ARPITA SINGHVI (MISS.) Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.
LAWS(RAJ)-2007-8-94
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on August 08,2007

Arpita Singhvi (Miss.) Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Rajasthan And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) THE Government of Rajasthan by an order dt.25.01.2005 enhanced the fee of internship at Government Medical Colleges from Rs. 30,000/ - to Rs. 50,000/ - for the students coming from the Medical Colleges other than the State of Rajasthan. In furtherance to the order a foresaid, the Government of Rajasthan by an order dt. 11.08.2006 settled a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - as fee of internship for the students coming to Government Colleges from recognized private medical colleges situated within the territory of the State of Rajasthan. Prior to that the petitioner was admitted to one year internship at S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur and Associated Group of Hospitals on 29.07.2006 by charging a fee of Rs. 5,000/ -. The respondents after issuance of the order dt. 11.08.2006, demanded revised fee from the petitioner, hence this petition for writ is preferred.
(2.) THE contention of counsel for the petitioner is that admission was given to the petitioner in the month of July 2006 and at that time, the fee for internship was Rs. 5,000/ - and same was revised subsequently on 11.08.2006.The revision of fee was not having retrospective effect, therefore, the same could have not been implemented qua the petitioner. In reply to the writ petition, it is not denied by the respondents that admission was given to the petitioner on 29.07.2006 and revision was made subsequent thereto. The stand of the respondents is that the admission was given to the petitioner provisionally and, therefore, on confirmation of admission, revision fee was rightly made.
(3.) THE order dt. 29.07.2006 admitting the petitioner for internship is available on record as Annex. -1. From perusal of the order dt. 29.07.2006, it does not reveal that admission of the petitioner was made provisionally with a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - as fee was charged by the petitioner provisionally. The admission of the petitioner was certainly provisional and that was due to confirmation of her result. In view of it, the stand of the respondents that provisional fee was charged is not correct. The provisional fee was charged only subject to confirmation of result, otherwise at the relevant time, the fee was only Rs. 5,000/ -.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.