http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/08/1996

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (5)   8        1996 SCALE  (5)666

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      In Unnikrishnan,  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:      "(6)(a)  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

    such materials  as they  think fit.      It 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.      (b) It  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.      (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." 2. 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

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. The 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. 3.    On  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. 4(i)      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. Similarly, 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. (ii)      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. There shall be on change in that behalf. (iii)     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. (iv)      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

1994-95. (v)       There  shall   be  no   change  in  the  fees  for engineering ,  colleges. The  N.R.I. quota  for  them  shall remain at five percent. (vi)      A 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. Grievance 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. By way  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. This direction shall not apply to medical/dental colleges. (vii)     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 Karnataka aforesaid. 5.   We must  express our  distress at  the inaction  of the authorities pursuant to Para 6 of the Scheme aforementioned. Though 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,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

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.      It may 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 these colleges. 6.   So 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. 7.   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.