College Of Engineering Roorkee And Others vs Court Of Lokpal Uttarakhand Technical University & Another

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and are being decided by a

common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of WPMS No. 797 of 2016 alone are being considered.

These writ petitions have been filed by College of Engineering, Roorkee challenging the order passed by Lokpal, Uttarakhand Technical University,

Dehradun on the application of respondent no.2. By the said order, Lokpal has directed the petitioner to refund the entire fee deposited by respondent

no. 2 within one month.

College of Engineering, Roorkee (petitioner herein) is affiliated to Uttarakhand Technical University. Admissions to all the Colleges affiliated to the

said University, including the petitioner, are made through a Centralized Allotment Process, in which a common counseling is held and Colleges are

allotted to the students based on their score of marks in the Entrance Examination. The student, who is allotted a College in the first counseling, is

entitled to participate in the second or third counseling and, many a times, the candidates are successful in getting allotment to a College with higher

ranking in the second or subsequent counseling.

During the Academic Session 2014-15, respondent no. 2 was allotted College of Engineering, Roorkee in the first counseling and he took admission

by depositing the tuition fee in the month of July/August. He, thereafter, participated in the second counseling and was allotted a better College,

consequently, he withdrew his admission from College of Engineering, Roorkee and took admission in the College, which was allotted to him in the

subsequent counseling.

College of Engineering, Roorkee withheld the fee deposited by respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 approached the Lokpal in Uttarakhand

Technical University by making a representation. The Lokpal passed an order in favour of respondent no. 2 and directed the petitioner to refund the

entire fee to the respondent no. 2. Aggrieved by Lokpal’s order, petitioner has approached this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, due to withdrawal of admission by respondent no. 2, petitioner college suffered financially as the

vacancy, which occurred due to withdrawal of admission by respondent no. 2, could not be filled subsequently. He further submits that the said

vacancy rolled over to the next academic session also, therefore, petitioner was justified in withholding the fee deposited by respondent no. 2. In

support of his contention, he has relied upon guidelines framed by All India Council For Technical Education in the month of April, 2007.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that since there is a Centralized Allotment Process by Uttarakhand Technical University

for admission to different Engineering Colleges affiliated to it and petitioner college also gets students through the Centralized Allotment Process,

therefore, petitioner college cannot withhold the fee of a student, who has been allotted some other College with higher ranking in the second or

subsequent counseling. He further submits that every student, who is allotted a College with higher ranking in the subsequent counseling, has a right to

withdraw from the College which was allotted to him in the first counseling. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that his client had

withdrawn from the petitioner college in the first week of September, 2014; while, admission closed only on 31.10.2014. Thus, learned counsel for the

respondent no. 2 submits that his client is not liable to compensate the petitioner, if petitioner could not get any student against the vacancy caused due

to withdrawal of admission by respondent no. 2.

Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 further submits that guidelines issued by AICTE in April, 2007 were superseded by subsequent guidelines

issued in the year 2009. The revised guidelines are part of record. Relevant extract of the revised guidelines is reproduced below:-

“In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the courses, the wait listed candidates should be given admission

against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs. 1000/-

(Rupees one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the institution to the student/candidate withdrawing from the program. It

would not be permissible for Institutions to retain the School Institution Leaving Certificates in original. Should a student leave after joining

the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filed by another candidate by the last date of admission, the Institution must

return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, wherever applicable.â€​

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the revised guidelines it has been provided that a student can withdraw at any time before start

of the course, while in the earlier guidelines one could withdraw before start of Academic Session. They, therefore, submit that under the revised

guidelines, provision for withdrawal of admission is more relaxed because the Academic Session normally starts from first July in each academic year.

I have gone through the order passed by Lokpal. The Lokpal in his order has observed that since petitioner college and the college in which the

concerned students took admission after second round of counseling are affiliated to Uttarakhand Technical University and admission in both the

colleges were taken by the concerned students on the basis of counseling held by the same university, therefore, a student cannot be penalized if he

takes admission in the college allotted to him in the subsequent counseling. It has further been held that it is not a case where the student concerned

has voluntarily withdrawn from petitioner college but he had to withdraw from the petitioner college on account of upgradation given to him in the

second counseling. The reasoning given by Lokpal in the impugned order appears to be perfect. Admission through Centralized Allotment Process

may result in withdrawal of a student from a college in second/subsequent counseling, but that will not entitle the college concerned to penalize the

student by withholding his fee.

In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order(s). Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed.

Since AICTE guidelines entitle a college, from which admission has been withdrawn, to retain a sum of Rs.1,000/- as processing fee, therefore,

petitioner shall refund the fee in terms of order passed by Lokpal to the students with interest, if any, after deducting processing fee @ Rs.1,000/-,

within a period of four weeks from the date production of certified copy of this order.