AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Ramasubramanian, J.—The petitioners, who joined the first year of the MBBS course during the academic year 2014-15 in the Annamalai University, which is the second respondent herein, have come up with the above writ petitions seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Annamalai University to return all their certificates, to enable them to join the respective third respondent colleges, which are self financing medical colleges.
Heard Mr. K.S.Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P. Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 4 and Mr. R.Sureshkumar, learned counsel for the second respondent.
Tagore Medical College, which is the third respondent in two writ petitions and Chennai Medical College, which is the third respondent in four writ petitions, have been served with notices. But, they have not entered appearance. In any case, they have no dispute, since they welcomed the petitioners.
There are no disputes on facts. All the petitioners were admitted to the first year of the MBBS degree course in the second respondent University for the academic year 2014-15 and they have started undergoing the course. Subsequently, by virtue of the orders passed by the Supreme Court, two self financing medical colleges namely Tagore Medical College and Chennai Medical College, Trichy, appear to have admitted students. The petitioners have joined these two colleges for the first year of the course. But, all their original testimonials and certificates are now lying with the Annamalai University. Therefore, they have come up with the above writ petitions.
On principle, the Annamalai University has no objection to the return of the testimonials, subject to the petitioners fulfilling the conditions prescribed in the prospectus for the year 2014-15. The conditions, which the University insists for the petitioners to fulfill, are in Clause 12(iii) and Clause (4) of the agreement bond indicated in Annexure II to the prospectus.
First, let me take Clause 12(iii) of the prospectus. It reads as follows:
"The tuition fee shall not be refunded if a candidate discontinues in the middle of the programme and resultant vacancy is not filled up."
Apart from seeking return of the original documents, the petitioners are also seeking refund of the annual fees.
But, I do not want to get into the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioners to seek refund. This is due to the fact that Clause (4) of the agreement bond as per Annexure II imposes another obligation. The answer that I would propose to give in response to the condition in Annexure II may equally apply to the claim made by the petitioners for refund of tuition fees. Clause (4) of the agreement bond as per Annexure II reads as follows :
"Candidates who discontinue the course between 25th September and 29th September 2014 are bound by the bond and thereby they shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as penalty for having breached the contract in the bond and the candidates who discontinue the course on or after 30th September 2014 and in any date of the subsequent years shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) as penalty in addition to forfeiture of tuition fees as stated in item No. 12 of the prospectus."
Keeping aside the question of entitlement of the petitioners to the imposition of such a condition, it should be pointed out that certificates belonging to students, cannot be retained as a security by the universities or colleges. I had an occasion to consider a similar issue in W.P.(MD) No. 14394 of 2012 on the file of the Madurai Bench. By the order passed therein on 18.12.2012, I have held that certificates cannot be retained as a bait by the universities. Therefore, on the entitlement of the petitioners to the first part of the prayer, there cannot be any dispute. The petitioners are entitled to take back their certificates, as the certificates belong to them and no security is created on such a property.
But, in so far as the entitlement of the petitioners to the refund of tuition fees and the entitlement of the second respondent to claim the amount as per the agreement bond are concerned, there are disputes. These disputes have to be resolved independently in appropriate proceedings taken by both parties.
Therefore, reserving rights of both parties including monetary aspect, the writ petitions are allowed to a limited extent directing the University to return the certificates. No costs. Consequently, the above MPs are closed.