Pai Foundation & Ors Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors  INSC 935 (9 August 1996)
Singh (J) Kuldip Singh (J) Agrawal, S.C.
(J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)
1996 SCC (5) 8 1996 SCALE (5)666
O R D
J.P & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
& Ors. [1993 (1) S.C.C.645] a Constitution Bench of this Court had evolved
a scheme governing admission to private medical engineering and certain other
colleges, keeping in view the positive features of the relevant Central and
State enactments. The idea behind the scheme has been set out in Paragraph 205
of the Judgment. In Paragraph 206 it was stated that the scheme evolved therein
"is in the nature of guidelines which the appropriate governments and recognising
and affiliating authorities shall impose and implement in addition to such
other conditions and stipulations as they may think appropriate as conditions
for grant of permission, grant of recognition or grant of affiliation, as the
case may be". Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Paragraph 6 of the Scheme, in
particulars dealt with the fees to be charged by the professional colleges. It
would be appropriate if we extract the said clauses:
Every State Government shall forthwith constitute a Committee to fix the ceiling
on the fees chargeable by a professional college or class of professional
collage as the case may be. The Committee shall consist of a vice- Chancellor,
Secretary for Education (or such Joint Secretary, as he may nominate) and
Director, Medical Education/Director Technical Education. The Committee shall
make such enquiry as it thinks appropriate. It shall, however, give opportunity
to the professional colleges [or their association(s), if any] to place such
materials as they think fit.
shall however, not be bound to give any personal hearing to anyone or follow
any technical rules of law. The Committee shall fix the fee once every three
years or at such longer intervals, as it may think appropriate.
would be appropriate if the U.G.C. frames regulations under Section 12-A(3) of
the U.G.C. Act, regulating the fees which the affiliated colleges, operating on
no-grant-in-aid basis, are entitled to charge. The Council for Technical
Education may also consider the advisability of issuing directions under
Section 10 of the A.I.C.T.E. Act regulating the fees that may be charged in
private unaided educational institutions imparting technical education. The
Indian Medical Council and the Central Government may also consider the
advisability of such regulation as a condition for grant of permission to new
medical colleges under Section 10-A and to impose such a condition on existing
colleges under Section 10- C.
The several authorities mentioned in sub-paras (a) and (b) shall decide whether
a private educational institution is entitled to charge only that fee as is
required to run the college or whether the capital cost involved in
establishing a college can also be passed on to the students and if so, in what
manner. Keeping in view the need, the interest of general public and of the
nation, a policy decision may be taken. It would be more appropriate if the
Central Government and these authorities (U.G.C., I.M.C. and A.I.C.T.E.)
coordinate their efforts and evolve a broadly uniform criterion in this behalf.
Until the Central Government, U.G.C., I.M.C. and A.I.C.T.E. issue
orders/regulations in this behalf, the Committee referred to in the sub-para
(a) of this para shall be operative. In other words, the working and orders of
the Committee shall be subject to the orders/regulations, issued by Central
Government, U.G.C., I.M.C. or A.I.C.T.E., as the case may be."
Pursuant to the directions contained in Paragraph 6, a tentative exercise was
done by the authorities including certain State governments, which was placed
before this Court. This Court was however, not satisfied with the manner in
which it was prepared and the unrealistically high level of fees suggested. In
that view of the matter, certain tentative orders were passed for the Academic
Year 1993-94 including the fees to be charged by the said institutions.
Order is dated October 7, 1993, reported in 1993 (4) S.C.C.276. The idea then
was that the authorities referred to in Paragraph 6 of the Scheme shall prepare
a proper scheme consistent with the ground realities and that the Orders dated
October 10, 1993 were to be only tentative in nature. Since no such scheme was
coming forward from the side of the authorities, this Court had no option but
to pass fresh set of orders with respect to Academic Year 1994- 95. This Order
is dated May 13, 1994, reported in 1994 (4) S.C.C.728. The situation did not
improve even by the Academic Year 1995-96 and hence, this Court was obliged to
pass yet another order on August 11, 1995 [1995 (5) S.C.C.220] applicable for
the Academic Year 1995-96. The fees fixed for each of the academic years varied
having regard to the material placed by the parties before us.
May 10, 1996, this Court passed another Order stating that the orders passed on
August 11, 1995 with respect to Academic Year 1995-96 shall continue to apply
for the next academic year as well, i.e., 1996-97. Even so, a number of
Interlocutory Applications are filed by the various medical and engineering
colleges, their associations and other persons seeking a variety of directions.
We have heard the counsel. The following orders are made which shall be of
general application. These directions shall be in addition to, in continuation
of and in clarification of the earlier Orders including the Order dated 11th
August, 1995, as extended by Order dated 10th May, 1996.
It is directed that the fees fixed for each of the Academic Years 1993-94,
1994-95 and 1995-96 shall be confined to that respective year only. By way of
illustration, a student admitted against a payment seat in M.B.B.S. course for
the-Academic Year 1993-94 in a college having its own hospital facility shall
pay Rs.1.40 lakhs for that year. For the next academic year, i.e., 1994-95, he
shall pay only Rs.1.10 lakhs and for the Academic Year 1995- 96, he shall pay
only Rupees seventy five thousand.
for Academic Year 1996-97 too, he shall pay a sum of only Rupees seventy five
thousand. This does not, however, mean that he shall be entitled to claim
refund of any part of the amount on account of the fees paid by him for any of
the said earlier years. The Order of this Court dated 11.12.1995 in
Interlocutory Application No.40 in Writ Petition (C) No.317 of 1993 does not
say otherwise and shall not be understood as directing otherwise.
The fee structure and all other directions provided in this Court's Order dated
August 11, 1995 [applicable for the Academic Year 1995-96] shall also apply to
and continue to apply for the Academic Year 1996-97. The N.R.I. quota and all
other particulars shall be the same.
shall be on change in that behalf.
It is made clear that the Order dated May 10, 1996 shall apply to all States
including the State of Maharashtra. In other words, the Order applies to the
professional colleges in all the States, irrespective of the fact whether such
colleges or the States are parties to the said order or not.
It is made further clear that with effect from the Academic Year 1995-96 free
seat students shall pay the fees prescribed in the Order dated August 11, 1995
even though these students may have been admitted during the Academic Year 1993-94,
or for that matter during the Academic Year 1994-95.
There shall be no change in the fees for engineering , colleges. The N.R.I.
quota for them shall remain at five percent.
request is made on behalf of the engineering colleges that the governments, in
particular, the Karnataka government should be directed to specify a last
cut-off date for allotment of students, whether in free seats category or in the
payment seats category and that if all the seats are not filled up, in any of
the above categories, by the said last cut-off dates the colleges should be
left free to fill up those seats on their own account and in their discretion.
is made that on account of non-specification of such a last cut-off dates a
number of seats in many engineering colleges are remaining vacant, particularly
in the payment seats category, which is making it impossible for the colleges
to function or to continue to functions as the case may be. this plea is
rebutted by the learned counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka. The
learned counsel for the State contended that Rule 10 of the Karnataka Selection
of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical and Dental Courses Rules,
1993, as amended in 1996, fully safeguard the interests of colleges and fully
allays the apprehension and grievance aforesaid.
of the said amendments it is pointed outs clause (g) is added in sub-rule (3-A)
of Rule 10 which reads: "(g) After the closing date for admission, as
fixed by the Government is over, a reconciliation meeting regarding the number
of unfilled and un-allotted seats shall be held between the C.E.T. Cell, The
Directorate of Technical Education, Directorate of Medical Education and the
respective colleges and after identifying the vacant seats, issue Notification
regarding such seats by the concerned Directors. Such seats shall be filled by
the Colleges." In our opinions the said clause is a salutary one. All that
we need to add to the said clause is that the action contemplated therein shall
be taken within fifteen days of the closing date for admission. Any seats
remaining unfilled thereafter can be filled by the management of the private
engineering colleges on their own and in their discretion.
direction shall not apply to medical/dental colleges.
So far as the thirty five percent payment seats in medical colleges in the
State of Karnataka are concerned [i.e. after providing for fifteen percent free
seats and fifteen percent N.R.I. quota the said seats shall be filled in the
same proportion as between Karnataka and non- Karnataka students as has been
specified for the Academic Year 1995-96 viz., twenty percent for Karnataka
students and fifteen percent for non-Karnataka students. It is further directed
that if any of the seats in twenty percent meant for Karnataka students remain vacants
they shall be filled by students from among the non-Karnataka students. The
allotment of the students shall be governed by the 1993 Admission Rules of
must express our distress at the inaction of the authorities pursuant to Para 6
of the Scheme aforementioned.
a period of more than three years have passed by since the decision in unnikrishnan,
the authorities mentioned in the said paragraph have not come forward with a
workable, realistic and just fee structure, with the result that year after
years this Court is practically being forced to fix the tee on a tentative
basis. Fixing the fees is not the function of this Court. It is the function of
the Government, the affiliating Universities and the statutory professional
bodies likes University Grants Commission, Indian Medical Council and All-India
Council for Technical Education. Atleast now, we expect the concerned
authorities to move in the matter with promptitude and evolve an appropriate
fee structure. While doing so, it is made clear, they shall not feel shackled
by the Orders made by this Court from time to time relating to fee structure.
It shall be open to them to evolve such fee structure as they think
appropriate, in such terms, and subject to such conditions as they feel are in
the interests of the student community, the private professional colleges as
also in public and national interest. We hope and trust that the fee structure
to be evolved by them would take into consideration the ground realities and
would be realistic and practical from the point of view of all concerned. In
particular, we request the Central Government, including the Ministry of
Education [Ministry of Human Resources Development] to take immediate steps to
convene a meeting of all the concerned authorities as contemplated by Paragraph
6 of the Scheme and ensure that a proper fee structure is evolved for the medical,
dental and engineering colleges throughout the country. It shall be open to the
authorities to fix separate fee structure for each of the State, if such a
course is warranted.
also be open to the authorities to fix different fee structure having regard to
the location of the colleges, to with a college in the city of Bombay may be
allowed a different level of fees than a similar college [with similar
facilities] situated in a rural area. To reiterate, the Central Government and
the authorities concerned shall be free to evolve the fee structure in such
appropriate manner as they think just and equitable to all concerned. We hope
and trust that this would be done within a period of three months from today
and the matter brought to the notice of this Court forthwith. We wish to make
it clear that with effect from the Academic Year 1997-98, it shall be the
responsibility of the authorities aforesaid to prescribe the fee payable in
far as the modification of the scheme contained in Unnikrishnan is concerned,
that is a matter pending before this Court separately. Probably that may have
to be done by a larger Bench as indicated in one of earlier orders. We are,
therefore, not making any directions in that behalf.
Ordered accordingly. All the Interlocutory Applications are disposed of. these
orders are to be communicated forthwith to the Secretary, Ministry of Human
Resource Developments Government of India and the Chief Secretaries to all
State governments, Administrators of Union territories as well as to the
University Grants Commissions Indian Medical Council, All-India Council for
Technical Education and Indian Dental Council.