Disposed

Gampa Haritha v. The Convenor

Telangana HC13 Feb 2009WP/1766/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought refund of fees and return of TC after voluntarily seeking admission in another college. Court held refusal to refund was not arbitrary as fees are non-refundable per general instructions and vacancy could not be filled due to student's voluntary absence. TC return directed upon fresh application.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of. Respondents directed to return T.C. within four weeks if fresh application made.

Gampa Haritha Vs The Convenor — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 1766 of 2001

¶5

Between: Gampa Haritha D/o.Jalandher 2-10-190, Jyothi Nagar Karimnagar, Karimnagar Dist.

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

1 The Convenor, MCACET - 2000 Department of Computner Sciences & Engineering University College of Engineering , Osmania University, Hyderabad - 500 007

¶9

2 Convenor for Osmania University & Principal Osmania University College for Women

¶10

Koti, Hyderabad-500 007

¶11

3 The Principal, Osmania University Post Graduation College, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar Dist.

¶12

4 The Principal, SRM College, Karimnagar, Karimnagar Dist. 5 Registrar Osmania University, Hyderabad - 500 007. 6 Kakatiya University, Warangal,

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or orders or directions particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st to 3rd and 5th respondents for not refunding of Fee amount of Rs.25,075/- and original TC by cancelling admission into MCA for the Academic year 2000-2001 allowing the petitioner to continue her studies in 4th respondents college as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law much less contrary to their notification and consequently directing the 1st to 3rd and 5the respondents to refund the fee of Rs.25,075/- with original T.C. of the petitioner henceforth in the interest of justice.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.RAJA RAAM

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE

¶17

The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶18

WRIT PETITION No : 1766 of 2001

¶19

O R D E R :

¶20

Petitioner herein appeared for the common entrance test for admission into MCA degree course (MCACET-2000) held on 31-05-2000 by the first respondent and she secured the rank of 9,114. She submitted her application for allotment of a seat as per her merit and appeared for the counseling on 20-12-2000. Though she opted for Osmania University, Hyderabad and Kakatiya University, Warangal, she was given admission in the 3^rd respondent-college i.e. Osmania University Post Graduation College, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District. Accordingly, she paid a sum of Rs.25,075/- towards the fees and also submitted her original certificates.

¶21

While so, a notification dated 25-12-2000 was issued by the Kakatiya University calling for admission to MCA course for 30 seats available in the 4^th respondent college situated at Kareemnagar, making it clear that the candidates selected have to pay the fees on the spot on the date of counseling on 30-12-2000. Pursuant thereto, petitioner attended the counseling since she is a native of Kareemnagar and her parents are staying there. She was given admission in the 4^th respondent college at Kareemnagar and she joined there by furnishing a letter from the 2^nd respondent that the original T.C. and certificates are with them.

¶22

Thereafter, the petitioner requested the 2^nd respondentConvener to cancel her admission in the

¶23

3^rd respondent college and to refund the fees paid by her at the time of admission. However, the 2^nd respondent rejected her request for refund of fees and informed her that the T.C. was already transmitted to the 3^rd respondent-college. When the petitioner approached the 3^rd respondent, she was informed that she should pay the fees for the entire period of MCA course. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, this writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents

¶24

1 to 3 and 5 in not refunding the fees amount of Rs.25,075/- and original T.C. by canceling the admission into the 3^rd respondent college for the academic year 2000-2001 is arbitrary and illegal.

¶25

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd respondent stating that as per the general instructions issued for admission by the Director of Admissions of University, the fess once paid will not be refunded. It is also stated that since the petitioner on her own volition sought admission in the 4^th respondent college, she is not entitled for refund of the fees already paid.

¶26

A separate counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 6^th respondent University stating that the 6^th respondent is not concerned with the admission of the petitioner in MCA course in Osmania University, Hyderabad and that she was given admission in the 4^th respondent college in MCA course subject to the condition that she should produce the original T.C. within a week’s time. Though the petitioner failed to do so, on humanitarian grounds, no action was initiated against her for cancellation of her admission. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the material on record, the petitioner was

¶27

given admission in the 3^rd respondent college in the counseling held by the 2^nd respondent on 20-12-2000. Admittedly, it was the third and final phase selection and the petitioner having joined the 3^rd respondent college paid the fees of Rs.25,075/-.

¶28

Thereafter she again attended the counseling held by Kakatiya University on 30-12-2000 for her personal reasons. It is a voluntary act on the part of the petitioner and she opted to join the 4^th respondent college since she is a native of Kareemnagar and her parents are living there. May be that it is permissible for the candidates who are selected by one University to attend the counseling conducted by another University, however, nothing could be placed before this Court to show that in such cases, the candidates are entitled to refund of fees already paid. On the other hand, Note-1 of the General instructions to candidates called for Centralized Admissions to MBA in Osmania University colleges, made it clear that fees once paid will not be refunded and that the fee paid in any other course/University will not be adjusted against the fee to be paid for those courses.

¶29

As noticed above, the counseling held by the 2^nd respondent on 20-12-2000 was the last phase of selection and therefore, probably the vacancy arose on account of the failure of the petitioner to prosecute her studies in the 3^rd respondent college could not have been filled up.

¶30

In the circumstances, the impugned action of the respondents 1 to 3 in refusing to refund the fees to the petitioner cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal.

¶31

So far as the return of the petitioner’s T.C. is concerned, in case the said T.C. has not been returned as on today, it is open to the petitioner to make a fresh application to the respondents 2 and 3. Keeping in view that the course has been completed long back, if any

¶32

such application is made, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider the petitioner’s request and return the T.C. within a period of four weeks from the date of such application.

¶33

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶34

______________ G. ROHINI, J

¶35

Dated:13-02-2009 KLP

Gampa Haritha v. The Convenor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gampa Haritha v. The Convenor

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

Sathi Phalakshi Reddy Vs The Andhra Pradersh State Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Andhra Pradesh State Ware Housing Corporation and other Vs State Ware Housing Corporation A.P.

Pendyala Mary Rajeshwari Vs The Suerintendent of Police, W.G.District, Eluru

Balram Gupta Vs The Principal Secretary

N.V.S. Pradeep Kumar, Vs The Station Hosue Officer

Kamasani Iragam Reddy Vs Station HOuse Officer