NEET | Medical College Can't Retain Fees If Student Resigns From Allotment Made In First Counselling Itself: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that fees deposited by a student at the time of counselling is quid pro quo for studies imparted to such student by the institution.

While directing the respondent college to refund the fee deposited by the student at the time of first counselling, who is now seeking admission elsewhere, Justice Manish Mathur observed that

“In case a student resigns from the allotment made in the first counselling itself, clearly no studies have been imparted to such a student and therefore permitting such a College to retain fees deposited by a student would in fact amount to unjust enrichment. It is the opinion of this Court, that fees deposited by a student is as a quid pro quo for studies imparted to such student. This is more so, as in the present case where subsequent rounds of counselling including mop up rounds of counselling have taken place.”

Factual Background

Petitioner participated in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for the under-graduate programme in 2022. She was allotted F.H. Medical College, Agra in the first counselling. Though petitioner was also participating in counselling pertaining to NIMS University, Jaipur under the general category, however, she was allotted F.H. Medical College, Agra in the first counselling prior to conclusion of counselling in Jaipur.

Subsequently, petitioner was allotted NIMS University, Jaipur in the second counselling. In the intervening period, petitioner submitted resignation regarding first counselling of F.H. Medical College, Agra on grounds that she was dissatisfied with the College allotted. She also sought refund of the fees already deposited by her. Reliance was placed on paragraph 7(a) of Government Order dated 21.10.2022 to seek refund.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that paragraph 7 of Government Order dated 21.10.2022 clearly provides for refund of fees if the student who participated in the first round of counselling forsakes the seat. However, a specific condition has been imposed that the student must clearly indicate in the application of resignation that he/she is being allocated a Medical College in the second counselling, along with proof of the same.

The Court observed that the aforesaid mandatory condition of annexing the certificate regarding allotment made in the second counselling, can be read down as directory in nature since the provision of refund is a beneficial provision.

The Court held that the fees deposited by the student is consideration of the studies to be imparted by the college and the same shall be refunded to avoid unjust enrichment by the college.

Since the petitioner had substantially complied with the conditions for refund laid down in paragraph 7 of Government Order dated 21.10.2022, the Court held that “provisions of paragraph 7(a) of Government Order dated 21.10.2022 have been specifically inserted so as not to permit unjust enrichment by a College for retaining fees without imparting studies to a student.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the respondent to refund the fees deposited by the petitioner at the time of first counselling session.

Case Title: Shivangi Sharma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 92 [WRIT - C No. - 6606 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 92

Click Here To Read/Download Order