Colleges and universities issue their own brochures and prospectus. If these contain any condition which is contrary to law or against the directives of the UGC, it would be unenforceable. This ruling has recently been given by the National Commission in a bunch of revision petitions.
Case study:
Several students had secured admission to the B. Tech. course conducted by Shanmuga Arts, Science Technology and Research Academy (SASTRA), which is a Deemed University. The students had also deposited the fees.
Subsequently, some students received calls from other colleges to which they had also applied for admission. They requested SASTRA to return the original certificates, but the college declined to do so. Some of the students even requested the college to cancel their admission and then return their certificates and also refund the fees, but this too was refused. Claiming this to be a deficiency in service, the students filed individual complaints with the help of the Consumer Protection Council, a voluntary consumer organization.
The college did not bother the contest the complaints. The District Forum passed an ex parte order in favour of the students. SASTRA challenged this order, but its appeal to the Tamil Nadu State Commission was dismissed. The college finally approached the National Commission in revision.
M.N. Krishnamani, Senior Advocate, arguing for the college contended that brochure made it clear that refund of fees could be sought only within the cut off period fixed by the college, and no refund could be claimed thereafter. The claim for refund after the cut off date would be against the terms of the contract, and hence the college could not be asked to return the fees. He also argued that the judgement was against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka & Ors.
Mr. Pushpapavanam, the consumer organization's authorized representative, argued that the fees have to be refunded as per the directions of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the University Grants Commission (UGC).
In its order of 13.11.2014 delivered by Justice Ajit Bharihoke along with Member Rekha Gupta, the National Commission observed that the Supreme Court's judgement in Islamic Academy of Education case was inapplicable as it related to collection of the entire course fees in advance, and not to refund of fees.
The National Commission observed that UGC had issued a public notice that institutions and universities were not permitted to forcefully retain student by holding on to the original documents such as Leaving Certificate, mark sheet, caste certificate, etc. A direction had been issued in public interest that institutions and universities must maintain a waiting list of students. When a student withdraws before the starting of the course, the entire fee should be refunded after deduction a processing fee not exceeding Rs.1,000/ . The vacant seat must be offered to the next candidate on the waiting list. If a student withdraws after attending a part of the course, but the college is able to fill up the vacant seat, it must refund the fee after making proportionate deductions towards the monthly fee and hostel rent.
The Commission concluded that instructions of the UGC were binding on SASTRA. The terms stated in the college brochure were unenforceable, being contrary to the UGC directives. The National Commission upheld the Forum's order directing the college to return the original certificates and documents as also refund 50% of the fee in accordance with the UGC directives. The order for compensation and costs was also upheld.
Conclusion:
A college cannot frame its own terms and conditions which are contrary to the UGC instructions. In the case of conflict, the directions of the UGC will be binding.
Case study:
Several students had secured admission to the B. Tech. course conducted by Shanmuga Arts, Science Technology and Research Academy (SASTRA), which is a Deemed University. The students had also deposited the fees.
Subsequently, some students received calls from other colleges to which they had also applied for admission. They requested SASTRA to return the original certificates, but the college declined to do so. Some of the students even requested the college to cancel their admission and then return their certificates and also refund the fees, but this too was refused. Claiming this to be a deficiency in service, the students filed individual complaints with the help of the Consumer Protection Council, a voluntary consumer organization.
The college did not bother the contest the complaints. The District Forum passed an ex parte order in favour of the students. SASTRA challenged this order, but its appeal to the Tamil Nadu State Commission was dismissed. The college finally approached the National Commission in revision.
M.N. Krishnamani, Senior Advocate, arguing for the college contended that brochure made it clear that refund of fees could be sought only within the cut off period fixed by the college, and no refund could be claimed thereafter. The claim for refund after the cut off date would be against the terms of the contract, and hence the college could not be asked to return the fees. He also argued that the judgement was against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka & Ors.
Mr. Pushpapavanam, the consumer organization's authorized representative, argued that the fees have to be refunded as per the directions of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the University Grants Commission (UGC).
In its order of 13.11.2014 delivered by Justice Ajit Bharihoke along with Member Rekha Gupta, the National Commission observed that the Supreme Court's judgement in Islamic Academy of Education case was inapplicable as it related to collection of the entire course fees in advance, and not to refund of fees.
The National Commission observed that UGC had issued a public notice that institutions and universities were not permitted to forcefully retain student by holding on to the original documents such as Leaving Certificate, mark sheet, caste certificate, etc. A direction had been issued in public interest that institutions and universities must maintain a waiting list of students. When a student withdraws before the starting of the course, the entire fee should be refunded after deduction a processing fee not exceeding Rs.1,000/ . The vacant seat must be offered to the next candidate on the waiting list. If a student withdraws after attending a part of the course, but the college is able to fill up the vacant seat, it must refund the fee after making proportionate deductions towards the monthly fee and hostel rent.
The Commission concluded that instructions of the UGC were binding on SASTRA. The terms stated in the college brochure were unenforceable, being contrary to the UGC directives. The National Commission upheld the Forum's order directing the college to return the original certificates and documents as also refund 50% of the fee in accordance with the UGC directives. The order for compensation and costs was also upheld.
Conclusion:
A college cannot frame its own terms and conditions which are contrary to the UGC instructions. In the case of conflict, the directions of the UGC will be binding.
No comments:
Post a Comment