The University of Calicut vs Sini Stanley C.

Antony Dominic, J.—The former Writ Appeal is filed by the 4th respondent and the latter appeal is filed by respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. (C) No. 214 of 2008 which was filed by the 1st respondent in these appeals. By judgment dated 07/02/2011, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and therefore these appeals are filed.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the 1st respondent herein joined for the P.G. course in Plantation Development during the academic year 2005-07, at the Centre for Plantation Development Studies Department of Botany of the Calicut University, a self financing college. At the time of joining the course, she remitted an amount of 13,500/-. However, on account of financial constraints she could not pay the balance amount and therefore the University withheld her results.

It is her case that, on joining the course she had applied for the benefit of Ext. P1 scheme and that by Ext. P6, the UGC had allowed monthly scholarship of 2,000/-. According to her, she being a single girl child eligible for the benefit of the scheme, was not liable to pay amount towards fee for the course and was entitled to be refunded the amount already paid by her.

In the Writ Petition the learned Single Judge found that as per Ext. P1, the liability to pay the tuition fee is that of the UGC and that the UGC shall reimburse the amount to the University. It was also held that the University is liable to refund 13,500/- to the 1st respondent and that the university shall forthwith declare the result of the 1st respondent. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.

We heard the learned counsel for the respective appellants and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/petitioner.

Ext. P1 is the scheme relied on by the 1st respondent, the existence or the terms of which is not disputed either by the university or by the UGC. A reading of the scheme shows that the nature of the assistance available under the scheme includes the payment of 2,000/- per month for a period of 2 years and it also provides that the institutions are expected not to collect tuition fee from single girl student who is pursuing P.G. course. Nobody has a case that the 1st respondent is not a single girl student and in fact her entitlement for benefit of the scheme has been accepted by the UGC by Ext. P6 order. In such circumstances the university could not have collected the tuition fee from the student and should either bear the liability by itself or should take up the matter with the UGC and realise the amount. Therefore both collection of the tuition fee from her and also withholding the result for non-payment of the fee for the subsequent periods, cannot be justified.

The university contends that it has no liability to bear the liability of tuition fee under the scheme or to reimburse the fee paid by the student and that it was not bound by the scheme to that extent. As we have already seen, the UGC has implemented the scheme and it is therefore either for the UGC to pay the fee or to ensure that the colleges which are bound by the scheme, duly implement the scheme. Therefore, if the university has such contentions, that necessarily should be taken up with the UGC and thus either bear the amount by itself or get it reimbursed by the UGC. Such a controversy between the UGC and the university cannot in any manner affect the studies of the 1st respondent or in declaring her results, nor can this affect her entitlement to get the amount collected from her reimbursed to her.

In such circumstances, we dispose of these appeals with the following directions:-

That the university shall as directed by the learned Single Judge, if not already done, declare the result of the 1st respondent and release the certificates and also shall refund the amount collected from her forthwith.

It would be open to the university to urge its claim for reimbursement of the amount with the UGC and the UGC shall deal with the claim of university in terms of Ext. P1 scheme and the guidelines issued thereunder.

The judgment of the learned Single Judge will stand modified to the above extent.

The Writ Appeals are disposed of as above.