http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: PRINCIPAL, MADHAV INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/08/2000

BENCH: K.G.Balakrishna, M.Jagannadha Rao

JUDGMENT:

M.       JAGANNADHA RAO,J.

     The  Madhav  Institute  of   Technology  and  Science, Gwalior,  represented  by  its Principal  is  the  appellant before  us.   The Ist respondent, who is an employee  and  a diploma   holder  in  Engineering   wanted  to  improve  his educational   qualification   and   joined   the   part-time Engineering  Course  (Evening  Session)   of  the  appellant Institute  in  1996  and also paid the tuition fee  for  the degree  course.   This part-time course was started in  this Institute  in  1991.   It appears that the State  of  Madhya Pradesh,  with a view to control population growth wanted to give   certain  incentives  to   those  who  had   undergone ’sterilisation.’  Such persons were given ’green cards’ by a Govt.  Circular dated 1.10.85, which said that ’children’ of the  green card holders would not have to pay fee in Medical Colleges,  Engineering  Colleges/Polytechnic   Colleges  and Industrial   Training    Institutes.     Subsequently,   the Government  issued another order on 6.11.87, extending  this benefit to the ’persons’ who had undergone the sterilisation operation  and  it was said that there would be ’waiver’  of tuition  fee  in Medical and Engineering Colleges  in  their cases  too.  The Ist respondent who joined the Institute  in 1996 and who paid tuition fee for 1996-97 then filed W.P.906 of 1997 claiming that under the above order dated 6.11.87 of Government  of Madhya Pradesh, he was entitled to  exemption from  paying the fee in the college and that he was entitled to  refund  of the tuition fee already paid for 1996-97  and exemption  for  the  future.  The State contended  that  the above  orders were not applicable to ’part-time’ courses.  ( There  is  no  dispute  that  so  far  as  this  College  is concerned, the regular courses ( i.e.  other than part-time) were  admitted to grant-in-aid and that these part-time were not so admitted).  In other words, it was contended that the Ist respondent was not entitled to exemption from payment of tuition fee.  A further contention was advanced by the State that the first order dated 1.10.85 was issued in the name of the  Governor  of  the  State   under  Article  166  of  the Constitution  of India ( the one which conferred benefit  on the  ’children’ who had undergone sterilisation) whereas the second  order dated 6.11.87 ( which conferred the benefit on the  persons  who had undergone the sterilisation)  was  not issued  in  the name of the Governor and did not confer  any enforceable right on the persons who were claiming exemption under  the second order.  A learned Single Judge of the High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh , in his judgment  dated  26.8.97 dismissed  the  Writ petition on the ground that the  second order  dated  6.11.87 having not been issued in the name  of the Governor under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, it  was not enforceable.  But, on appeal in LPA.218 of 1997, the  Division  Bench allowed the Writ petition  and  granted relief stating that the appellant-Institute had no case that Government  orders  were not binding on it and hence it  was bound  to implement the second order of the Government dated 6.11.87  The  exemption was general in nature and  had  been made     applicable     to        ’all’     colleges     and polytechnics/Institutes.   The  appellant   was  accordingly directed  to  grant exemption in regard to the tuition  fee. It is against this judgment that the Institute has preferred this  appeal.  During the pendency of this appeal, there was no  stay  of  the judgment of the Division  Bench.   We  are informed  that  the  Ist respondent is yet to  complete  the degree course and is still studying in this Institute in the part-time  course.   In  this  appeal,  the  learned  Senior counsel    Sri   A.K.     Chitale,    appearing   for    the appellant-Institute  has  contended  that the order  of  the Government  of Madhya Pradesh dated 6.11.87 would never have been  intended to apply to private colleges/Institutes where the  courses  were  not  admitted  to  grant-in-aid  by  the Government.   The  Government  could not  have  imposed  any obligation  on  the unaided Colleges/Institutes inasmuch  as there  was  no other way whereby  these  Colleges/Institutes could  meet  the  expenditure for these  part-time  courses. Admittedly,  the  part-time course in this college  was  not admitted  to  grant-in-aid by the Government.  The State  of Madhya  Pradesh has filed a counter in this Court supporting the appellant-Institute and has clarified as follows:  "That it is submitted that the Circulars dated 1.10.85 and 6.11.87 have  been issued by the Government for providing facilities of  exemption from payment of tuition fees to the green-card holders  and these words only in respect of regular courses. The  respondent  No.1  was granted  admission  in  part-time course  which is under self-financing scheme and  Government do   not  provide  any  fund   for  the  same.   Hence   the above-mentioned  Circulars are not applicable in the case of the  respondent No.1" The above clarification issued by  the Government  would  mean that the part-time courses  in  this college  which  were not regular courses and which were  not admitted to aid, were never intended by the Government to be covered  by the orders dated 1.10.85 and 6.11.87.  The State stated  that  there  was thus no obligation on  the  private unaided  Colleges/Institutes  to grant such  exemption  from payment  of tuition fee in respect of part-time courses.  In our  view, there can be no difficulty in granting  exemption to  the  aided courses in private Colleges/Institutes.   But there  will be difficulty in extending exemption to  unaided courses  in  private  Colleges/Institutes.   The  reason  is obvious.  If Government is not to meet the teaching expenses in  part- time courses and if the College is not to  collect the tuition fee, the College will have to bear the financial burden  without the corresponding right to collect fee  from the  students  to  meet its legitimate  expenses  for  these part-time  courses.  There is also no material to show  that before  such an administrative order was issued the  private colleges  or  institutes  agreed  to  bear  the  expenditure themselves  even  if grant-in-aid was not extended to  these part-time  courses.   The  Government,  in  our  view,   was therefore justified in making the clarification as aforesaid in  its  counter  affidavit  and it appears to  be  quite  a reasonable  stand taken by them.  Learned Senior counsel for

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

the Ist respondent, Sri M.N.  Krishnamani contended that but for  the  representation made by the State in  its  Circular dated  6.11.87, the Ist respondent would not have  undergone sterilisation.   The  Government  and the  Institutes  were, therefore, now estopped from denying benefit of the order to the   Ist  respondent.   We  are   unable  to  accept   this contention.   The Circular dated 6.11.87 is one addressed to all  Chief  Medical and Health Officers in  Madhya  Pradesh. While  we  may assume that the Circular has been  issued  to benefit those who have undergone sterilisation, it cannot be said  that  any  personal  representation was  made  to  Ist respondent.   Therefore, no question of promissory  estoppel arises.   There  is  also no material to hold that  the  Ist respondent  has  undergone  the sterilisation  operation  in contemplation  of taking up this part-time course.  It might have  been  for other good reasons relevant to the  family’s financial   status  to  meet   extra  expenditure  for  more children.   In  fact,  if  he  were  acting  upon  any  such representation  in  1996,  - when he  joined  the  part-time course  he would not have paid the tuition fee for  1996-97. The  reasonable  inference is that he was not even aware  of this Circular when he joined the course and it was only much later,  when  he  learnt about the circular that  he  sought refund  for 1996-97 and exemption for the future.  So far as the Institute is concerned, it never made any representation to  the  Ist  respondent.  It was then argued  for  the  Ist respondent that at the time when this Institute was founded, lot  of  monies  came from Government and  the  public  and, therefore,  the  fact  that  for this course  there  was  no grant-in-aid,  made  no difference.  We cannot  agree.   The capital  expenditure  incurred at the time of  founding  the Institute  is  different  from the running expenses  of  the teaching  staff every month.  Learned Senior counsel for the Ist  respondent  then  contended  that   if  there  was   no grant-in-aid,  then  the State must be directed to  pay  the tuition fee in respect of such individual candidates who had undergone sterilisation, though the part-time course was not aided.   In  our view, it is not possible to issue any  such direction  in this Writ petition.  Grant-in-aid, either  for the  Institution  or for the School or for individuals is  a matter of policy.  In view of the clarification given in the counter  affidavit  set out above, if any such direction  is given  by this Court to benefit individuals, it would amount to  amendment of the existing government policy by way of  a judicial  order  and  amounts  to extension  of  benefit  to persons  to  whom the policy was not intended to apply.   We are,  therefore, unable to agree with the view taken by  the Division  Bench  of  the  High Court in  allowing  the  Writ petition.   The  appeal is allowed and the judgment  of  the Division Bench in the LPA is set aside and the Writ petition is  dismissed.  It will be necessary for the Ist  respondent to pay the arrears in the tuition fee for the past years and for  the rest of the course.  In case any representation  is made   for  instalments,  the   appellant  may  grant   easy instalments  or obtain a bond from the appellant for payment of  the tuition fee covering the back period.  So far as the future years of the course are concerned, the Ist respondent has any way to pay the fee.  Subject to the above directions against the Ist respondent, the appeal is allowed.  The Writ petition is dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.