High CourtsSingle Bench

Dr. Shubham Kaudinya vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 14 July 2021 · Citation: (2021) 07 UK CK 0113

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1036 Of 2018

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

34 paragraphs · 645 words

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

1.

Petitioner was desirous of taking admission in Post Graduate Medical Course in Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical & Health Science (in short

“Instituteâ€) during Academic Session 2018-19. Since the concerned Institute was demanding more fee from the petitioner, therefore, petitioner

filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

(i) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to forthwith grant admission to the petitioner on the fees

deposited by petitioner, as has been fixed by the Fee Regulatory Committee, and respondent no. 3 may further be directed to strictly adhere to the

provisions laid down in the Uttarakhand Unaided Private Professional Educational Education Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of

Fee)(Amendment)Act, 2010.

2.

This Court on 12.04.2018 had passed following order:-

“Petitioner participated in NEET P.G. 2018 for admission to P.G. Medical Courses. Based on his ranking in the merit list for Uttarakhand State, he

was allotted a seat in a P.G. Course in Sri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical and Health Sciences, in the State counseling.

Grievance of the petitioner is that despite depositing the entire fee, as fixed by the State Government, Sri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical and

Health Sciences is requiring him to deposit fee over and above the fee determined by the State Government.

Sri Rajendra Dobhal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary submits that the Fee Determination Committee constituted under Sri Guru

Ram Rai University Act, 2016 has already determined the fee for P.G. Medical Courses, therefore, the University is rightly demanding the fee in

terms of the said determination by the Committee. He further submits that the matter is sub judice before this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 933 of

2018.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 prays for and is granted three weeks’ time for filing counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner

may file rejoinder affidavit two weeks thereafter.

In the meantime, it is provided that the University shall give admission to the petitioner by tomorrow, subject to petitioner submitting an undertaking

with the University that he will abide by the outcome of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 933 of 2018.

Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Sr. Advocate undertakes to communicate this order to the University today itself.

Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the parties today itself on payment of usual charges.â€​

3.

Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Institute submits that in terms of the interim order, petitioner was given admission in

the Institute and he has deposited the fee, as determined by Fee Regulatory Committee constituted under Uttarakhand Unaided Private Professional

Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006. He further submits that the writ petition has become infructuous, as

in terms of the interim order petitioner has given an undertaking that he will abide by the outcome of the WPMS No. 933 of 2018, in which question

involved is as to whether Shri Guru Ram Rai University Act, 2016 would prevail or Uttarakhand Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions

(Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 would prevail in the matter for determining the fee.

4.

Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the submission made by Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate

appearing for the Institute and he submits that in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner, in terms of the order dated 12.04.2018, he shall be

bound by the final outcome of WPMS No. 933 of 2018.

5.

For the aforesaid facts and reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, it is made clear that petitioner shall be liable to

pay the excess fee, if any, as per his undertaking or the judgment to be rendered in WPMS No. 933 of 2018.