- (1.) CYRIAC Joseph, C. J. The petitioner is a permanent resident of district Muzzaffarnagar in the State of U. P He applied for admission to the Undergraduate Programme (B. V. Sc. and A. H.) of the G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the University) for the year 2003-2004. He appeared in the entrance examination conducted by the University on 15-06-2003. He secured 428 out of 600 marks and his rank in the Composite Merit List was 27. He was called for counselling held on 26- 07-2003. He was admitted to the B. V. Sc. and A. H. Degree Course against 'payment Seat'. On account of his admission against a Payment Seat, he was required to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,0007 - in addition to other University fees. He made all the required payments and got admitted to the Course for the year 2003-2004.
(2.) ACCORDING to the Distribution of Seats stated in the Prospectus 2003-2004 issued by the University, 20% of the sanctioned seats, after allocation of seats to I. C. A. R. / V. C. I, in all Under graduate (except B. Tech.), Master's and Ph. D. Programmes, were 'payment Seats'. The candidates desirous of seeking admission against Payment Seats were required to appear in the Entrance Examination and qualify as per requirement, to a degree pro gramme in which they sought admis sion. Academic Eligibility qualification for such candidates would be the same as for General candidates seeking ad mission through Entrance Examination. The Programme would be allotted to them as per their merit in the Entrance Examination. The candidates should pay Rs. 1,00,0007- for a seat in B. V. Sc. and A. H. and Rs. 40,0007- for admission to a seat in other Undergraduate and Post Graduate programmes per year, as "fee against Payment Seats" in addition to other University fee and Rs. 50,0007- and Rs. 20,0007- for each additional Semes ter respectively, if degree was extended. The fee against Payment Seat would not be refunded once a candidate had reg istered in the programme. On 26-02-2004, the third re spondent - Registrar of the University -issued Annexure 4 order rescheduling the fee structure for the Session 2004-2005. According to Annexure 4, the University decided not to charge any additional fee from candidates residing outside the State of Uttaranchal. As per Annexure 4 order dated 26-02-2004, the tuition fee per year for the Session 2004-2005 in respect of B. V. Sc. and A. H. Course was increased from the existing Rs. 6,000/-to Rs. 15,000/ -. The University has not been charging any additional fee (Fee against Payment Seat) for any course from students who took admission in the year 2004-2005 or thereafter. Hence the petitioner, along with other similarly situated candidates, submitted Annexure 5 representation to the sec ond respondent Vice Chancellor on 0/-01-2005 requesting that in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case T. M. A. Pai Founda tion and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, they may be exempted -from paying the fee against Payment Seats and that only the fees for Free Seat may be charged from them. The petitioner and others were orally in formed by the respondents that they would have to pay the additional fee of Rs. 1,00,000/- per year in addition to the University fee for the whole course. Faced with the above situation of hav ing to pay the additional fee of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the year 2005-2006, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 19-06-2005 praying for a direction to the respondents not to charge from the petitioner and other students the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-per year as additional fee. He also prayed for a direction to the respondents to exempt him from payment of the said additional fee for the remaining period of the B. V. Sc. and A. H. Degree Course. There is a further prayer for directing the respondents to refund to the petitioner, the additional fee collected from the petitioner with admissible interest.
(3.) THE writ petition was admitted on 24-06-2005. On 25-0/-2005, after hearing the learned counsel for the pe titioner and the respondents, the follow ing interim order was passed by this Court : "hence there will be an interim or der directing that without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Ru pees fifteen thousand only) towards tuition fees for the year 2005-2006 and the said amount shall be ac cepted by the respondents subject to the final decision in the writ peti tion. " A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University. Ac cording to the averments in the coun ter affidavit, the petitioner was eligible for admission in the B. V. Sc. and A. H. Degree Course only against Payment Seat. It was clearly mentioned in the Advertisement / Prospectus 2003-2004 that candidates admitted against Pay ment Seats in B. V. Sc. and A. H. Pro gramme have to pay Rs. 1,00,000/ - per year as fee against Payment Seats in addition to other University fees. Ad mission against Payment Seats also were made strictly on merits. Candi dates having domicile of Uttaranchal State as well as candidates of other Stale category were admitted on Pay ment Seats as per their merit. For ad missions in the academic year 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, the State Gov ernment had issued a Government Order dated 16-05-2002 fixing the admis sion policy. Under the said policy, 20% of total seats had been reserved for Payment Seats for the candidates of State of Uttaranchal as well as other States. But in pursuance of the judg ment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the University decided to abolish the system of Payment Seats from the aca demic session 2004-2005, even though there was heavy revenue loss to the University due to the abolition of Pay ment Seats. Therefore, it was decided to revise the fee structure from the aca demic year 2004-2005. The Govern ment of Uttaranchal vide its order dated 28- 02-2004, while approving abolition of Payment Seats, imposed the condition that no additional fund would be given to the University on account of the abolition of Payment Seats. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that from the academic session 2004-2005 the Unversity is admitting, through its entrance examination, only the candidates who are domicile of Uttaranchal State. Candidates admitted through entrance examination con ducted by V. C. I, on All India Basis are charged fee at par with the fee charged from the candidates of domicile of Uttaranchal State. The fee of Rs. 1,00,000/- per year as fee against Pay ment Seats in B. V. Sc. and A. H. Pro gramme is being charged from the stu dents who were admitted against Pay ment Seats irrespective of their State of residence. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the representation submitted by the petitioner was consid ered and rejected by the Vice Chancel lor. It is also stated that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Unni Krishnan J. R and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and oth ers and T. M. A. Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others and Islamic Academy of Education and others Vs. State of Karnataka and oth ers did not upset the admissions al ready finalised. According to the re spondents, the system of Payment Seats was abolished with effect from the academic year 2004-2005 in pur suance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the year 2003-2004, out of the 16 candidates who were ad mitted against Payment Seats in the year 2003-2004, 6 were domicile of the State of Uttaranchal and the remaining 10 were from other States. All the 16 candidates have paid Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum in addition to other Univer sity fees during the last two years. It is contended in the counter affidavit that, as per Section 16 of the University Act, the Academic Council shall be in charge of the academic affairs of the University and shall have the control and general regulation of and be re sponsible for the maintenance of stand ards of instruction, education and ex amination and for the requirements for obtaining Degrees and shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed upon it by the Statutes. It is also contended that the Board of Man agement has the power to prescribe any other fee. The Academic Council in the year 2001-2002 recommended Payment Seats which were approved by the Board of Management. The Pay ment Seats were abolished w. e. f. 2004-2005 in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.;