division Bench since he did not agree with the view taken by another Single Judge in W.P.No.17294/2007 dt. 2nd July 2008.
2. Heard Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sungay for the petitioner, Mr. M.R.Naik, learned senior counsel appearing 3 for the 1st respondent and Mr. N.K.Ramesh, for the 2nd respondent.
3. The facts leading to this petition are as hereunder:
The petitioner after passing 2nd year PUC examination appeared for the common entrance test conducted by the 2nd respondent. Considering the ranking obtained by her in the CET she could not get a seat in MBBS course.
However, she secured a Government seat for B.D.S. course at the 1st respondent college for the academic year 2008-09.
After paying the fees payable for one year, she joined the 1st year B.D.S. course and she submitted all her original testimonies. After joining the college on 14.5.2009 she gave a letter to the Principal of the 1st respondent college stating that on account of financial difficulties and non-
cooperation from the Bank for grant of educational loan, she is discontinuing the course and requested the college to return her 10th standard and 12th standard marks card, 4 Transfer Certificate/Study certificate to enable her to join some other course.
4. Contending that her request for return of the documents has not been considered, the present petition is filed requesting the court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to return her original 10th and 2nd PUC marks cards so also her Transfer certificate and Study certificate. She also sought for Interim prayer which is similar to the main prayer.
5. The respondent contended that she did not leave the college on account of financial difficulties. After studying B.D.S. course for more than 7 to 8 months, since she secured MBBS seat in the next academic year in order to join the Medical college by inventing a false ground sought for return of documents and that the college cannot return the documents unless and until the college fees payable for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th year B.D.S. course is paid by her. It is contended by the College that on account of the 5 petitioner discontinuing the college, the respondent college could not admit any other student, as a result of which for the next 3 years there would be loss of revenue for the college and which loss has to be made good by the petitioner on account of her mistake. It was contended by the respondent - college, it has no objection to return the documents subject to payment of the fee payable for the remaining three years.
6. When the matter was listed before the Learned Single Judge for consideration of Interim prayer, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an unreported Judgment of this Court passed by another Single Judge on 2nd July 2008 in Mr.VIKAS P Vs. PRINCIPAL, DON-BOSCO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND OTHERS, wherein the Learned Single Judge relying upon para-8 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2003) 6 6 SCC 697, came to the conclusion that the college has no right to demand the college fees/tuition fees for the future years and directed the college to return the original certificate/testimonials submitted by the petitioner therein. The Learned Judge having considered the Judgment of the Hon. Supreme Court in ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION was of the opinion that para-8 of the Judgment has not been properly considered by the Learned Single Judge. Since, he did not agree with the view expressed by the Learned Single Judge, he referred the matter for consideration by a Division Bench.
7. Accordingly, the matter is listed before us.
8. Having heard the counsel for the parties, the only point to be considered by us is whether the Hon. Supreme Court in para-8 in the case of ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA has ruled that a college cannot demand or collect fees when a student has left the college in midstream or not.
7
9. The Learned Single Judge while considering the W.P.NO.17294/2007 was of the opinion that the Supreme Court has held that an Education Institution is entitled to collect the fees for that particular semester/year in which the student is prosecuting his/her studies and that in the event of a student leaving the course in midstream no question of compensation to be given to the institution. Therefore, the Learned Single Judge was of the opinion that college has to be directed to return the original documents even though a student has left in the midstream.
10. We have perused para-8 of the Judgment in ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION. On reading of para-8 of the Judgment, we are of the view that the Hon. Supreme Court has not ruled that a college cannot demand for the fees for the rest of the semester or academic year if a student leaves the college in the midstream. For better understanding of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, it would be appropriate for us to quote para-8: 8
" 8. It must be mentioned that during arguments it was pointed out to us that some educational institutions are collecting, in advance, the fees for the entire course i.e. for all the years. It was submitted that this was done because the institute was not sure whether the student would leave the institute midstream. It was submitted that if the student left the course in midstream then for the remaining years the seat would lie vacant and the institute would suffer. In our view an educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year. If an institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then, at the highest, it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in midstream. If any educational institution has collected fees in advance, only the fees of that semester/year can be used by the institution. The balance fees must be kept invested in fixed deposits in a nationalized bank. As and when fees fall due for a semester/year only the fees falling due for that semester/year can be withdrawn by the institution. The rest must continue to remain deposited till such time that they fall due. At the end of the course the interest earned on these deposits must be paid to the student from whom the fees were collected in advance."9
11. On conjoint reading of paras-7 and 8 of the Judgment, we are of the view that an Education Institution can only charge prescribed fee for one semester/year. If an Institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then bond/bank guarantee for the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the Institution, even if the student left in the midstream.
12. Therefore, we are clear that the Hon. Supreme Curt has ruled that, in advance for the whole course, the college cannot collect the fees and if the college is of the opinion that the student may leave in the midstream then it can demand a student to execute the bond/bank guarantee for the balance fees for the whole course. Therefore, the learned Single Judge while considering the case of VIKAS P Vs. THE PRINCIPAL, DON-BOSCO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY IN W.P.NO.17294/2007 has wrongly interpreted para-8 of the Judgment of the Apex Court and has erroneously granted relief to the petitioner therein. In 10 such circumstances, if another Single Judge without expressing any opinion on the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge has referred the matter to the Division Bench, on careful consideration of para-8 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, we are of the opinion the Hon. Supreme Court never ruled that a College cannot demand the student who leave in the midstream for payment of balance fees for the whole course.
13. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Naik, the learned senior counsel for respondent-1 that on account of the petitioner getting a MBBS course for the next academic year, the petitioner cannot cause loss to the institution. As a matter of fact, we are of the view that the petitioner leaving the course in the middle has deprived of a Govt. seat to any other eligible candidate for B.D.S. course under Government quota. Now on account of her conduct she not 11 only caused loss of revenue to the 1st respondent college, deprived a seat for another eligible student who was willing to become a Dentist. We are also of the opinion a time has come for the Government to make proper rules to prevent changing the course unnecessarily which would result in depriving the chance of getting Government seat of any other meritorious candidate. We are of the view that if the petitioner was inclined to take M.B.B.S. seat, she could have taken chance in the next academic year. Without doing so opting a B.D.S. course, she has given up the seat in the midstream. Therefore, a time has come for the Government to make necessary amendment to the rules, to plug such loop holes.
14. In the result, we dismiss this petition. The Bank guarantee executed by the petitioner is ordered to be invoked by the respondent and we hold that the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.NO.17294/07 dt.2nd July 2008 is incorrect in view of the Judgment in 12 ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION by the Hon. Supreme court.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Ak