Swaraj Mohanty vs State Of Odisha And Others

The challenge in the present writ appeal is to an order dated 5th January 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the W.P.(C) No.10294 of 2014 filed by the present Appellant.

The Appellant, who was successfully selected for the 5-year course in Bio-Technology at the Gandhi Institute of Engineering and Technology (GIET), Gunupur in Rayagada (a Government Institution), had applied for Tuition Fee Waiver (TFW) under the TFW Scheme. The Appellant sat for the Orissa Joint Entrance Examination (OJEE), 2013 and got admission in the Bio-Technology discipline in the GIET through counseling. He was admitted in the general category as per the rank obtained by him which was 12107.

Another student, who also secured admission in the GIET, Gunupur through the OJEE, secured a higher rank of 8777 and was allotted a seat under the TFW Scheme. However, as it transpired, the said candidate did not join and accordingly the only other candidate, who had laid a claim to the TFW, was the present Appellant. His argument before the learned Single Judge was precisely this. Once the candidate who got the TFW, did not opt to join the course, the TFW seat fell vacant. The only other person who claimed TFW should be granted the TFW.

The learned Single Judge has, in the impugned judgment, negative this plea observing that merely because the successful candidate who got the TFW seat, declined to take the admission, would not automatically mean that the next eligible person with a lower rank would get the TFW.

It was nobody’s case that and particularly not the State’s, that there was any other competing candidate with a higher rank than the Appellant who was seeking the TFW. From the facts brought on record, it appears that the allocation of a TFW seat is as per merit. Since the other candidate with the rank of 8777 was of a higher merit, that candidate got the TFW seat. However, with the said candidate, who got the TFW declining to take admission, there was absolutely no one else who had claimed the TFW other than the present Appellant who remained as a claimant for the TFW. There should have been, therefore, no difficulty whatsoever in accepting the plea of the Appellant and granting him the TFW.

During the pendency of the writ petition and the present writ appeal, the Appellant successfully completed the course. It is not in dispute that he had paid the fees under protest.

This Court has heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, for the State, for the JEE and the institution in question. There is no satisfactory explanation offered by learned counsel for the State why the claim of the Appellant for TFW should be rejected even after the person who was granted the TFW failed to join the course in question. This Court is unable to agree with the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge that once the person allotted the TFW failed to join the seat, the Appellant, who was the only other candidate in the fray for TFW cannot be granted it. On the other hand, this Court finds that there is no bar whatsoever in the facts and circumstances of the case, to the Appellant getting the benefit of TFW.

For the aforementioned reasons, this Court sets aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, allows the writ appeal and directs that the Appellant would be entitled to the TFW for the entire course which he successfully completed.

The tuition fees paid by the Appellant will be now refunded to him by the State within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which the amount will be paid together with simple interest @ 6% per annum for the period of delay.

The writ appeal is allowed in the above terms but in the circumstances with no order as to costs..

...............................................