PRINCIPAL, HIMACHAL DENTAL (PRIVATE) COLLEGE vs SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Mandi Camp at Sundernagar, dated 7.1.1999, whereby the appellant-Dental College has been directed to refund to the complainant the tuition fee of Rs. 7,200/- after deducting one month''s tuition fee for which the complainant had studied alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of application for refund of the tuition fee and costs of Rs. 350/-.

THE question that requires consideration in this appeal is whether the tuition fee of Rs. 8,000/- deposited by the respondent-1 (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant) for admission to first year BDS course for the Session 1997-98 in the Dental College (Private), Sundernagar is liable to be refunded to him by the Dental College, Sundernagar consequent upon his joining the Himachal Pradesh Dental College, Shimla on the basis of the letter from the Controller of Examinations, Himachal Pradesh University. The facts which are not in dispute, are that the complainant on the basis of the P.M.T. examination conducted by the Himachal Pradesh University, was selected for admission to Himachal Pradesh Dental College (Private), Sundernagar for admission to the first year of BDS course for the Session 1997-98 and that he deposited tuition fee of Rs. 8,000/- on such admission. Later, on the basis of the letter of the Controller of Examinations, Himachal Pradesh University, the complainant was allotted Himachal Pradesh Dental College, Shimla and consequently, the complainant left the Dental College (Private), Sundernagar after a month and joined Himachal Pradesh Dental College, Shimla, where he was again required to pay the admission fee which, in fact, was paid by him. Consequent upon joining the Himachal Pradesh Dental College, Shimla, the complainant asked for refund of the tuition fee of Rs. 8,000/- which he had deposited with the Himachal Pradesh Dental College, Sundernagar for 12 months, as he had paid fees twice.

The District Forum has relied upon Rule 3.11 of the Himachal Pradesh University Hand Book, Volume-I (The First Ordinances of Himachal Pradesh University, 1973) (as amended upto March, 1993), which may be quoted as under : "Migration : The admission of students migrating from another University or migrating during the same course from one affiliated College or Institution (including the Director of Correspondence Courses) to another affiliated College or institution (including the Directorate of Correspondence Courses) shall be governed by the Regulations framed by the Executive Council in this behalf from time to time : Provided that such a student shall not be required to pay tuition or other fees for any month more than once."

In view of this provision, the District Forum treating the case of the complainant a case of migration, asked the Dental College, Sundernagar to refund the amount of Rs. 7,200/- after deducting one month''s tuition fee, as the complainant had studied in that College for a month or so, as he is not required to pay the tuition fees twice.

WE are afraid the reliance on Rule 3.11 aforementioned by the District Forum is misplaced. As a matter of fact, with a view to determine the point of controversy between the parties, we impleaded the Himachal Pradesh University vide our order dated 10.8.1999, as we wanted to know whether any rule, regulation has been enacted by the Himachal Pradesh University to provide for situation like the present one. The Controller of Examinations vide his note dated 6.9.1999 which has been placed on the file, has clarified that in case of Medical and Dental Colleges, inter-college migration is not allowed during the first professional. It is done on passing the first professional examination which requires approval of the Medical Council of India / Dental Council of India and consent of both the Colleges. However, according to the University, there is no rule and regulation about the refund of fees and that the matter has to be sorted out for refund of the amount between the candidate and the College. The case of the complainant is obviously not covered under Rule 3.11 aforementioned, as it is not a case of migration, as the migration is not allowed during the first professional and the procedure as stated by the University has not been followed. At this stage, we may also refer to the Combined Prospectus for Graduate (M.B.B.S./ B.D.S.) Courses in Himachal Pradesh for the Session 1998-99. The University conducts entrance test for admission to aforementioned Courses in accordance with the conditions contained in the Prospectus, which are approved by the State Government.

IT is settled position that the candidates who seek admission in terms of this prospectus, they are bound by the terms and conditions contained therein. Part-VIII of the Prospectus aforementioned deals with the case of migration, which provides as follows : "VII. Migration. The interested student may refer the rules of the Himachal Pradesh University and the rules laid down by the Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India, from time to time. Only those students can seek migration, who fulfil other eligibility conditions of the Himachal Pradesh University/M.C.I./D.C.I. Bona fide Himachal Students will be given preference for migration from other Medical Institution to I.G.M.C. / Dr. R.P.G.M.C H.P. Government Dental College, Shimla."

It is not the case of the complainant that he has sought migration in accordance with the rules of the Himachal Pradesh University and the rules laid down by the Medical Council of India/Dental Council of India. On the other hand, the case set out by the complainant is that he has joined the Himachal Pradesh Dental College, Shimla on the letter issued by the Controller of Examinations, Himachal Pradesh University. In such a situation, Rule 3.11 of migration relied upon by the District Forum is wholly inapplicable in the present case. The question that still requires to be considered is as to whether the candidate is entitled to refund of the tuition fee of Rs. 8,000/- deposited by him in Dental College (Private), Sundernagar for admission to first professional B.D.S. course. The answer to this question can clearly be found and spelt out from Clause-4 under heading ''Fees and Subscriptions'' of Part-IX if the Prospectus, which may be quoted as under : "Fees once paid shall not be refunded in the case of students who are prevented by illness or for other reasons beyond their control from attending the College in the year for which they paid usual fees, the Principal may direct that the whole or part of the amount of fees shall not be again paid for the year in which such students joined the College."

IT is apparent from this clause that the fees once paid shall not be refunded. Other situations under which whole or part of the amount of fees can be directed not to be paid again by the Principal, are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. In view of this clear position, the fees of Rs. 8,000/- paid by the complainant to the Principal, Dental College (Private), Sundernagar cannot be refunded. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the Prospectus, as stated above, and cannot be permitted to complain that he is entitled to refund of the amount. The findings of the District Forum is wholly erroneous and against the law and requires to be set aside.

IN the light of what is discussed above, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint consequently is dismissed. There is no order as to costs, in the appeal. Appeal allowed.