Nitish Bhardwaj vs Kurukshetra University and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions i.e. Civil Writ Petition No. 20901 of 2011 (Nitish Bhardwaj v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra,) and Civil Writ Petition No. 20915 of 2011 (Priyanka Madaan v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra,) as common question of law arises in these cases. The facts are being taken from C.W.P. No. 20901 of 2011. The petitioner got admission in MBA (honours) Course with respondent-institution and deposited a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as fee on 23.06.2010. Later the petitioner got admission in MBA (honours) at Karnal Institute of Technology and Management, Kunjpura, Karnal in July 2010. As per the petitioner, this institution was having better reputation and in order to have better career prospectus the petitioner got admission in Karnal Institute, Karnal. On 4.8.2010, the petitioner requested the respondent to cancel his admission and refund the fee deposited by him. As per the petitioner he had not joined the respondent institute at all.

The respondent-institution responded by stating that the admission fee is not refundable as per the University guidelines/rules and Clause-II contained in the prospectus. The condition in the prospectus is as under:-

If a candidate leaves before the commencement of the classes, the entire fee deposited by the candidate will be refunded after deducting Rs. 1000/- only. In case a candidate leaves after commencement of the classes proportionately deductions of fee upto the month of his/her leaving will be made subject to minimum of Rs. 1000/-. However, refund will be allowed only if the seat, so vacated is filled by the last state of admission.

The petitioner, thereafter, served a Legal Notice dated 4.8.2011 and demanded the refund of fee with interest. The petitioner, as such, was forced to file present writ petition when the case of refund of fee was declined by the respondent.

In the reply filed, it is stated that the petitioner has concealed the material fact from this Court that he attended the classes for one month with the respondent University. It is also stated that the last date of admission to the said course was 4.8.2010 and the petitioner had submitted an application on the afternoon of 4.8.2010. Since the petitioner has willingly withdrawn from the course on the pretext that he got admission in some other institution, it had caused financial loss to the respondent institution as the seat of the respondent institution remained unfilled. In this regard reference is made to the provision contained in the University Prospectus which provides as under In case a candidate leaves the University after seeking admission in a particular course following conditions will apply for refund of fee:

a) If a candidate leaves before the commencement of the classes the entire fee deposited by the candidate will be refunded after deducting Rs. 1000/- only.

b) In case a candidate leaves after commencement of the classes, proportionate deduction of fee upto the month of his/her leaving will be made, subject to minimum of Rs. 1000/-. However, refund will be allowed only if the seat so vacated is filled by the last date of admission.

The respondent, accordingly, pleaded that no cause of refund in this case is made out.

The condition in the prospectus provides that if the candidate leaves the course before the commencement of the classes the entire fee deposited by the candidate will be refunded after deducting a sum of Rs. 1000/- only. If the candidate leaves the course after commencement of the classes, proportionate deduction of fee upto the month of his/her leaving will be made subject to minimum of Rs. 1000/-. It is also stated that refund will be allowed only if the seat so vacated is filled by the last date of admission. It is perhaps this reason which is pressed into service by the respondent to deny the refund of the fee deposited by the petitioner.

Reference is made to that portion of the prospectus in the reply which provides that if the candidate leaves the University after seeking admission in a particular course then same conditions were to apply for refund of fee. There are the same conditions which have been referred to above.

The whole case set up by the respondent is that petitioner has left the seat on the last date of admission and thus, the seat, therefore, had remain vacant. There is no dispute that in the present case the seat left by the petitioner remained vacant but equally true it is that the petitioner had requested for refund of the fee within time. The condition contained in the prospectus does contain a provision for refund of fee.

Reliance has been placed on an order passed in CWP No. 13308 of 2009 titled as Sh. Atam Parkash Khatter and others v. Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and others, decided on 21.7.2010 where Court has considered the same issue concerning the refund of fee. It was observed that the student who is aspirant of doing a professional degree like Engineering or Medical, would be keen to secure and study at such institution, which has a better repute. Thus, no fault can be found in action of the petitioner in seeking admission in another institution at Karnal and then praying for refund of the fee as he did not intend to pursue his study with respondent-institution. The facts of the present case are identical to the facts contained in Atam Parkash Khatter''s case (supra)-

The directions, therefore, are issued to the respondent institution to refund the fee after deducting the requisite amount of admission fee of Rs. 1000/- and by deducting one month fee for which the petitioner had attended the classes. I am not inclined to grant interest on the amount which is to be refunded as ordered above. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in the above terms.