ORDER
N.K. Patil, J.
1. The petitioner sought a direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to refund the tuition fee for the second mid third year to the petitioner. She further sought a direction to direct respondent No. 4 to take action against respondents 1, 2 and 3 for having acted contrary to law.
2. The grievance made out by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that she was admitted to the first year MBBS course at the 3rd respondent Medical College for the academic year 2000-2001 as per Roll No. 000101051 and she has paid the necessary tuition fee in advance for the first, second and third year. She has discontinued her studies in the first year itself because she had developed intensive rheumatoid arthritis and she was forced to go back to her parents' place at Malaysia, The fattier of the petitioner has sent a communication dated 25,6.003 to the first respondent for refund of the tuition fee paid for the second and third year. When there is no response as such by the first respondent he was forced to send one more communication dated 26.7.2003 requesting respondents 1 and 2 for refund of the amount BO that he can discharge the loan availed for the said purpose. In pursuance of these two communications, as per the direction/instruction issued by the first respondent to the Finance Executive by communication dated 27.6.2003, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw from the course and to refund of the tution fee as per the Rules vide Annexure-C. Accordingly, the first respondent has given a reply to the communication dated 5.8.2003 stating that as regulations of the Medical Council of India do not permit filling up of vacancy created by discontinuance of a student, hence refund of tuition fee is not possible. It is submitted that the reply sent is not tenable and sustainable in the eye of law. Respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to have any wrongful gain and they are responsible for the welfare of the students and respondent No. 2 is not entitled to unjust enrichment at the cost of the petitioner. Refund of tuition fee in the nature of capitation fee is totally unconstitutional and contrary to law and in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition seeking appropriate directions referred to above.
3. The principle ground urged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that refund of the tuition fee collected for second and third year of MBBS course by respondents 1 and 2 is violative of principles of natural justice and Constitution of India. Petitioner discontinued in the middle of the first year MBBS as she was suffering from disease as referred above and she has paid in advance the tuition fee for three years and it is the bound en duty of the respondents to refund the tuition fee collected towards the second and third installment from the petitioner, The said collection made by the first and second respondents towards the second and third installments is contrary to provisions of law and is not sustainable, Hence, they cannot get the said fee when she has not prosecuted her studies. Therefore, he submitted that appropriate direction be issued to respondents to refund the tuition fee collected from the petitioner towards the second and third instalment.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 have filed objections, inter alia, contending that the petitioner is not entitled for refund of tuition fee on the ground that there is no provision to fill up the vacant seat under the University Act or Medical Council of India Act. The seat cannot be filled up till the course is completed for the academic year commencing from 2000-2001. The fees for this course under the NRI quota which is admissible have been collected. As the petitioner was not able to complete her first year MBBS examination held in August 2002, the same was communicated to the father of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has failed in all the subjects in the examination held in January 2003 has also been intimated to the father of the petitioner. IT is specifically stated that the petitioner was supposed to appear for the examination to be held in July 2003 as a last chance to continue her studies, which was also communicated to the father of the petitioner. The specific ground taken by the petitioner in the writ petition is that she has discontinued her studies in the middle of the first year because of her illness as referred above and the father of the petitioner has communicated by communication dated 25.6.2003 stating that he wanted to withdraw the petitioner from the course as she was finding it difficult to study due to her illness. The request of the father of the petitioner has been considered and the first respondent sent a communication accepting withdrawal and further it is specifically pointed out that Clause (2) of the refund policy mentioned in the admission brochure provides that any student who withdraws from the course at the end of the first term or thereafter will be required to remit the full fee applicable to the course unless waived by the university, The petitioner was aware of the Rules of the first respondent university which is as per Annexure R brochure issued to the petitioner at the time of taking admission and there is no provision for refund of tuition fee collected by these respondents as the Medial Council of India does not permit to fill up the vacant seats, but however taking into consideration sympathetically, waived off 4th and 5th instalments. Therefore, it is submitted that the writ petition is misconceived and they are not entitled to seek any relief. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be rejected at the threshold.
5. After having heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and after considering the rival contentions urged by the counsel for both the parties and after careful perusal of the relevant provisions as indicated in the brochure issued by the first respondent - University vide Annexure R-2, it emerges on the face of the record that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was admitted under the NRI quota for the academic year 2000-2001 and prosecuted her studies and she has taken all the subjects. Thereafter due to illness as referred above, she abandoned her studies in the college and it is not in dispute regarding payment of tuition fees of second and third installments have been paid by the petitioner. Due to abandonment of her course at the middle of the academic year the said seat has become vacant, As per the Medical council of India Act and Regulation of University they are not entitled to fill up the said seat aa rightly pointed out in the brochure issued by the first respondent university under condition No. 2, which reads thus:
Any student who withdraws from the course at the end of the first term or thereafter will be required to remit the full fee applicable to the course unless waived by the university.
After perusal of the said condition of the refund policy in the brochure, it is crystal clear that the student who withdraws from the course at the end of the first term or thereafter is required to remit the full fee unless waived by the University. It is significant to note that in the instant case, taking into consideration, the financial difficulties faced by the parents of the students, the University has waived the fee liable to be paid for the 4th and 5th instalment as per the schedule of the tuition fee for the academic year 2000-2001. Further, it is mentioned in the note here itself that when the petitioner has filed an application for seeking admission in the respondents 1 and 2 University, the candidate and the parent of the student, haw given a declaration undertaking to pay tuition and other fees payable to the institution which reads thus:
I undertake to pay the tuition and other fees payable to the Institution under this rules and abide by the rules and regulations of the institution.
Since such an undertaking has been given by the student and the parent of the student, duly signed by them when the application has been made on 13.6.2000, it is not open for the candidate to come before this court seeking a direction which is contrary to the rules of undertaking given before the authority when they have given the admission. Therefore, I do not find any good grounds to interfere nor the petitioner has made cut any good grounds to consider the prayer sought in view of the well-settled principles of law laid down by this Court. Once a candidate has declared and signed the condition/rules and regulations of the University/college, such a candidate is not entitled to turn down the undertaking and redress the grievance contrary to the existing rules and regulations,
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as stated above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as misconceived.