Deepak Gupta vs State of Punjab

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—On February 25, 1999, the Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology issued an Information Brochure and invited application for admission to different courses in Engineering. A fee structure was given in this Brochure. The charges amounted to Rs. 7,000/- approximately. The petitioners applied for admission to the degree course. On May 20, 1999, or thereabout, the petitioners received their roll numbers for appearing in the entrance test. Alongwith the roll numbers, a notice was also given to the petitioners, informing them that the fee structure, as mentioned in the Brochure, had been revised and that the revised structure "as adopted by the Government of Punjab and duly approved by the Board of Governors - will be applicable from the session 1999-2000 itself. The detailed fee/fund structure will be communicated to the candidates at the time of counselling." The petitioners appeared in the test. At the time of counselling, they were informed about the revised structure. A copy thereof has been attached with the writ petition as Annexure P4. The petitioners allege that the respondent-Institute has made an exorbitant increase from Rs. 7512/- to Rs. 25,235A. According to the petitioners, the action of the respondent-Institute in revising the fee structure is wholly illegal and untenable. They have prayed that the notice, by which the petitioners were informed about the change in the fee/fund structure and the revised fee structure, as notified on September 9, ! 999, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P2 and P4 respectively, be quashed.

The respondents contest the claim of the petitioners. It has been pointed out that the fee structure was revised before the petitioners had even appeared in the test. It was also notified in the press. The petitioners had taken admission after knowing the fee that was to be charged from them. Having taken admission, they cannot contend that the Institute was not entitled to revise the fee. It has also been pointed out that the revised fee structure is in conformity with "the prevalent pattern of the Government of Punjab, Department of Technical Education and Industrial Training." On this basis, the respondents pray that the writ petition be dismissed.

A separate reply has also been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

The petitioners have filed a replication.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the representation made to the candidates cannot be altered subsequently. Thus, the petitioners are liable to pay only that fee which had been mentioned initially in the prospectus. Reliance has been placed on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. The State of Punjab etc. 1993(4) STC 328 (P&H) (FB) : 1993(2) P.L.K. 212.

The claim made on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted by learned Counsel for the respondents. It has been contended that the respondent-Institute is totally autonomous. Fee-structures have been revised on account of administrative necessities. No ground for interference is made out.

Admittedly, the petitioners had been informed about the change of fee structure even before they had appeared in the test. Thereafter they had been informed about the actual charges and the revised fee structure at the time of counselling. With their eyes open, they had taken admission to the Course. Having joined, they are not entitled to turn around and say that the respondent-Institute is not entitled to charge the fee at the rates which had been duly notified before they had even appeared in the entrance test.

Mr. Dahiya contends that the action is arbitrary.

We are unable to accept this contention. It is known that the cost of education is rising every day. There is revision of pay scales. It places a heavy burden on the Institute. The costs have to be partly recovered from the students, who seek admission. If the Institutes feel forced to revise the fee structure etc. on account of the revision of pay scales and the rise in costs, it cannot be said that the action is unfair or arbitrary. It is no doubt true that every one likes to spend less money and live on subsidies. If the Institute is short of funds, it has to necessarily make up the deficiency by recovery of money from those, who are getting education in it. The revision of fee, as necessitated by the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be arbitrary in any manner, whatsoever. It has been rightly pointed out on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners have not even raised any such plea in the petition. If a specific allegation had been made, the respondents could have produced the requisite data on the record.

Mr. Dahiya relies upon the decision of the Full Bench in Amardeep Singh Sahota''s case (supra). This was a case relating to the conditions of eligibility for admission to the course from amongst the candidates belonging to the sports category. In the context of the controversy, it was observed in para 22 that the prospectus cannot subsequently be changed by the State Government after it had been duly published. The situation in the present case is totally different. Herein, no condition of eligibility has been altered to the detriment of the students. Only the fee structure has been revised. The information in this behalf had been duly given to the petitioners before they had appeared in the entrance test. They had taken admission after being aware of the revised fee-structure. They have, thus, no cause for complaint.

Mr. Dahiya also referred to the decision of this court in Kamal Bhalla and others v. The State of Punjab and others, Civil Writ Petition No. 16765 of 1999, decided on September 19, 2000. This was a case where an anomaly had arisen. Some students were charged at a higher rate while the others were charged at a lower rate. The Bench took the view that the action was discriminatory. Such is not the position in the present case.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is consequently dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

Petition dismissed.