- (1.) This special appeal arises out of an order dated 19.8.2010 passed in a writ petition filed by the appellant herein, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44731 of 2010. The learned Judge, by the said order, has dismissed the writ petition holding that once the appellant has been treated as NRI and has been given the benefit of NRI quota, then he has to pay the applicable requisite fees till he completes the study. The relevant facts may be set out to decide the controversy in the present case. The State Government issued a notification dated 12th August, 2004 by which five percent seats in Government Engineering Colleges and Autonomous Engineering Colleges of the State of U.P. were reserved for Non Resident Indian (hereinafter referred to as the 'NRI') on payment of fee of U.S. $ 5,000/- per annum. An advertisement was issued by the U.P. Technical University, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') inviting applications for admission under NRI quota in B. Tech. and B. Arch. Courses. Pursuant to said advertisement, the appellant applied for admission on 11.6.2008 and specifically mentioned in the application form that he is NRI and lives in U.A.E. (Dubai). The respondent - University, by its letter dated 3.7.2008, intimated to the institute, namely, Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'institution'), that the appellant had been admitted in B. Tech. 1st year in the institution under NRI quota and had been advised to report up to 7.7.2008. The institution was also informed to charge fees from the appellant as authorized for U.P.T.U. institutions in Government Order dated 12th August, 2004 issued by the State Government. The letter further recites that the University has already informed the appellant about existing fee for NRI, i.e., U.S. $ 5,000/- per annum. The appellant took admission with respondent No. 2 institution and also deposited the fee of U.S. $ 5,000/- on 7.7.2008 and has completed his first year session in 2009 regularly and appeared in 2nd year session examination of 2010 the result of which is yet to be declared.
(2.) On an apprehension, that after declaration of results, the appellant would be forced by respondent No. 2 - institution to deposit the fee on the basis of NRI quota, he had moved an application to respondent No. 2 to charge normal fee by changing his status from NRI to regular admission. The said application was moved on the ground that services of his father had been terminated, due to global economic recession and he was unable to pay the fees fixed for NRI due to unemployment of his father for a long time. The said application, according to the appellant, was rejected by the institution on 17.3.2009. The appellant filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 35513 of 2009 which he withdrew. Thereafter, according to the appellant, he was forced to deposit fee of U.S. $ 5000/-, as directed by the administration of the Institution for admission in 2nd year. According to the appellant, said action of the institution is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and against the circumstances and economic conditions of the appellant.
(3.) The case of the appellant is that in the notification dated 21.1.2004 issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'AICTE'), it is clearly written that NRI fees is not applicable for Children of Indian Workers in Gulf Countries and normal fee is applicable for this category, and that the Children of Indian Workers in Gulf Countries shall be treated as resident citizens for the purpose of charging fee. The submission of the appellant is that, other institutions are following the said rule. It is further case of the appellant that the allotment letter issued by respondent No. 1 to charge NRI fee from the appellant is clearly in contravention of notification dated 21.1.2004. The appellant further submits that though he was admitted under NRI quota but NRI fee is not applicable to him as he comes under the category of 'Children of Indian Workers in the Gulf Countries' and should be treated as resident citizens for the purpose of charging fee. With the above averments, the petition was filed for the relief sought therein, which has been dismissed by the order impugned in this appeal.;