Allowed

Vinod.S. & Others v. University of Calicut & Others

Kerala HC29 Jun 2011WP(C)/1178/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court examined whether MBA part-time students admitted in 2008 were entitled to reduced fees after the University retroactively increased charges due to low intake. Distinguishing prior precedent, the Court held that since a subsequent batch with fewer students paid lower fees, the enhancement was unjustified. The Court allowed the writ petition, permitting students to complete the

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to complete the course, liable only for the deficit fees; benefit confined to the semester when 2010 batch paid Rs. 10,000.

Vinod.S. & Others Vs University of Calicut & Others — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 1178 of 2011(V)

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

¶9

VINOD.S,S/O.K.P.SUDHAKARAN NAIR, AGED 28 YEARS,CHITTRAKOTAM HOUSE,PALLIKKAL.P.O, MALAPPURAM-673653.

¶10

NISHE.M.P,'NILA'(KOZHAKKEDATH HOUSE), KUTTIPPURAM.P.O,MALAPPURAM-679571.

¶11

RIYAS.K,PULPARA,KALPATTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶12

NOUSHAD PARI,PARI HOUSE,HAJIYARPALLI.PO, MALAPPURAM-673653.

¶13

PRAMOD POOMANGALATH,POOMANGALATH HIOUSE, I.T.I.ROAD,THANNEER PANTHAL,VENGERI, KOZHIKODE-67610.

¶14

NOUSHADHALI,NALEKKARA HOUSE,IRINGAPPUZHA PUTHUPPADI.P.O,KOZHIKODE.

¶15

MOHAMMED IQUBAL.K.V,THEKKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE,PARAMBIL PEEDIKA.P.O,MALAPPURAM-676315.

¶16

JYOTHI MOHAN.S,ASHOK HOUSE,KOLATHARA.PO, KOZHIKODE-673655.

¶17

MOHAMMED SAJID.T,ECSTASY HOUSE,MANKADA AMSOM,KADANNAMANNA DESOM,PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶18

RANJITH.K,KEDAKKALATHIL HOUSE,NEDUVA.PO, PARAPPANANGADI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶19

C.K.SURESH BABU,PARPIDAM,MARIKUNNU.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673012.

¶20

WP(C).No. 1178 of 2011(V)

¶21

V.V.PRADEEP,KUNNUMMAL HOUSE,EDAKKARA.PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679331.

¶22

BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.MANU

¶23

SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR)

¶24

RESPONDENTS:

¶25

¶26

UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REP;BY ITS REGISTRAR,CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O,THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-673635.

¶27

THE REGISTRAR,CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT,CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O,THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-673635.

¶28

THE FINANCE OFFICER,CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O,THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-673635.

¶29

THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY,CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O, THENHIPALAM,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-673635.

¶30

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT,DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND MANAGEMENT STUDIES,CALICUT UNIVERSITY CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O,THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-673635.

¶31

THE CO-ORDINATOR,M.B.A.PART-TIME PROGRAMME,CALICUT UNIVERSITY STUDY CENTRE, CALICUT-35.

¶32

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. AND BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

WP(C).No. 1178 of 2011(V)

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶38

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER FIXING THE FEE FOR 2010-2011 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶39

/TRUE COPY/

¶40

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶41

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 1178 OF 2011

¶43

......................................................................... Dated this the 29^th June, 2011

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

The petitioners are 'Part-time MBA' students of the first respondent University, who were admitted in the selection process for the year 2008. The tuition fees fixed by the University, for each Semester, as borne by Ext.P1 dated 24.09.2008 was only Rs.10,000/-. However, the petitioners were subsequently directed to remit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for each semester stating that the total number of candidates admitted for the said batch was only '12' and being less than the minimum of 15 candidates. The petitioners remitted the higher amount of Rs.15,000/-, for the last four Semesters. The grievance of the petitioners is that, subsequently, they came to know that the candidates who were given admission in the 2010 batch were required to pay the tuition fee only @ Rs.10,000/- for each Semester irrespective of the fact that there were only 9

¶46

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 1178 OF 2011

¶48

students. It was in the said circumstance, that the petitioners sought to approach the University to get appropriate relief, which did not turn to be fruitful. Hence this writ petition.

¶49

The University has filed a counter affidavit, mainly contending that, at the time of admission, the fee structure payable was increased to Rs.15,000/- per semester for the academic year commencing from 2008 admission onwards, as in the case of MBA Regular students. It is also stated that, in respect of the admissions given to the 2010 batch, the tuition fee was revised as Rs.10,000/- per Semester for the 'MBA Part-time' as well as 'MBA Regular', while there was no change in the tuition fees in respect of the admissions given in the year 2008, as pointed out in paragraph 8 of the affidavit. The University has pointed out that the fee structure has to be decided on the basis of the terms stipulated at the time of admission and as such, the petitioners cannot be heard to say that they are liable to satisfy only Rs.10000/- per Semester as applicable to the students of 2010 batch. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision reported in [(2008) 8 Supreme Court cases 82 ( Cochin

¶50

W.P.(C) No. 1178 OF 2011

¶51

¶52

University of Science & Technology vs. Thomas P. John and others ).

¶53

The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit specifically rebutting the averments contained in the counter affidavit and pointing out that the fee structure of the petitioners' batch as originally stipulated by the University vide Ext. P1 was only Rs.10000/- which fact is not specifically disputed anywhere in the counter affidavit, though it was contended that, the same was subsequently enhanced to Rs.15000/- retrospectively, making the same applicable to the 2008 batch onwards.

¶54

Going by the undisputed pleadings, it remains a fact that the University originally notified the tuition fees as Rs.10,000/per semester, vide Ext.P1 in respect of the academic year 2008 and that the petitioners were made to satisfy the tuition fees at the rate of Rs.15,000/- only subsequently, stating that the total number of candidates joined for the course was only '12', which is less than the minimum of '15'. Quite a contrary stand is taken by the University in respect of the 2010 batch, where the total number of candidates joined for the course was '9'. The only

¶55

¶56

W.P.(C) No. 1178 OF 2011

¶57

explanation that is given from the part of the University is that from 2010 onwards, the course was made open to 'unemployed persons' as well, for the part-time course, which however cannot be a tenable reason for taking a discriminatory stand in the case of the petitioners with reference to the available number of candidates less than the minimum of 15. In other words, the course pursued by the University and the explanation offered do not reconcile with each other. The decision of the Apex Court, cited supra, stands entirely on a different footing, in so far as there is no case for the University that they had not issued Ext.P1 dated 24.09.2008 stipulating the fees payable for the admissions to 2008 batch as Rs. 10000/- per semester. The enhancement ordered subsequently, ie. stipulating a higher fee of Rs. 15000/- per semester, contrary to Ext. P1 memo issued by the University, is not based on any reliable material to sustain the enhancement, when the University has found even in the year that the fees actually realisable was only Rs.10000/- even in respect of such a situation where the number of candidates were less than the minimum of 15.

¶58

¶59

W.P.(C) No. 1178 OF 2011

¶60

In the said circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to

¶61

succeed. The petitioners shall be permitted to complete the course, if they have satisfied the total fees payable in respect of the entire semesters and only the deficit amount shall be sought to be realised from the petitioners . It is made clear that the benefit of this judgment will stand confined to the concerned semester onwards, when the 2010 batch was required to pay Rs.10000/- per semester.

¶62

Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. No cost.

¶63

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶64

Vinod.S. & Others v. University of Calicut & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod.S. & Others v. University of Calicut & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Antony Ben Vs Dr.Nivedita P.Haran & Others

Baby Girija Vs Indira

Pduthukkudi Narayanan Vs Pattathari Kuttiraman

P.v.Vijayakumar Vs Smt.Vijayakumari

Naveen Manomohanan Vs the District Collector,Kannur & Ors.

M/S.Falcon Infrastructures Ltd. Vs Union of India and Others