Delhi High Court
Sumit Kumar vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 6 May, 2016
Author: Manmohan
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 681/2015
SUMIT KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate.
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH
INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Harsh Kaushik and Mr.Abhay
Chattopadhyay, Advocates
% Date of Decision: 06th May, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondent university to refund the entire fee deposited on 13th August, 2015
by the petitioner while seeking admission in Masters of Technology
programme.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that though the last date for
withdrawal was 19th August, 2014, yet the petitioner had applied for
withdrawal on 20th August, 2014 by way of an e-mail. He, however, points
out that as the second counselling was scheduled for 22nd August, 2014, the
respondent university had the opportunity to enrol another student.
Consequently, the counsel for the petitioner contends that in accordance
with the UGC Guidelines, the petitioner is entitled for refund after deduction
of processing fee.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-University states
that the petitioner did not adhere to the directions prescribed by the
respondent university for withdrawal. He states that Clause 7(d) of the
respondent-University's first counselling notice stipulates that any request
for withdrawal would not be entertained if sent by post or e-mail or fax. He
points out that since in the present case the petitioner had sought for
withdrawal by email date 20th August, 2014, the same was not in accordance
with the procedure prescribed by the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for respondent-University also states that the
application dated 21st August, 2014 which was delivered at the despatch
department was beyond the last date for withdrawal and was neither
furnished in the prescribed format nor addressed to the correct officer in
accordance with clause 7(c) of the respondent's first counselling notice. He
lastly states that petitioner's incomplete application for withdrawal was
relayed to respondent's concerned branch only on 26th August, 2014 by
which time, the respondent's second counselling session had been
completed.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the view
that it is first essential to determine whether the respondent-University had
the opportunity to enrol another student after the petitioner had applied for
withdrawal.
6. Clause 7 of the first counselling notice issued by the respondent states
that the prescribed withdrawal form was to be duly filled up and both the
original admission slips issued by the respondent were to be returned in case
a student wished to withdraw from the programme as well as the withdrawal
form was necessarily required to be submitted to the Joint Registrar of
Admissions of the respondent and no communication in respect of
withdrawal was to be accepted vide e-mail, fax etc.
7. Since in the present case, the petitioner had initially sought
withdrawal by a prohibited mode i.e. e-mail dated 20th August, 2014 and the
subsequent application dated 21st August, 2014 was furnished to the wrong
branch and was not accompanied by relevant documents, this Court is of the
view that respondent-University could not have enrolled another student in
the second counselling.
8. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that as a result of the
petitioner's action, the seat remained vacant.
9. The consequence of the seat remaining vacant vis-a-vis the refund of
fee has been dealt by this Court in Surbhi Singh vs. The Guru Gobind
Singh Indraprastha University, W.P.(C) 1820/2012 vide judgment and
order dated 28th January, 2014. The relevant portion of the said judgment
and order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"9. Further, in the opinion of this Court, the UGC public
notice dated 23rd April, 2007 offers no assistance to the
petitioner even though the same had been issued after passing
of the judgment of Neha Sharma (supra) as in the present case,
the petitioner seat has remained vacant. The UGC public notice
only states that if the vacant seat is filled up by another
candidate, then the University and college must return the fees
collected from the student after making proportionate deduction
of the fees and expenses that would be payable by the student
for the time he/she was enrolled in the said college and
university.
10. Admittedly once the second counselling session starts, no
further seat can be made available for admission. Any seat that
falls vacant after the second counselling commences, remains
vacant for the entire academic year of the respective course and
the respondent-University cannot fill such a seat.
11. Consequently, in the present case, as the petitioner's seat
has gone vacant and no student was enrolled in place of the
petitioner in accordance with the policy of the respondent-
University, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's
reliance on the UGC public notice dated 23rd April, 2007 is
contrary to facts and untenable in law. Accordingly, the
present writ petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs."
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts as well as the mandate of law,
present writ petition is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
MANMOHAN, J
MAY 06, 2016
Sv/js
