R.L. Anand, J. - (1.) MISS Simi Agarwal daughter of Shri K.L. Agarwal, resident of Panchkula has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents for issuance of appropriate writ and directions specially in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give admission to the petitioner against free seat, on charging fees equivalent to government colleges as per the Scheme framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as Unnikrishnan P.J. and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1993(2) SCT 512 (SC) :, AIR 1993 S.C. 2138 and to direct the respondents to distribute the seals allotted as "free seats" and "payments seats" and to fix the payment of fees for the same in consonance with the Scheme/Guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was further prayed by the petitioner that this court should declare the fees structure and demand of Rs. 2.05 lacs, per year, by respondent No. 4 for admission to M.D.S. Course as unconstitutional, illegal, without jurisdiction and against the scheme framed by the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner obtained a degree of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (B.D.S.) in April, 1995. She appeared for the Entrance Examination for admission to M.D.S. Course conducted by the Guru Jambheshwar University, Hissar and was placed at Serial No. 3 in the merit list. On 29.10.2000 and on 8.11.2000 the petitioner attended the counselling for the above course and was selected and was placed at serial No. 3 in the merit list. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 i.e. the University, issued prospectus for the entrance examination and, as per the prospectus, the candidate was required to deposit fees as stipulated in the prospectus. The grouse of the petitioner in nut -shell is that respondent No. 4 -college is making a demand for Rs. 2.05 lacs as fees per year. This stipulation in the prospectus is illegal, violative of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a famous case Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner was asked to deposit the fees of Rs. 2.05 lacs for one year. When the petitioner a'sked for the details, she was not furnished with any detail. The authorities did not give in writing to the petitioner the last date for the deposit of the fees. The second grouse of the petitioner is that as per the prospectus the number of seats allotted for M.D.S. Course as sanctioned by the Dental Council of India were 9. The college -authorities have divided 9 seats in the following manner : - (i) Periodontics 3 (ii) Peiodontics 3 (iii)Orthodontics 3 This distribution is wrong according to the petitioner. Out of 9 seats, 6 seats are meant for general category whereas 3 seats are reserved for N.R.I./Foreign candidates. As per the petitioner, 50% seats are supposed to be treated as free seats as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and 50% seats are supposed to be paid seats, but the college -authorities have not adopted this criteria. It is also the major grouse of the petitioner in the writ petition that as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case the State Government was required to constitute a Committee to fix the ceiling on the fees chargeable by the professional college. This Committee was supposed to be consisted of Vice -Chancellor, Secretary Education as well as Director Medical Education, Director Technical Education and thereafter the fees is to be fixed by the said Committee. In the present case, respondent No. 4 (College) has not sought any guidelines from the appropriate authority. No Committee has been constituted, rather fee structure has been fixed at Rs. 2.05 lacs arbitrarily in violation of the guidelines/scheme framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Also is the grouse of the petitioner that in other professional colleges, the structure of the fee is very nominal and less as compared to the structure demanded by respondent No. 4 i.e. Rs. 2.05 lacs per year and, therefore, directions which have been referred to by me in paragraph 1 of the judgment may be issued against the respondent -authorities.
(3.) NOTICE of the writ petition was given to the respondents. A joint written statement was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. According to these respondents vide Haryana Government letter dated 4.9.2000, Guru Jambheshwar University, Hisar, was declared a competent authority to conduct the entrance examination for M.D.S. Course for the year 2000. The test was conducted. The petitioner also appeared; result was declared and she qualified the test. The admission was to be made for the following specialities sanctioned by the Dental Council of India : 1. Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics - 3 2. Prosptliodonlics including Crown and Bridge - 3 3. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery - 3 The above specialities included 6 seats in general category and 3 seats for NRI/Foreign/NRI sponsored candidates. The stand taken up by these respondents is that there is a two -tire system provided for admission to NRI speciality - one is free seat and the other is NRI/Foreign/NRI sponsored candidates. There being no provision of paid seats, therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner is wholly without any basis. It is further pleaded by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that as per the information provided by respondent No. 4 i.e. College, their institute is affiliated to Kurukshetra University who has prescribed the fee structure of Rs. 1,00,000/ -per annum for general category and Rs. 33,000/ - U.S. Dollars for NRI/Foreign/NRI sponsored candidates for the entire course. Besides, the college has prescribed certain funds chargeable along with fee of Rs. 1,00,000/ - which are as under : - Amalgamated Fund - 18,000/ - Development Fund - 12,000/ - Research and Consumable Articles - 35,000/ - Caution Fee (Refundable) - 18,000/ - Registration Fee - 8,000/ - College Security (Refundable) - 5,000/ - Instruments Security - 5,000/ - This would mean that the petitioner was aware of the fee to be charged by the institute before appearing in the entrance test or counselling. Now it does not lie in the month of the petitioner at this belated stage to allege that fee is being charged from the students without approval of the competent authority and students are being exploited. It is further added that the free -structure has been the same during the last two years. These respondents further stated that admissions have been made by the answering respondents strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in the prospectus which has the force of law. On merits also, these respondents have denied the material averments of the writ petition and have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.;