Jilbin Joseph vs Viswesvaraya Technological University and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking that a mandamus be issued to the first respondent to take appropriate measures against the second respondent so that the second respondent returns the original certificates of SSLC + 2 migration and transfer certificates of the petitioner.

The petitioner had joined the second respondent-college which is affiliated to the first respondent-University. He had joined the fourth year B.E. Computer Science and Engineering for the academic year 2013-14. The admission was under the management quota. The petitioner met with an accident on 24.05.2014 when he is stated to have fallen down the stairs and fractured his right leg, right knee and underwent operation. In the said process, he had missed the classes due to which he could not continue the course subsequently. It is in that view, the petitioner had made a representation seeking that the original documents which had been submitted be returned to him so as to avail his other avenues as he would not be in a position to continue the engineering course. Since the second respondent at the first instance had not acceded to the request of the petitioner, the petitioner is stated to have approached the first respondent who had directed the second respondent to return the documents. Since the same has not been done, the petitioner is before this Court.

The second respondent has filed the objection statement opposing the relief sought by the petitioner. The contention is that when a seat under the management quota is secured by the petitioner, if the petitioner abandons the course in the midstream, the second respondent would not be entitled to admit any other student, the seat would remain vacant for the entire duration of the course for which the petitioner had been admitted and as such, it would cause financial loss to the second respondent. Hence, it is contended that unless the petitioner makes good the said loss by paying the amount that had been sought by the second respondent through their communication, the return of the documents cannot be sought by the petitioner.

To buttress the contention put forth by the second respondent, they sought to rely on the order of the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Miss Smruthy B.S. -vs- D.A. Pandu Memorial R.V. Dental College and Hospital and Another - W.P. No. 13792/2009 dated 18.03.2014 which was rendered on taking note of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court which is referred to therein.

In the light of the contention that is put forth, on the legal aspect as has been relied on by the respondents to the order of the Division Bench, it is matter on record and the conclusion therein by the Hon''ble Division Bench is that the management would have the right to withhold the documents to see that the fee that was payable for the entire course is recovered by them. It is no doubt true that the Hon''ble Division Bench had arrived at the above said conclusion while taking note of the reference that had been made in view of there being conflict in the decisions of the learned Single Judges.

Having taken note of that aspect, what cannot also be lost sight is that even subsequent to the said order passed by the Hon''ble Division Bench, another learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 4999/2014 dated 22.04.2014 had arrived at the conclusion that though the management would have the right to recover the amount, the recovery can only be resorted to in the manner known to law and not by withholding the documents. Further, in my opinion what is also to be taken into consideration is the circumstance under which a student would abandon the course.

The position of retaining the documents or recovering the amount by obtaining a bank guarantee in a circumstance where the student has discontinued the course without valid reason is one aspect of the matter, while the other aspect is that this Court cannot ignore the circumstance which is beyond the control of the student and lay down a straight jacket formula in all cases. There can be cases where though the student may want to continue the course, but would not be in a position to do so for several other reasons.

One of the aspects can also be that the student at the first point may be eligible to be admitted to the course, but after having been admitted to the course would not fare well in the course and may not secure the eligibility to be promoted to the appropriate semesters when the backlogs are not permitted and on feeling that he is not capable of completing may discontinue. Even thereafter there would be the remainder of the course and in such circumstance, it would not be fair to expect the student to pay the fees for the balance semesters despite becoming ineligible to be promoted to the next semester and his/her entire future cannot be hijacked by holding him/her to ransom.

The next circumstance is also as has arisen in the instant case where the petitioner had suffered an accident by falling down the stairs and the medical records would disclose that he had undergone prolonged treatment for the same. If in such circumstance, having not only undergone the pain and agony, he is also unable to continue the course as he would not be in a position to face life with the same vigor and if circumstances went beyond the control of the student, such discontinuance from the course cannot be considered as a willful discontinuance made to seek for better prospects and better avenues by abandoning the seat which was provided. When due to certain unforeseen circumstances or incidents the student may have to leave the course and would undergo further hardships, it would be a circumstance where if the documents are also withheld only to recover the amount even the prospects of the student to face life would be defeated.

It is no doubt true that these are aspects where a factual determination may be required. It is more the reason that, the appropriate course in such circumstance would be to return the documents, while the management would still have the liberty of initiating appropriate proceedings for recovery of the amount wherein all consideration as to the nature of the loss suffered by the institution, the cause for such loss and as to whether the same was deliberate are all issues which would be considered and if thereafter the recovery is to be made, it would still be open for the institution to make the recovery.

Therefore, keeping all these aspects in view, I am of the opinion that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the withholding of the documents by the second respondent would not be justified though the second respondent may avail their remedy of recovery of the amount from the petitioner in accordance with law.

Hence, a direction is issued to the second respondent to return the documents to which reference is made above within four weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished to the second respondent. As indicated, liberty is however reserved to the second respondent to thereafter proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the amount, if they are advised to do so.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.