AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
Petitioners were students admitted for the Five Year Integrated BBA LL.B. (Hons.) Course in the first respondent college, a private law college (the College), in the academic year 2016-17. At the relevant time, going by the executive orders, 50% of the seats in private law colleges were to be filled up with candidates allotted by the Government through its centralized allotment process and the remaining 50% seats by the management. Some of the petitioners in the writ petition are candidates who have secured admission through the centralized allotment process (merit quota) and the rest are candidates admitted by the College directly (management quota). Ext.R1(E) is the prospectus for admission issued by the competent authority for centralized allotment of seats for the year 2016-17. Clause 21 of Ext.R1(E) provides that fees for the Course will be as notified by the Government from time to time. The fees payable by the candidates securing admission under the management quota have been specified in the prospectus published by the college for admission in the year 2016-17. Ext.P1 is the relevant page of the prospectus dealing with the fees structure of the students admitted against management quota. In terms of Ext.P1, the tuition fee payable is Rs.25,000/- per year. In addition, Ext.P1 provides that the students shall have to pay a sum of Rs.74,100/-towards miscellaneous fees under the heads like admission fee, affiliation fee, library fee, caution deposit etc. for the first year of the course. The miscellaneous fees specified for the first year of the course, however, are not prescribed in the prospectus for the second, third, fourth and fifth years. As far as candidates admitted for the course under merit quota in the academic year 2016-17 are concerned, it is stated that all of them have been issued communications by the College at the time of admission informing them the particulars of the fees payable by them. Ext.P2 is the communication issued by the College to one of such candidates. In terms of Ext.P2 communication, the tuition fee payable is Rs.15,000/- per year. In addition, Ext.P2 provides that the students shall have to pay a sum of Rs.69,100/- towards miscellaneous fees. Miscellaneous fees are not prescribed in Ext.P2 communication also for the second, third, fourth and fifth year of the course.
According to the petitioners, the tuition fees and miscellaneous fees are payable by them only in terms of Exts.P1 and P2. It is stated by them that nevertheless, the college has called upon them to pay, in addition to the tuition fees, miscellaneous fees as well for the subsequent years also. Even though the petitioners preferred complaints against the said demand to the University and also to the University Grants Commission, there was no response. Consequently, it is stated that some of the students had to pay the disputed miscellaneous fees for the year 2017-18 and 2018-19 also, for otherwise, they would not have been permitted to undertake the university examination of those years. The writ petition was instituted in the above background on 11.04.2019 seeking directions to the College to refrain from collecting miscellaneous fees from the petitioners otherwise than in accordance with Exts.P1 and P2.
The petitioners have not disputed their liability to pay tuition fees or miscellaneous fees for the first year of the course. The dispute in the writ petition pertains only to the liability of the petitioners to pay miscellaneous fees for the second, third, fourth and the fifth years of their Course. The case set out by the petitioners in the writ petition is that in the absence of any prescription in the prospectus and in Ext.P2 communication addressed to the students by the College, the College is precluded from collecting miscellaneous fees from them for the second, third, fourth and the fifth years of the Course.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the College stating that the tuition fees and miscellaneous fees payable by the students admitted in private law colleges for the integrated BBA LL.B. Course are being fixed by the Government right from the very inception and that the College is only insisting payment of the tuition fees and miscellaneous fees in terms of the fixation made by the Government. According to the College, the petitioners are bound to pay tuition fees and miscellaneous fee as has been fixed by the Government.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the College as also the learned Government Pleader.
The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the stand of the petitioners in the writ petition that the College is precluded from collecting miscellaneous fees from the students who are admitted both under the merit and management quota, otherwise than in accordance with Exts.P1 and P2. To bring home the said point, the learned counsel has relied on various decisions rendered by the Constitutional Courts to the effect that the prospectus issued by a college for admission to a course has the force of law and it is not open to alteration. The learned counsel has also relied on various decisions dealing with the concept of legitimate expectation and the doctrine of promissory estoppel to fortify the stand that the College is precluded from collecting miscellaneous fees otherwise than in accordance with Exts.P1 and P2. The learned counsel has also brought to our notice the various regulations issued by the University Grants Commission which mandate that the fees payable for the various courses shall be prescribed by the Universities and colleges in the prospectus and the fees other than what is prescribed in the prospectus shall not be collected by the Universities and colleges concerned. The learned counsel has also brought to our notice the various decisions of the Apex Court which reiterated the position that regulations issued by the University Grants Commission are binding on the Universities and colleges.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the College maintained that tuition fees and miscellaneous fees of the students admitted to private law colleges in the State under the merit quota as also the management quota are being fixed by the Government, and students admitted for various courses are bound to pay the said fees. According to the learned counsel, the College has demanded only the miscellaneous fees from the petitioners as has been fixed by the Government and the petitioners are bound to pay the same. It was pointed out that the miscellaneous fees demanded by the College from the petitioners is miscellaneous fees prescribed by the Government in terms of Ext.P9 order and Ext.R1(A) order.
The learned counsel for the petitioners disputed the stand taken by the learned counsel for the College that the tuition fee and miscellaneous fees payable by the students admitted in private law colleges against the merit and management quota are being fixed by the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that Exts.P9 and R1(A) orders pertain only to the fees for the students admitted to the Course in the year 2014-15 and it cannot be applied to the petitioners who are admitted for the Course in the year 2016-17.
Since the petitioners disputed the correctness of the stand taken by the College that the fees payable by the students admitted for the Course both under the merit quota as also the management quota are being fixed by the Government, in an earlier occasion when the matter came up for hearing, we have required the learned Government Pleader to ascertain the correctness of the same and furnish the particulars of such fixation insofar as it relates to the students who have been admitted for the Course in the academic year 2016-17, if the statement is correct.
In response to the said direction, the learned Government Pleader submitted, on instructions, that the stand of the College that the fees payable by the students admitted for the Course, both under the merit quota as also the management quota are being fixed by the Government from time to time is correct. It was also pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that self financing colleges were started in the State the academic year 2012-13 and right from the said year, there was centralised allotment of candidates to be admitted against the merit quota and fees for the said candidates have been fixed from the academic year 2013-14 onwards. It was pointed out that Ext.P9 is the order issued by the Government fixing the fees for the first and second year of the Course and Ext.R1(A) is the order issued by the Government fixing the fees for the third, fourth and fifth year of the Course. It was also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that Exts.P9 and R1(A) orders were intended to be in force until varied by the Government and the same would apply not only for the candidates admitted for the Course in the academic year 2013-14, but also for those who were admitted in the succeeding academic years. It was also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that Exts.P9 and R1(A) orders have not been varied by the Government and the same would, therefore, apply to the petitioners as well who were admitted for the Course in the year 2016-17.
We have examined the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the College in the light of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader.
Even though it was asserted initially by the learned counsel for the College that the candidates to be given admission under the management quota in private law colleges in the State are also being allotted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, later, after obtaining instructions, it was conceded by the learned counsel that the students among the petitioners who were admitted against the management quota in the academic year 2016-17 were not allotted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations and they are candidates admitted by the College directly.
Clause 21 of Ext.R1(E) prospectus categorically provides that the fee for the Course will be notified by the Government from time to time. In other words, those among the petitioners who secured admission for the Course based on applications submitted pursuant to Ext.R1(E) prospectus are bound by the terms of the prospectus and are therefore, liable to pay fees as fixed by the Government. The petitioners do not have a case that fixation of fees has not been made by the Government at all for students admitted against merit quota in private law colleges. They admit that fixation of fees has been made by the Government in terms of Ext.P9 and Ext.R1(A) orders. But according to them, the said fixations would apply only to the candidates admitted for the course in the year 2013-14 and therefore, even the students admitted under the merit quota are liable to pay only the fees as notified to them by the College in terms of Ext.P2 communication. As noted, it is also their case that insofar as miscellaneous fees is not prescribed in Ext.P2 communication for the second, third, fourth and fifth years of their Course, the College is precluded from demanding the same from them. We are unable to accept the said stand of the petitioners. Insofar as Ext.R1(E) prospectus provides categorically that fees for the Course will be as notified by the Government from time to time, those among the petitioners who have secured admission under the merit quota pursuant to Ext.R1(E) prospectus are liable to pay the fees as fixed by the Government, and they cannot take shelter under any communication issued by the College without authority.
Now let us examine the question as to whether the Government has fixed the fees payable by the candidates admitted for the Course for the year 2016-17. Ext.P9 order of the Government reads thus:
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Abstract
Higher Education Department- Self Financing Law Colleges- Fee
structure for Integrated Five year LLB & Three year LLB courses for the
academic year 2013-14- Approved - Orders issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIGHER EDUCATION (C) DEPARTMENT
G.O.(Ms.) No:630/2013/H.Edn Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 28.09.2013
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Read:-1.Letter No. 1148/5LLB/2013/TA2/CEE dated 26/9/2013 from
the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2.Representation received from the Secretary, Kerala Unaided Law College Management Association.
3.Order No.FRC 222 / 2013 / LLB dated 09-09-2013 of the Fee Regulatory Committee for Professional Colleges, Kerala.
ORDER
The Fee Regulatory Committee for Professional Colleges, Kerala as per the Order read above have fixed the fee structure for the first and second year of integrated Five year LLB & Three year LLB courses for the academic year 2013-14 in the Self Financing Law Colleges in the State.
Government have considered the same and are pleased to approve the fee structure for the first and second year of Integrated Five year LLB & Three year LLB courses for the academic year 2013-14 against Government & Merit seats in Self Financing Law Colleges in the State as appended to this order as Annexure.
(By order of the Governor )
Ajikumaran S
Additional Secretary to Government
It is evident from the extracted order that the same was issued pursuant to a request made by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations on 26.09.2013. The said request which was made available by the learned Government Pleader reads thus:
To
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Higher Education (C) Department
Government Secretariat
Thiruvananthapuram
Sir,
Sub: Admission to Integrated 5 Year LLB Course 2013 - fee structure for government merit seats in private self financing law colleges requested - 2nd reminder - reg:
Ref: 1) G.O (Rt) No. 1074/2013/H.Edn dated 06.06.2013. 2) This office letter of even No.dated 23.07.2013 and
19.08.2013.
Kind attention is invited to the reference 2nd cited, wherein this office had requested Government for the fee structure applicable to Government merit seats in Integrated 5 Year LLB Course in private self-financing law colleges for the year 2013-14. However, the same is still awaited from Government.
Although the Integrated 5 Year LLB Entrance Examination was conducted on 14.07.2013, we have not been able to proceed with the Centralised Allotment Process (CAP) even after the lapse of more than two months due to want of the above fee structure. In the above circumstances, it is requested that the fee structure for LL.B Courses may kindly be communicated to this office as early as possible.
Yours faithfully,
Commissioner for Entrance Examinations.
Insofar as the petitioners do not dispute the fact that centralised allotment of seats for the Course started only in the year 2013-14, it is explicit from a reading of Ext.P9 order in the light of the request on the basis of which the same was issued that even though there is a reference to the year 2013-14 in Ext.P9 order, the same was intended to be applied until varied by the Government. Ext.P9 order prescribes not only the fees payable by the candidates admitted against the merit quota but also the fees payable by the candidates admitted against the management quota. Ext.R1(A) reads thus:
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Abstract
Higher Education Department - Self Financing Law Colleges Fee
structure for Integrated LLB five Year & three Year Courses for the
Academic Year 2015-16 - Approved - Orders Issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIGHER EDUCATION (C) DEPARTMENT
G.O. (Rt.) No: 686/2015/H.Edn Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 31.03.2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read:- 1. G.O.(Ms) No. 630/2013/H.Edn dated 28.9.2013.
Letter No. FRC 50/14/LLB dated 28.1.2015 from the Fee Regulatory committee for Professional Colleges, Kerala.
ORDER
The Fee Regulatory Committee for Professional Colleges has fixed the fee structure for the 3rd year of 3 Year LLB and 3rd, 4th and 5th Year of Integrated Five Year for the the Academic Year 2015-16 in the Self Financing Law Colleges in the State.
Government have considered the same and are pleased to approve the fee structure for the 3rd year of 3 Year LLB and 3rd, 4th and 5th Year of Integrated Five Year LLB against Government and Merit seats in the Self Financing Law Colleges in the State as appended to this Order as Annexure.
(By order of the Governor)
Ajikumaran S
Special Secretary
Even though the said order refers to the academic year 2015-16, a reading of same in the background of Ext.P9 order which is referred to therein would show that the same is one issued in continuation to Ext.P9 order fixing the fees payable by the candidates admitted for the Course for their third, fourth and fifth years of the Course. Like Ext.P9 order, Ext.R1(A) also takes within its scope not only the tuition fees payable by the candidates but also the miscellaneous fees payable them. As noted, the contention of the petitioners is that Ext.P9 and Ext.R1(A) are fixations made for the candidates admitted for the course in the academic year 2013-14 and no fixation has been made by the Government for the candidates admitted for the Course in the academic year 2016-17. In the absence of any stipulation in the prospectus that the Government would fix separate fees for every year, according to us, the fixation made once will apply prospectively until varied by the Government, especially when the stipulation in Ext.R1(E) prospectus is only that the fee for the course will be notified by the Government from time to time. As a matter of fact, this aspect has been clarified by the Government later in its Ext.P11 order which reads thus:
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Abstract
Higher Education Department - Government Self Financing Law
Colleges - Fee structure for 3 year LL.B and Integrated 5 year Courses
2016-17-approved - Orders issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIGHER EDUCATION (C) DEPARTMENT
G.O. (Rt)No.1997/2016/H.Edn Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 29.07.2016
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read: 1. GO(Rt)No.577/2013/H.Edn. Dated 17.08.2013.
GO (Rt) No. 630/2013/H.Edn dated 28.09.2013.
Letter No.CEE/1128/2016/5LL.B/TA2dated 26.05.2016 from
the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Thiruvananthapuram.
ORDER
As per letter read in 3rd paper above, the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations has requested to intimate the fees applicable for the Government Law Colleges and Government merit seats in Private Self Financing Law Colleges.
Government have examined the matter in detail and are pleased to order to follow the fee structure approved as per the Government Orders read above for the 3 year LL.B and Integrated 5 year courses 2016-17 in Government Law Colleges and also for first and second years of Integrated five year & three year LL.B Courses in Government Colleges and merit seats in other Self Financing Colleges for the academic year 2016-17.
(By Order of the Governor),
JIGI C. DOMINIC
UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
It is seen that the order aforesaid was one issued before the allotment of candidates for admission in the academic year 2016-17 on a request made by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations on 26.05.2016 to intimate the fees applicable to the candidates. The said letter reads thus:
No. CEE/1128/2016/5LL.B/TA2 Dated 26.05.2016
The Principal Secretary to Government
Higher Education (C) Department
Government Secretariat
Thiruvananthapuram
Sir,
Sub:-CEE- Admission to Integrated 5 year LL.B & 3 year LL.B Courses 2016-17-fixation of Fees Structure-reg.
Ref:
1.GO(MS)No.577/2013/H.Edn dated:17.08.2013.
2.GO(MS)No.630/2013/H.Edn dated:28.09.2013.
3.Minitues of the Revamp Committee Meeting held on 09.05.2016
in the chamber of Principal Secretary Higher Education.
Kind attention is invited to the references cited above. The Government have fixed the fee structure for Integrated 5 year LL.B course and 3 year LL.B course in Government Law colleges and that in Self Financing Law colleges as per references (1) & (2) respectively. The same was followed up to the year 2015-16. Decisions have been taken in the meeting of the Prospectus Revamp Committee held on 09.05.2016 to include the details of fee in the prospectus. Hence I request you to kindly fix the fee structure for the above courses for the year 2016-17 and to intimate the same so as to enable this office to include it in the Prospectus for the year 2016-17.
Yours faithfully
Commissioner for Entrance Examinations
It is clarified by the Government in Ext.P11 order that Exts.P9 and R1(A) orders would govern the fees insofar as it relates to the candidates admitted for the Course in the year 2016-17 as well. It is thus clear that the students among the petitioners who have secured admission against merit quota are liable to pay the miscellaneous fees in terms of Exts.P9 and R1(A) orders.
Let us now deal with the obligation of the students among the petitioners who have secured admission in the year 2016-17 against management quota to pay the miscellaneous fees demanded by the College in terms of Ext.P9 and Ext.R1(A) orders. As conceded by the learned counsel for the College, students among the petitioners who were admitted against management quota are not students allotted to the College through the centralised allotment process by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations. They are admitted directly by the College. Ext.P1 is the relevant page of the prospectus dealing with the fees payable by them. As noted, there is no dispute as to the tuition fees payable by them. All of them have paid the tuition fees payable in terms of Ext.P1. There is also no dispute as to the miscellaneous fees payable by them for the first year of the Course. All of them have paid the miscellaneous fees payable for the first year of the Course in terms of Ext.P1. As indicated, the dispute pertains only to the liability of the petitioners to pay the miscellaneous fees for the second, third, fourth and fifth year of the Course. Admittedly, Ext.P1 does not provide miscellaneous fees payable by them for the second, third, fourth and fifth year of the Course. In Ext.P1 table, the columns intended for indicating the miscellaneous fees payable by the students for the second, third, fourth and fifth years are left blank. The pointed question, in the circumstances, is whether the College could demand miscellaneous fees legitimately from the students admitted against the management quota for the second, third, fourth and fifth years of the Course fixed by the Government in terms of Exts.P9 and R1(A) orders. Insofar as the students among the petitioners who have secured admission for the course under the management quota are not candidates allotted for admission by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, they are not bound by the prescription in Ext.R1(E) prospectus issued by the Commissioner. They are, in the circumstances, only bound by the prospectus. It is trite that the prospectus issued for admission to a course has the force of law and the same is not open to alteration. Ext.P1 is only the relevant page of the prospectus. On a query from the Court, the learned counsel for the College conceded that there is no provision in the prospectus issued for admission to the academic year 2016-17 of which Ext.P1 is a part to the effect that the students are bound to pay miscellaneous fees as fixed by the Government. In the absence of such a provision in the prospectus, we are of the view that the miscellaneous fees payable by the students admitted for the Course as fixed by the Government cannot be enforced against those students who have secured admission under the management quota, for the students and their parents would go only by the prospectus to ascertain the fees payable for the Course. It is all the more so since the possibility of the College waiving the miscellaneous fees for the students admitted under the management quota from whom a higher tuition fee is collected, cannot be ruled out. In other words, the management is not entitled to enforce the prescriptions in Exts.P9 and R1(A) orders against those among the petitioners who have secured admission for the Course in the academic year 2016-17 under the management quota.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part, directing the College to refrain from enforcing Ext.P9 and R1(A) orders against those among the petitioners who have secured admission under the management quota in the academic year 2016-17 as far as the miscellaneous fees prescribed therein for the second, third, fourth and fifth years of their Course are concerned. If the said fees have been collected by the College from any of them, the same shall be refunded to them.