Allowed

Harsimranjit Singh Bhatia etc. v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Nov 2012CWP/16416/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, Dental students admitted to MDS courses, challenged the University's demand for a registration fee. The Court held that since the Government did not authorize the fee and it was unfair to charge it from already registered students, the fee demand decision was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The decision of the University to charge the registration fee was quashed. Petitioners were directed to be registered without insisting on the fees.

Harsimranjit Singh Bhatia etc. Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16416 OF 2010 :{ 1 }:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 17, 2012

¶4

Dr. Harsimranjit Singh Bhatia and others

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶10

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present: Mr. M. K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. (in CWP No.16416 of 2010)

¶14

Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. (in CWP No.22488 of 2011)

¶15

Mr. Sukhdip Singh Brar, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State.

¶16

Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate for Mr. K. S. Dadwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶17

¶18

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶19

This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.16416 of

¶20

2010 (Dr.Harsimranjit Singh Bhatia and others Vs. State of

¶21

Punjab and others) and 22488 of 2011 ( Dr.Rupinder Bansal Vs.

¶22

State of Punjab and others) . For disposal of these writ petitions, the

¶23

facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.16416 of 2010.

¶24

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16416 OF 2010 :{ 2 }:

¶25

The petitioners took admission in B.D.S. Course after passing the entrance test conducted by the University and were registered with respondent No.2-University. After doing their B.D.S. Course, the petitioners took admission in MDS Course under special management quota category, after appearing in the entrance examination i.e. P.G.E.T. 2010.

¶26

The petitioners are aggrieved against the action of the respondent-University wherein University has demanded the registration fee from the petitioners. The grievance is that once the petitioners are already registered with the University and no new registration number is going to be assigned to them, the question of demanding registration fee once again would be unfair and otherwise can not arise. The plea further is that once the candidate is registered with the University, then the registration number never changes and remains same for all intents and purposes. The petitioners have accordingly approached this Court against this action of the University.

¶27

Notice of motion was issued and by way of an interim order, the petitioners were directed to be registered without insisting on the fees as was demanded.

¶28

Reply on behalf of University has been filed and it is pleaded that once a student completes his/her course from the University and gets admission in higher course, then continuation fee is charged from the candidate. Therefore, a new registration return is required to be sent by the College and all the procedures of registration are being done afresh. Clause 38(d) regarding fee for

¶29

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16416 OF 2010 :{ 3 }:

¶30

NRI left over seats for the session 2009 is then reproduced, which reads as under:-

¶31

“ Clause 38(d)-NRI unfilled seats under the Special Management Seats will be filled by Management itself, however, its fee shall not exceed double than the management quota fee.”

¶32

In this background, it is stated that the Board of Management vide its 26th meeting held on 17.3.2009 resolved that `10,000/- as registration/continuous registration fees for Post Graduate Medical/Dental Courses, which were double than the registration fee/continuation fee of the Management Quota free. Reference is then made that Punjab Government vide clause 26 of its notification No.5/12/2008-3 HB3/1180, dated 23.2.2010 for the

¶33

session 2010 has fixed the fee for NRI left over seats in Post Graduate Medical/Dental Courses as under:-

¶34

Course/Subject	Fee in Rupees per annum	NRI Full Course
1. Clinical MD/MS	2,90,000/-	55,000/- US $
2. Basis MD/MS	2,01,250/-	20,000/- US $
3. PG Diploma	2,30,000/-	20,000/- US $
4. Clinical MDS	2,60,000/-	55,000/- US $

¶35

The Board of Management vide its 29th meeting held on

¶36

4.5.2010 resolved that registration/continuous registration fee for

¶37

Post Graduate Medical/Dental/Nurses Courses shall be as follow:-

¶38

PG Degree/Supersspecialities	1500 US $ or	15% of fee which
	ever is higher
PG Diploma	1500 US $ or	15% of fee which
	ever is higher

¶39

The abovesaid justification is given by respondent Nos.2

¶40

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16416 OF 2010 :{ 4 }:

¶41

and 3.

¶42

The State Government was required to file an additional affidavit to say if the State Government has committed to charging of admission fee in the medical, as has been resolved by the respondent-University. The State has come on a specific affidavit to say that the Punjab Government had not notified the registration fee charged by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot. A sum of $1500 or 15% fee is fixed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the affidavit, it is further stated as under:-

¶43

“That it is submitted that the Government of Punjab has not fixed any fee for the registration of the candidates with the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences Faridkot (respondent No.2 and 3). The deponent had only fixed Tuition Fee for admission of the candidates under the provisions of the Punjab Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions, fixation of fee and making of reservation) Act, 2006 (Punjab Act No.6 of 2006).”

¶44

It is, thus, seen that registration fee has been charged by the respondent-University on its own by taking support from some decision taken by the Punjab Government. The Punjab Government has otherwise not authorised charging of admission fee. Accordingly, the action of the respondent-University in charging this exorbitant admission fee is not fair and can not be sustained.

¶45

Both the writ petitions are accordingly allowed. The

¶46

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16416 OF 2010 :{ 5 }:

¶47

decision of the University to charge this registration fee is hereby

¶48

quashed.

¶49

November 17, 2012 khurmi

¶50

(RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE

Harsimranjit Singh Bhatia etc. v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harsimranjit Singh Bhatia etc. v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarjit Singh @ Gopi etc. Vs State of Punjab

Yatana Education Society Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Brij Lal Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Vishal Bharti Shiksha Samiti Vs National Council for Teacher Education

Vipin Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Pawanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.