CHENNAI: The Madurai bench of the Madras high court has ruled that a direction to a university to make a fee refund to students who leave courses midway is tantamount to "abuse of the process of law", setting aside an order of a district forum to SASTRA University to refund the fees of three students who left the institution to secure admission elsewhere.
The bench heard that SASTRA University admitted V Srinivasa Rao, S Venkataraman and K Ramesh to the BTech course in electronics and communication engineering (ECE) stream in June 2010 and July 2010 and they paid Rs 52,000 each as initial fee. When they reached the second year of the course, they wanted to join another institution and asked for transfer certificates.
According to the admission rules, the university issued the students transfer certificates and returned to them their original documents after they each paid around Rs 1.77 lakh as balance fee for the entire course. The students then approached the Consumer Protection Council to seek a fee refund, and the council moved the district consumer disputes redressal forum, Thanjavur.
In its order, the forum directed the university to refund each student Rs 1.77 lakh.
SASTRA moved the Madras high court against the order. The students' counsel said collection of the entire fee amount was illegal and against rulings by the Supreme Court, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as well as stipulations of the University Grant Commission. In its counter, the university said the forum did not have the jurisdiction to try the case.
Citing verdicts by various high courts, Justice K B K Vasuki said if a student withdraws admission after commencement of classes and the seat remained vacant, the terms agreed at the time of admission would be binding. The SASTRA prospectus said it would not refund fees paid, so the university committed no illegality in refusing to refund the fees. The terms of agreement at the time of admission would prevail over any guidelines of the UGC or the All India Council of Technical Education, the judge said.
In a public notice dated April 23, 2007, UGC said a student who leaves a course midway is entitled to a fee refund only if another candidate fills the seat.
Rulings of high courts and the apex court also said institutes could collect the entire fee for a course in advance.
The students submitted verdicts of consumer commissions to bolster their case, but the judge said they could not cite the verdicts because only high court and Supreme Court orders are binding precedents.
"The grievance raised by students does not make a prima facie case to subject the university to the ordeal of trial," the judge said, adding that if a court allowed legally and factually unsustainable complaints it would cause "serious prejudice" to the university.
The bench heard that SASTRA University admitted V Srinivasa Rao, S Venkataraman and K Ramesh to the BTech course in electronics and communication engineering (ECE) stream in June 2010 and July 2010 and they paid Rs 52,000 each as initial fee. When they reached the second year of the course, they wanted to join another institution and asked for transfer certificates.
According to the admission rules, the university issued the students transfer certificates and returned to them their original documents after they each paid around Rs 1.77 lakh as balance fee for the entire course. The students then approached the Consumer Protection Council to seek a fee refund, and the council moved the district consumer disputes redressal forum, Thanjavur.
In its order, the forum directed the university to refund each student Rs 1.77 lakh.
SASTRA moved the Madras high court against the order. The students' counsel said collection of the entire fee amount was illegal and against rulings by the Supreme Court, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as well as stipulations of the University Grant Commission. In its counter, the university said the forum did not have the jurisdiction to try the case.
Citing verdicts by various high courts, Justice K B K Vasuki said if a student withdraws admission after commencement of classes and the seat remained vacant, the terms agreed at the time of admission would be binding. The SASTRA prospectus said it would not refund fees paid, so the university committed no illegality in refusing to refund the fees. The terms of agreement at the time of admission would prevail over any guidelines of the UGC or the All India Council of Technical Education, the judge said.
In a public notice dated April 23, 2007, UGC said a student who leaves a course midway is entitled to a fee refund only if another candidate fills the seat.
Rulings of high courts and the apex court also said institutes could collect the entire fee for a course in advance.
The students submitted verdicts of consumer commissions to bolster their case, but the judge said they could not cite the verdicts because only high court and Supreme Court orders are binding precedents.
"The grievance raised by students does not make a prima facie case to subject the university to the ordeal of trial," the judge said, adding that if a court allowed legally and factually unsustainable complaints it would cause "serious prejudice" to the university.
No comments:
Post a Comment