IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 :PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NOs.56046-56058 OF 2018 (EDN-MED-ADM) BETWEEN 1. DR. RAVIKIRAN K. R. AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. REDDAPPA. K. V., R/AT NO.1521, S5, 2ND CROSS, MUNISWAMY GOWDA LAYOUT, KEMPAPURA, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 024.
2. DR. SHAKSHI GANERIWAL AGED 25 YEARS, D/O MR. PRAMOD KUMAR GANERIWAL, R/O. SHREE KRISHNA GARDEN, FLAT NO. DF-1B, 1/1, RAJA RAJENDRA LAL MITRA ROAD, KOLKATA-700 085.
PRESENLTY R/AT NO. 51, LAXMI GRAND, T002, MSR EXTENSION ROAD, PIPELINE ROAD, MSR NAGAR, OPP. GATE NO.4, BANGALORE-560 054.
3. DR. STUTI KEDIA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, D/O MOHAN LAL KEDIA, R/O GOPAL BHAWAN, 43, KAILASH BOSE STREET, BEADON STREET, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL-700 006.
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.51, LAXMI GRAND, T002, MSR EXTENSION ROAD, PIPELINE ROAD, MSR NAGAR, OPP. GATE NO.4, BANGALORE-560 054.
4. DR. SOPHIA THANNICKAL JOHNSON AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, D/O. THANNICKAL JOHNSON GEORGE, THANNICKAL HOUSE, NELLIMALA, P.O. ERAVIPEROOR, NELLIMALA, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA-689 542.
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.38/10, 5TH A MAIN ROAD, 12TH CROSS, MSR NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 054.
5. DR. SALONI BHARADWAJ AGED 26 YEARS, D/O DR. SAROJA NAND JHA, R/O #2901, 5TH CROSS, M.C.C.B. BLOCK, DAVANAGERE, SOUTHERN EXTENSION-DVG, DAVANGERE, KARNATAKA-577 004 PRESENTLY R/AT T6, LAKSHMI ENCLAVE, 6TH CROSS, 80TH FEET ROAD, ASHWATH NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 054.
6. DR. ANKITA JAIN AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. ANIL JAIN, R/O. 1547, SECTOR 15, SONIPAT, SONIPAT, HARYANA-131 001, PRESENTLY R/AT TRIVENI LADIES HOSTEL, NEAR RAMAIAH MEDICAL, MSR NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 054.
7. DR. MINNU JOE IDA AGED 26 YEARS, D/O. T. V. RAPHEL, R/O. THAIKKATTIL HOUSE, DOLPHIN COLONY, VIYYUR P.O., THISSUR, VIYYUR, KERALA-680 010, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.38/10, 5TH "A" MAIN ROAD, 12TH CROSS, MSR NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 054.
8. DR.PRACHI AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH, R/O-H/O P.K. SINGH, NEAR DR. INDU SHEKHAR, MAHADEVA, SIWAN, BIHAR-841 226, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.2, A-WING, TRIVENI LADIES HOSTEL, NEAR RAMAIAH MEDICAL, MSR NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 054.
9. DR. ROHIT SINGH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O. SATISH KUMAR SINGH, R/O-D47/87, 88 RAMAPURA LUXA, VARANASI-221 001, PRESENTLY R/AT 318, GOKUL EXTENSION, MSR NAGAR, OPP. MSR INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS STUDIES, BANGALORE-560 054.
10. DR. SANOBER KHAN AGED 26 YEARS, D/O. RASHID ALI KHAN, R/AT HENNUR RESIDENCY, FLAT NO.302, 63/14, KACHRANAKAHALLI, 3RD BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 084.
11. DR. SONAL JAWA AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. NARESH KUMAR JAWA, R/O - E-21/A, 1ST FLOOR, RAJOURI GARDEN, NEW DELHI-110 027, PRESENTLY R/AT D-1, NORTH POINT 2 GIRLS LIVING, MSRIT POST, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560 054.
12. DR.RAJATHA V SHETTY AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. VIJAY SHETTY A.N., R/AT ANEMAHAL, DURGAMBHA RICE MILLS, B.M. ROAD, SAKLESHPUR, SAKLESHPUR, HASSAN, KARNATAKA-573 134, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.51, LAXMI GRAND, T002, MSR EXTENSION ROAD, PIPELINE ROAD, MSR NAGAR, OPP. GATE NO.4, BANGALORE-560 054.
13. DR. ANISHA SRIDHAR RAO AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. SRIDHAR SADASIV RAO, R/O. NO.250/D2, 2ND "C" CROSS, GIRINAGAR, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560 085.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRASHANTH KUMAR D, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.
2. DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION ANAND RAO CIRCLE, NEAR CITY RAILWAY STATION, BENGALURU-560 009, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
3. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 012, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
4. M. S. RAMAIAH UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNIVERSITY HOUSE, GNANAGANGOTHRI CAMPUS, NEW BEL ROAD, MSR NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 054, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT M S PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1, 3 AND 4 TO FIX THE ANNUAL TUITION FEE IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "CONSENSUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND THE KARNATAKA PROFESSIONAL COLLEGE’S FOUNDATION IN THE MATTER OF REGULATING ADMISSION AND FEE STRUCTURE TO THE POST GRADUATE COURSES IN PRIVATE PROFESSIONS COLLEGES OF MEDICINE AND DENTAL SCIENCES FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2017-2018" DATED 21.03.2017 (ANNEXURE-K) AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 13.08.2019 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, DEVDAS J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners are students pursuing Post Graduation in Dental Surgery (MDS) in the fourth respondent-University. The lis brought before this Court is regarding arbitrary fixation of tuition fee.
2. Sri Prashanth Kumar D., learned Counsel representing the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were allotted seats in terms of the consensual agreement entered into between the respondent-State of Karnataka and Consortium of Deemed to be Universities in the State of Karnataka (CODEUNIK), for the academic year 2017-2018. The fourth respondent-University is a part of the consortium, therefore, the fourth respondent has accepted the consensual agreement and acted accordingly. However, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that even as per the consensual agreement, the fee structure at Clause-6, chargeable for 33% of Government quota students is Rs.2,25,000/- for MDS. Therefore, it is submitted that the third respondent-Karnataka Examination Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KEA’ for short) and the fourth respondent-University have disregarded the same and collected Rs.6,00,000/- as tuition fees for each academic year.
3. The learned Counsel, drawing the attention of this Court to the statement of objections filed by the fourth respondent would submit that it is an admitted fact that the fourth respondent-University was allotted 32 seats in MDS course, out of which 13 seats were surrendered by the University to the State Government for allotment of seats on the basis of ranking of KEA and the balance of 23 seats were retained to be filled up by the Management under the institutional preference and NRI quota on the basis of NEET eligibility. It is further pointed out from the M.S.Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences Act, 2012, which was notified in the Official Gazette on 09.07.2013, that the fourth respondent-University is a Private University, unlike a Deemed to be Universities, which are required to be notified under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act for short). It was further pointed out that since the fourth respondent is not a Deemed University, the provisions of Section 4A of The Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) (Amendment) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Fee Act, 2015’ for short), would apply. Further, it is submitted that in terms of Section 4A of the Fee Act, 2015, the fourth respondent, like any other institution, not being a Deemed to be University, is required to collect Rs.2,25,000/- and not Rs.6,00,000/-.
4. Per contra, Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for fourth respondent- University would clarify that the fourth respondent is neither a Professional Educational Institution (Unaided) nor a Deemed to be University, whereas, it is an University established and incorporated in the State of Karnataka under a separate enactment known as M.S.Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences Act, 2012, which was notified in the Official Gazette on 09.07.2013. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the fourth respondent is not notified by the Central Government as an institution Deemed to be University under Section 3 of the UGC Act. While pointing out to Sub-section (3) of Section 4B of the Fee Act, 2015, it was submitted that since the fourth respondent voluntarily agreed to become a party to the consensual agreement with the State Government, the seat sharing formula of not less than 25% of the total intake was surrendered to the State Government at such rate of fee agreed upon in the consensual agreement.
5. Moreover, it was submitted that there is no arbitrariness in the fixing of tuition fee with respect to the petitioners. It was pointed out from the consensual agreement for the academic year 2017-2018 that the fee fixed for Post Graduate courses of MDS, in all the nine specialities, was Rs.6,00,000/- per year. The petitioners have given an undertaking in terms of the consensual agreement that they shall pay Rs.6,00,000/- per year, towards tuition fee and therefore, they cannot cry hoarse, having accepted and undertaken to pay the fee fixed in accordance with the consensual agreement.
6. Heard Sri Prashanth Kumar D., learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4-University, Sri N.K.Ramesh, learned Counsel for third respondent- KEA and Smt.M.S.Prathima, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2. We have perused the writ papers.
7. The grievance of the petitioners seems to have arisen from the fact that the fourth respondent- University, prescribed tuition fee of Rs.6,00,000/- for MDS students, for the academic year 2017-2018, while the fee prescribed for the next academic year 2018-2019 is Rs.2,74,250/-. Since the Post Graduate course is for a period of three years, the tuition fee prescribed shall be paid for all the three years.
8. We do not find any force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, on the technical ground that the fourth respondent is a Private University, not being a Deemed-to-be University, would fall under the category of any other Professional Educational Institution. It is an admitted fact that the fourth respondent has been established as an University under an enactment of the State Government. Section 4B(1) of the Fee Act, 2015, provides for a deemed University institution which fails to follow UGC Regulations in making admission to Professional Educational Courses, such University shall still constitute an association for conduct of Common Entrance Test for admission to their seats and such Deemed University Institutions shall make admission through Common Entrance Test for their Professional Educational Courses. The proviso to Section 4B(1) would provide that such Deemed University Institutions may opt to fill up other than Government seats, if any, through Common Entrance Test Committee or through association of un-aided Professional Educational Institutions. Sub-Section (3) of Section 4B would provide that such Universities, if they agree to consensual agreement with the State Government, they shall also agree to the seat sharing formula of not less than 25 per cent of the total intake and surrender the same to the State Government at such rate of fee agreed upon in the consensual agreement. Therefore, in terms of the consensual agreement of the year 2017-2018, if the consortium of deemed Universities have agreed in common to fix the tuition fees at the rate of Rs.6,00,000/- per year, no arbitrariness could be indicted to the fourth respondent-University. We find from the list of institutions along with the consensual agreement, 2017-2018 that the Deemed Universities are allowed to collect Rs.6,00,000/- as tuition fee.
9. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to see the heartburn caused to the petitioners, who are meritorious students who have secured Government quota seats. The petitioners, who have secured Government quota seats in the year 2017-2018, are required to pay Rs.6,00,000/-, each year, for the three years course. Similarly situated students who secured Government quota seats in the next academic year viz., 2018-2019 are required to pay Rs.2,74,250/-, each year, for the three years course. On the face of it, we do not find any rationale behind the fee fixation. No doubt, the fourth respondent has not committed any irregularity or cannot be accused of arbitrariness, however, Professional Educational Institutions, Deemed Universities and their Consortium, including the State Government should have deliberated upon this issue. A solution could have been arrived at, by the State Government and the Consortium of Professional Institutions and Universities. The discrepancy in the fee fixation between the academic year 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 strikes at the root of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
10. Keeping in mind the above discussion, we dispose of these writ petitions with a direction to the State Government and the Consortium of Professional Educational Institutions and Universities (CODEUNIK) to reconsider the representations made by the petitioners herein and all such students of the year 2017-2018 and arrive at a solution in either reducing the fee structure or granting concessions, in view of the difference in payment of fee compared to the year 2018- 2019. We hope and trust that the State Government and the Consortium of Professional Educational Institutions and Universities (CODEUNIK) will rise up to the occasion and pass suitable orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE DL/JT