Miss. Raveena Vs. Shri Lakshmi Narayan Ayurvedic College and anr. - Court Judgment

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.

1. The petitioner was admitted to the course lending to the degree of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery in the year 1996. One Miss Shiksha who had secured higher merit than the petitioner in the entrance test had been admitted against a non-payment seat. Miss Shiksha left the course. The petitioner who had been admitted against a payment seat, represented that she be adjusted against the non-payment seat and that the fee paid by her be refunded. The claim was considered by the Respondent-College as well as the University. It having been rejected, the petitioner prays that the orders dated October 22, 1996, December 11, 1996 and April 10, 1997 copies of which have been produced as Annexures P. 5, P, 7 and P. 14, be set aside. She further prays that the petitioner be adjusted against the non-payment seat and the fee already paid by her be refunded.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father is a school teacher. He has many liabilities. One of the non-payment seats having fallen vacant, the petitioner who was first amongst the candidates admitted against the payment seats, had a right to be adjusted against the vacant scat. Is it so?

3. According to the learned counsel, there were a total of 50 seats. Out of these, 25 seats were filled-up on the basis of merit by candidates who were not required to pay any fee. These candidates were admittedly higher than the petitioner in order of merit (except those who had been admitted against the reserved seats). The petitioner was admitted against the payment seat. It was also admitted by the learned counsel that the scat which had been vacated by Miss Shiksha had not been filled-up by the Institute. Resultantly, the seat continues to remain vacant. If the petitioner is adjusted against this scat and the fee is refunded, the Institution would suffer an undeserved financial loss. This, if permitted, would lead to avoidable hardship and injustice. To illustrate: 10 of the candidates who have been admitted against the non-payment seats may leave the course in the mid session. If the candidates who have been admitted against the payment seats are ordered to be adjusted, the fees paid by them will have to be refunded. The College shall not be able to admit other candidates at the late stage as they would not be able to complete the requisite course of study and the number of lectures. Resultantly, the College will have to refund the money without being able to recover it from any one. This may make the functioning of the college virtually impossible. It can lead to gross injustice. Still further, it appears that the institution has a right to charge fees from 25 candidates. It has done only that. It has not charged fees from more than the permissible number of candidates. The seat which had fallen vacant from amongst the non-payment candidates remains unfilled. If a new candidate had been admitted and fee had been charged from him/her, the petitioner may have been entitled to contend that the Institution has charged fee from 26 candidates. It was not entitled to do so. However, nothing of the sort has happened. In this situation, if the petitioner's claim is accepted, the College shall have to adjust her against a non-payment seat. It will have to refund the fee paid by her. The College shall, however, not be able to admit any one against the seat vacated by the petitioner. The result would be that the petitioner shall be unduly enriched at the expense of the College. This would not be just or fair.

4. In view of the above, the petitioner's claim for refund of fee cannot be sustained. The writ petition is without any merit. It is, consequently, dismissed in limine. No costs.