Education Alert – March-
April 2013
- Supreme Court Cases
1. Ayurved
Shastra Seva Mandal and Anr. v. Union
of India and Ors., decided
on March 06, 2013.
Facts:
The petitioners had filed the Special Leave
Petitions (“SLPs”) against the
refusal by the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy
(“AYUSH”), to grant permission to
colleges to admit students for the academic year 2011-12, for the BAMS/ Post
Graduate courses. The Bomabay High court had upheld such refusal. The
respondents contended that various regulations were laid down to ensure minimum
standards in medical colleges. It was further contended that the petitioner
colleges were granted time to fulfill those standards but, many colleges did
not conform to them. The petitioners argued that various courts had granted
them permission to accept application forms for the Academic year 2011-12 but
were directed not to admit any students till the decision of the Supreme Court.
As half of the academic year had already passed, the colleges proposed that if
need arose then they would conduct special classes to bring the first year
students to the level of second year students. It was prayed that the
petitioners be granted permission to admit students for the academic year
20111-12.
Ruling and Order:
The Supreme Court held that the proposal of the
colleges to allow students to attend extra classes to supplement the first year
course was impractical. The Court observed that a student would not be able to
complete an entire year’s course in just six months.
The Court refused to interfere with the
decision of AYUSH of refusing to grant permission to the colleges to admit students
for the academic year 2011-12. The Court stated that they are experts and are
the best judge to decide whether the colleges had minimum standards to conduct
classes in respect of the year 2011-12. The Court, thus, dismissed the SLPs.
2. Association of Management of Private Colleges v. All India Council of Technical Education and Ors., decided
on April 25, 2013
Facts:
The
appellant member colleges, affiliated to the Bharathidasan University and Manonmaniam
Sundaranar University, are running university approved courses including MBA
and MCA. On March 03, 2001, a communication was sent by the All India Council
of Technical Education (“AICTE”) to
the member colleges in respect of its proposal to commence MCA course requiring
the colleges to furnish information regarding the proposed land and building.
On March 14, 2001, a writ petition was filed by the appellant's association (“Association”) to prohibit the AICTE
from in any way exercising its jurisdiction over its member colleges with
reference to the MBA and MCA courses conducted by them. The said writ petition
was dismissed by the single judge holding that the All India Council of Technical
Education Act, 1987 (“AICTE Act”)
and Regulations are enforceable against the said member colleges. The
Association then filed a writ appeal against the decision. The same was dismissed
by the division bench upholding the judgment of the single judge. The
appellants contended that colleges affiliated to a university need not take
permission from the AICTE to run any technical courses. The respondent
contended that as per the amended regulation dated August 16, 2000, colleges
intending to run MBA and MCA courses are required to seek AICTE’s approval. The
appellants argued that MCA course does not fall within the definition of Technical
Education as contained in Section 2 (g) of the AICTE Act. Moreover, since the
amended regulation has not been placed before the Houses of Parliament for
approval, which AICTE is mandated to do under Section24 of the AICTE Act, they
cannot be enforced.
Ruling and Order:
The
Supreme Court, while referring to its earlier judgement in the case of Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education[1],
held that colleges affiliated to a university are not obliged to take separate
permission from the All-India Council for Technical Education to conduct
MBA/MCA courses. The role of AICTE vis-à-vis universities is only advisory,
recommendatory and one of providing guidance and it has no authority to issue
or enforce any sanction by itself.
The
Court also held that a university does not fall within definition of 'technical
institution' as defined under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act. The Institution
means an institution not being a university, the applicability of bringing the
university as defined under Clause 2 (f) of UGC Act includes the institution
deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the UGC Act and therefore the
affiliated colleges are excluded from the purview of technical institution
definition of the AICTE Act.
The
Court further held that MCA was ‘technical education’ but made it clear that
for proper conduct of the course and regulation, the role of AICTE must be
advisory and a note should be given to the UGC for implementation. However, it
was held MBA was not a technical course and AICTE approval was not required for
conducting it.
The
Court observed that the position of law is well settled that if the statute
prescribes a particular procedure to do an act in a particular way, that act
must be done in that manner. The Court held that the regulations made by AICTE
were vitiated in law as the said amended regulations were not placed before
both Houses of the Parliament as required under Section 24 of the AICTE Act.
- High Court Cases
- Mr Rahul Chadha and Ors. v. Summer Field School and Ors., decided on April 10, 2013 by the High Court of Delhi.
Facts:
The respondent school, governed by the Delhi
School Education Rules, 1973 (“Rules”),
was charging fees in advance from the students on a quarterly basis. The appellants
contended that as per Rule 165 of Part B of Chapter XIII of the Rules all fees
and contributions payable to a school by a student shall be payable by the 10th
day of the month in which they are due. So, the school cannot charge advance
fees for more than one month at one point of time. The respondent relied on a
circular issued by the Directorate of Education which mentions advance
quarterly collection of fees from the students.
Ruling and Order:
The Court held that Rule 165 is statutory in
character and hence it is not possible for Directorate of Education to issue
circulars in violation of these rules whereby fees can be allowed to be charged
by a school otherwise than every month. The Court allowed the appeal and
directed the respondent school to collect the fees on a monthly basis.
- Consumer Cases
- B.S. Anangpuria Institute of Technology & Management and Ors v. Yagya Dutt, decided on March 07, 2013 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi.
Facts:
The respondent/complainant
had taken admission in the college of opposite party (“OP”) by paying an amount of Rs. 55,640. Five (5) days after the
last cut off date for admission, the respondent opted out of the course and the
OP refunded him an amount of Rs. 20,640. The District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum (“District Forum”),
on the complaint of the respondent for refund of the balance amount, directed
the OP to repay the balance amount after deducting 25% of the total amount of
admission fees. On appeal, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“State Commission”) upheld the decision
of the District Forum. The State Commission noted that the OP did not produce
on record any document to show that after withdrawal of the admission by the
complainant, his seat had remained vacant.
Ruling
and Order:
The National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“National
Commission”) held that the
observation made by the State Commission is not in consonance with the stand
taken by OP in its response filed in the District Commission about the vacancy
of the seat. The National Commission remanded the case back to the State
Commission for fresh consideration.
- Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani v. Abhishek Mangi, decided on April 23, 2013 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi.
Facts:
The
respondent/complainant had deposited Rs. 55,000 as admission fees in the
appellant college. After that he got admission in another college and applied
for the refund of admission fees in the appellant college but received only Rs.
8,000. The appellant contended that they did not fall within the category of a
service provider. They further contended that by withdrawing at a later stage,
the respondent’s seat remained vacant and it caused a loss to the appellants.
The District Forum and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“State Commission”) directed the
appellant to refund the fees noting that as per a public notice by the
University Grants Commission (“UGC”)
institutions are not entitled to retain the entire fees and if at all they can
deduct some amount that is not more than Rs.1000 and the balance should be
refunded. They held that forfeiting the entire fees was an unfair trade
practice and that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the
appellant institute.
Ruling and Order:
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(“National Commission”) observed
that the appellants had not placed any records to show that the seat vacated by
the respondent had remained vacant and was not filled up at all.
The National Commission held that there was no
jurisdictional or legal error in the decisions given by the District Forum and
the State Commission and hence no interference was required in the order passed
by them in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986. The National Commission dismissed the petition with cost.
3. IIIT College of Engineering v. Vikas Sood and Ors., decided on April 02, 2013 by the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi.
Facts:
It
was alleged by the complainants that there was misrepresentation on part of the
opposite party by stating in their prospectus that the college was affiliated
with the H.P. University and was also approved by the All India Council of
Technical Education (“AICTE”). The
complainants alleged deficiency in service and claimed damages and cost of
litigation. It was contended by the opposite parties that the college was
recognised by AICTE but the H.P. University refused to conduct examinations for
the Information Technology Course and that the opposite parties had moved the
Delhi High Court for relief. Moreover, the opposite parties claimed that the
students were duly informed of the situation. The District Forum and the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“State
Commission”) held that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite parties and directed them to refund the fees along with damages and
litigation costs. The District Forum and the State Commission found that the
opposite party college was granted only provisional affiliation and the same
was subject to change. It was further held that the stand of the opposite
parties that they had duly informed the students seeking admission with regard
to the case pending before the Delhi High Court and the affiliation and
approval of the HP University and AICTE, Delhi was false. A revision petition
before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“National Commission”) was then filed by
the opposite parties.
Ruling
and Order:
The
National Commission held that was nothing on record to show that the degree course in Information Technology for the session 2000-2001, was at all recognized by
AICTE. It was further held that no jurisdictional or legal error had been
committed by the fora below and their
decisions were concurrent and hence there was no scope of reviewing the
decisions.
The
National Commission dismissed the petition with costs.
- Director, Dehradun Institute of Technology v. Arun Kumar, decided on March 18, 2013 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand.
Facts:
The respondent/complainant took
admission in the appellant’s/Opposite Party’s (“OP”) college in B.Tech (IT) by depositing an admission fees of Rs.
1,20,300. After attending 6 classes, he applied for
cancellation of his admission and refund of the fees paid. While his admission
was cancelled, the OP refused to refund the admission fees. The respondent then
approached the Uttarakhand Technical University, Dehradun and the Additional
Secretary of the Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun, who directed the OP to refund
the fees as per the rules and regulations of the All India Council for Technical
Education (“AICTE”). However, the
fees paid by respondent was not refunded to him. The complainant then
approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (“District Forum”) which directed the OP
to refund the entire admission fees along with Rs. 10,000 towards mental agony
and another Rs. 10,000 towards litigation expenses.
Ruling and Order:
The State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (“State Commission”)
held that non-refund of admission fee after a student discontinues with the
course, amounts to commercialization of education. The State Commission also observed
that the OP had not adduced any evidence to show that due to the cancellation
of admission by the complainant, his seat had remained vacant and that the OP
suffered a monetary loss as a consequence.
The State Commission upheld the
decision of the District forum but it did away with the amount awarded towards
mental agony of the consumer and lowered the award for litigation expenses to
Rs. 5,000.
5.
Directorate, College of Business
Studies, H.P. University, Shimla v. Shashank
Acharya, decided on April 02, 2013 by the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission.
Facts:
The
complainant/ respondent took admission against non-subsidized seats in the opposite party/appellant’s college after the admission date was over by making
a special request and by paying a sum of Rs. 65,000 as admission fees. After
attending college for a few days, the respondent took admission in another
college and hence asked for the refund of the admission fees from the appellant
college. The appellants argued that nothing was refundable to the
respondent/complainant because he had vacated the seat after having attended the
classes for ten days and also after the last date of admission was over. The
District Forum directed the appellant to refund the money. The opposite party
then appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“State Commission”).
Ruling and Order:
The
State Commission held that the complainant was the only student to take
admission against the non-subsidized seats in the appellant college. Hence there
was no question of any loss occurring to them on account of non-subsidized
seats remaining vacant. It was further held that the appellant cannot unduly itself
by withholding the entire amount of fee deposited by the respondent/complainant.
The
State Commission took into account the fact that the complainant had attended
classes for a few days and directed the appellant to refund a sum of Rs.
60,000.
6.
Don Bosco School v. Minor R. Ramya represented by his father R.G. Ravi, decided on April 29, 2013 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Chennai.
Facts:
The
complainant alleged that his two children studying in the school of the
opposite party were harassed by the teaching staff by inflicting severe
punishment. An enquiry was conducted in the presence of an advocate appointed
by the Legal Aid. A compromise was entered into between the complainant and the
school authorities, and the dispute was solved. However, as per the terms of
the compromise, they had agreed to admit minor Ramya into school. The school refused
to give admission to Jegan, the second child in question. Further, even in so
far as the child Ramya was concerned, after allowing her to attend the school, the
appellant rusticated her and refused to give the Transfer Certificate. The
District Forum, after considering the rival contentions, came to the conclusion
that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and
allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000 as
compensation and Rs.2,000 as cost. The opposite party then appealed in the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“State Commission”).
Ruling
and Order:
The
State Commission held that only on the orders issued by the District Forum, the
Transfer Certificate of the first child was given to the complainant. However it
was observed that in the letter sent by the complainant to the Legal Service
Authorities, it had been specifically stated that the son of the complainant
was not at all admitted and sought for the intervention of the legal service authority
for such admission. Therefore the allegation of the complainant that the
opposite party failed to admit the second child after receipt of fees could not
be accepted and the observation made by the District Forum, with regard to the
complainant’s second child was set aside.
However
the State Commission held that the allegation of the complainant regarding his
first child was substantiated and hence the appeal was allowed partly. The
opposite party was directed to pay a reduced compensation of Rs. 25,000.
7. The Dean, Guru Nanak Institute of Hotel
Management, Kolkata v. Shuvam
Chanda, decided on April 12, 2013
by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata.
Facts:
The
complainant had taken admission in the opposite party college by paying an
admission fee of Rs. 10,000. He was led to believe that the opposite party
would help him to get a loan from the bank. The complainant also found that the
opposite party had misrepresented regarding the other facilities to be provided
by it. As a result, the complainant cancelled his admission and requested for
the refund of the fees paid but was turned down. The opposite party contended
that no such promises were made and the cancellation of the admission had
caused a monetary loss to it. The District Forum directed the opposite party to
refund the fees paid by the complainant. The opposite party appealed against
the decision of the District Forum in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (“State Commission”).
Ruling
and Order:
The
State Commission held that the opposite party had produced no evidence to show
that because of the cancellation of admission of the complainant, the seat had
remained vacant throughout the academic year. It was also held that the
complainant was misled by the opposite party regarding their tie-ups with banks
for availing of loan facility as mentioned in their prospectus.
The
State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the District
Forum.
8. Gujranwala Guru Nanak Institute of Management
& Technology, Ludhiana v. Gagandeep Singh, decided on March 25, 2013 by the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Facts:
The complainant had taken admission
in the opposite party college in the BBA course by paying Rs. 5,000 as
admission fee and Rs. 8,000 as tuition fee. He alleged that due to the fault of
the college authorities he was unable to sit for the first semester examinations
as they had misplaced his examination form. The opposite party contended that
the complainant did not fulfil the minimum attendance required to be eligible
for giving the examination. The District Forum decided that there was no deficiency
in service by the opposite party but directed the opposite party to refund Rs.
3,000 to the complainant which was calculated by the forum to be the examination
fee collected from the complainant by the opposite party. The opposite party
appealed against this direction of the District Forum in the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (“State
Commission”).
Ruling and Order:
The State Commission upheld the
decision of the District Forum as far as the findings about the attendance
issues of the complainant were concerned. However, the State Commission held
that the amount of Rs.8,000 was deposited as tuition and Rs.5,000 as admission
fee and that no examination fee was charged from the complainant. The State
Commission allowed the appeal and reversed the order of the district Forum.
- NEWS
- Legal studies to be offered by CBSE in
Class XI and XII
The CBSE
has introduced legal studies elective for senior secondary classes which will
deal with the theory and
nature of political institutions, nature and sources of law, historical
evolution of the country's legal system, civil and criminal courts and
processes, and the family justice system. The course will start in the academic
year 2013-14 with 20 schools offering it on a first-come-first-served basis.
The idea is to provide an introductory course for those interested in law and
to create a society well aware of its basic rights, duties, obligations and
limitations so as to actualize ‘ignorance of law is no excuse’.
- New
cut-off based system for SC/ST seats
A
nine-member committee constituted to prepare the admission policies for the
four-year-undergraduate degree scheme of the Delhi University and its
time-table has recommended a cut-off based admissions for SC/ ST candidates.
The new cut-off-based admissions for SC/ ST candidates will enable them to exercise
their right to choose their own college and courses in contrast to the earlier
centralized system whereby they were issued slips stating the name of the
college and the course given to them.
- UGC
expert panel to revisit regulations for private varsities
An expert
committee has been formed to regulate the quality of the booming sector of
private industries by revisiting clauses in the UGC (Establishment of and
Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003. A system
has been established whereby universities will have to furnish their
information on their and UGC website within 10 days so as to attract objections
from the stakeholders within next thirty days. This information would then be
inspected by an expert group within ninety days of publishing, after which the
report is submitted to the varsities, to give their observations within ten
days and then it is finally placed before the commission. Reformative measures
like introducing semester system for all undergraduate and postgraduate
courses, choice-based credit system, grading system instead of the present
numerical one, organizing capacity development programme for teachers, have
been undertaken.
- Private
schools fall under RTI
The Delhi
High Court upheld an order asking schools to display information on total
number of seats in a school, total vacancies in all classes, total seats under
Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota, seats available under the quota, total
applications received under the quota, information about when EWS quota
applications will be received and date on which the admissions will take place.
Thus, the private unaided schools in the capital will be covered under
the RTI
Act. It shall be the duty of
Directorate Of Education to ensure compliance with the court's directions. It
should be noted that the Court exempted them from making public budget
estimates of receipts, payments of the ensuing year, final accounts and the
statement showing disbursement of salaries.
- No
Attendance, No Exam
The
Karnataka High Court has dismissed the plea of a student for allowance to
appear for the supplementary exams if the attendance requirement is met through
special classes when the same in the normal course has not been met due to his
health complications including deficiency of growth hormones which caused his
late admission. But, the court distinguished the case from earlier precedents
as raised by the counsel wherein students with shortage of attendance were allowed
special classes to make up for their shortage for it was not practical to
conduct special classes for him as he had attended only 26 per cent of the
classes.
**************************************
Disclamer
This newsletter is
being provided to the recipient solely for the purpose of his/her/its
information. It is meant to be merely an informative summary and should not be
treated as a substitute for considered legal advice. This update covers
significant legal developments in the field of higher and school education in
India during the months of March and April, 2013, including judgments, laws and
notifications issued by courts and the regulatory bodies, as applicable. If you
wish to receive more information about any content of this newsletter, please
feel free to contact:
Sarthak Advocates & Solicitors
A – 35, Sector – 2, NOIDA 201 301
T: +91 120 430 9050
E: mani.gupta@sarthaklaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment