Allowed

Akhila Chippa v. Ntr University of Health Sciences

Telangana HC1 Feb 2017WP/35051/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of her MBBS seat after she participated in a later state counselling round. The court held the college negligent for not refunding fees or returning certificates immediately upon notice, compelling the respondent to refund tuition, interest, and pay nominal compensation for the lost academic year.

What did the court decide?

Refund of Rs.12,22,500/-, return of all original certificates, and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- within two weeks.

Akhila Chippa Vs Ntr University of Health Sciences — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI

¶3

WRI T PETI TI ON No.35051 of 2016

Betw een:

Ahila Chippa

PETITIONER

And

NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, rep. by its Registrar, and others.

¶9

RESPONSENTS

¶10

VRS,J & JUD,J. W.P.No.35051/2016

¶11

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI

¶13

WRI T PETI TI ON No.35051 of 2016

¶14

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian

¶15

Aggrieved by the action of the 3^rd respondent-college in not permitting her to continue her studies in the 1^st year of the MBBS course during the academic year 2016-2017, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

¶16

Heard Mr. S. Sriram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, Mr. Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent, Mr. L. Ravichander learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent, Mr. Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent and Mr. Parsa Ananta Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the students.

¶17

The petitioner appeared in NEET-2016 and secured an All India Rank of 82658 with OBC category Rank of 32079. In the counselling held on 03.09.2016, the petitioner was allotted to the 3^rd respondent-college for a seat under Category-B. It appears that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.67,500/- towards other fees, a sum of Rs.11,55,000/- towards tuition fees and Rs.25,000/- towards university fees. The petitioner was directed to report to the 3^rd respondent-college on or before 13.09.2016. According to the petitioner she did so.

¶18

The fact that the petitioner submitted all original certificates and also paid the aforesaid sums of money, are not in dispute. According to the 3^rd respondent-college, all the amounts other than the sum of Rs.67,500/- were paid only to the 2^nd respondent (Convener of

¶19

VRS,J & JUD,J. W.P.No.35051/2016

¶20

¶21

Admissions). But it is needless to point out that insofar as Category-B seats are concerned, the payment towards tuition fee is always made to the Convener and it is the responsibility of the Convener to pass on the amount to the 3^rd respondent-college. Hopefully and without any dispute the 2^nd respondent has passed on the amount to the 3^rd respondentcollege.

¶22

It appears that a second counselling for Category-B seats in the State of Telangana commenced on 23.09.2016. Out of a desire to join a college, which the petitioner thought to be a better college than the 3^rd respondent-college, the petitioner appears to have gone for counselling on 23.09.2016 and she was allotted a seat in a college known as Malla Reddy Institute of Medical Sciences, Suraram. But for reasons, which we could not decipher, the petitioner did not join the said college.

¶23

In the meantime, on the ground that the petitioner wanted to go out of their college, the 3^rd respondent notified the vacancy and admitted yet another student. Therefore, when the petitioner came back, the 3^rd respondent refused to permit her to continue. Hence, the petitioner is before us.

¶24

At the out set, it should be pointed out that today the petitioner is not treated by the 3^rd respondent as a student of their college and they claim that her seat has been allotted to another candidate. The petitioner did not join Malla Reddy Institute of Medical Sciences, Suraram. The result is that the petitioner is out of the course for the current academic year 2016-17. A meritorious student, had to waste one academic year in the prime of her youth, for whatever reason.

¶25

Since the cut off date stipulated by the Supreme Court has already gone, it is not possible for this Court to direct the respondents to

¶26

VRS,J & JUD,J. W.P.No.35051/2016

¶27

¶28

accommodate the petitioner. One more difficulty is that without throwing out another candidate to whom the petitioner’s seat has been allotted, the petitioner cannot also be accommodated. Therefore, the question of directing the respondents to take her back, at this distance of time may not be feasible, in the light of the fact that the interest of another candidate may be in jeopardy and also in the light of the fact that the cut off date for admission was over before a long period of time.

¶29

The issue, therefore, that is left for our consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any other relief. Admittedly, the amounts of Rs.11,55,000/- and Rs.67,500/- paid by the petitioner are lying with the 3^rd respondent. So far they have not refunded the same. Even the certificates have not been returned by the 3^rd respondent to the petitioner.

¶30

If the petitioner is wholly responsible for the state of affairs that had fallen upon her, she cannot get any relief except the return of the certificates and the refund of the above amounts. But if the 3^rd respondent is also at fault then the 3^rd respondent cannot be allowed to go scot-free. Therefore, it is to be found out whether there was any mistake on the part of the 3^rd respondent.

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that though she appeared for counselling for Category-B seats in the State of Telangana on 23.09.2016, she never withdrew her admission into the 3^rd respondent-college and that therefore, the action of the 3^rd respondent-college in canceling her admission, was illegal. But the contention of the 3^rd respondent-college is that the petitioner’s father informed the Principal of the college orally on 13.09.2016 that she was quitting and that therefore the seat allotted to her was notified on 26.09.2016. The further contention of the 3^rd

¶32

VRS,J & JUD,J. W.P.No.35051/2016

¶33

¶34

respondent-college is that even the order of admission dated 03.09.2016 indicate that the classes had already commenced, and that there was no justification on the part of the petitioner in not attending the college from the date of payment of fees.

¶35

We have carefully considered the rival contentions. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner took a chance by participating in the counselling held on 23.09.2016 in the State of Telangana. But the question as to whether the participation of the petitioner in the counselling on 23.09.2016 alone was sufficient to have her admission cancelled in the 3^rd respondent college, is of significance.

¶36

If we have a close look at the detailed procedure for counselling and admission of students to professional courses followed in these States, it will be clear that normally the counselling is held in successive phases without a huge interval of time in between two stages of counselling. This year, the counselling for admission to Category-A seats was held online. Therefore the system was developed by the university in such a manner that the moment a candidate pressed an option online, in the second phase of counselling, the allotment made in the first round of counselling automatically got cancelled. It is only in such cases that there can be an automatic cancellation of an allotment or admission made in the first round of counselling.

¶37

In the case on hand, there has been a huge time gap between 03.09.2016 when the petitioner was admitted to the 3^rd respondentcollege and 23.09.2016 when she participated in counselling in Telangana. Two things which stand against the 3^rd respondent are (1) that there is no proof to show that the petitioner’s father informed the Principal of the 3^rd respondent-college orally about the petitioner’s participation in the second

¶38

VRS,J & JUD,J. W.P.No.35051/2016

¶39

¶40

counselling; and (2) that in any case, the 3^rd respondent did not make any effort to refund the amount of more than rupees twelve lakhs paid by the petitioner, along with an intimation that her admission got cancelled and the seat was allotted to another person.

¶41

The cancellation of allotment made to a candidate in a particular counselling, stands on a different footing from the cancellation of admission and the discharge of a candidate from college. In the case on hand, the petitioner had paid the entire amount of Rs.11,55,000/- to the 2^nd respondent on 03.09.2016 itself. In other words, the admission was taken and whatever was expected of the student had been done by the student, by paying all the 3 amounts and also depositing the original certificates. Once a valid admission has been given to a student, the question of cancellation of admission may not arise unless the candidate is discharged from the curriculum. That has not happened in the case on hand. Therefore, we are of the considered view that though the initial fault was on the part of the petitioner in opting for greener pastures, the mistake committed by the 3^rd respondent was grater in nature, depriving the student of one full year in the prime of her youth from educational avenues.

¶42

Today the 3^rd respondent-college has not suffered any disadvantage. They have allotted the seat to another candidate. They have also retained the amount of Rs.11,55,000/- paid by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner never asked for refund and that they are always prepared to refund. But this is hardly a justification. Once the seat given to a candidate is cancelled and the seat is allotted to another candidate, the college should not wait for the candidate to ask for refund. The certificates as well as the

¶43

VRS,J & JUD,J. W.P.No.35051/2016

¶44

¶45

amount belonging to the student should have been returned to the student without waiting for the student to ask for it.

¶46

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner should be compensated at least nominally by the 3^rd respondent, since the petitioner has now been made to waste one year of academic curriculum. Hence the writ petition is disposed of to the following effect.

¶47

a) The 3^rd respondent shall, within two weeks on receipt of a copy of this order, refund to the petitioner the amount of Rs.11,55,000/- + Rs.67,500/-.

¶48

b) The 3^rd respondent shall also return all the original certificates of the petitioner that are now lying with them. If any of the certificates are lying with the second respondent, the same shall also be sent to the petitioner within two weeks.

¶49

c) The 3^rd respondent shall pay to the petitioner by way of compensation, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. If the petitioner’s father goes to the college, he shall be handed over the certificates as well as the money.

¶50

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

__________________________ JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN

¶52

__________________ JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI

¶53

1^st February, 2017 Js.

¶54

VRS,J & JUD,J. W.P.No.35051/2016

¶55

¶56

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI

¶57

WRI T PETI TI ON No.35051 of 2016

¶58

Date: 01-02-2017

¶59

Js.

Akhila Chippa v. Ntr University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhila Chippa v. Ntr University of Health Sciences

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

M/s. Sri Venkatarama Oil Industries Private Ltd., Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/s R.M. Cylinders Unit I Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Audit)

M/s.Focus Infra Solutions, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer, Maharajgunj Circle

M/s Kakatiya Cement Sugar and Industries Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Sai Navitha Enterprises, Shop. No. G4, D. No.13/3/389/2 Vs The Commercial Tax Officer - I Circle

Joseph Sriharsha and Mary Indraja Educational Society, Vs The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University