Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In the high decision, the Kerala High Court held that universities claiming to comply with the University Grants Commission (UGC) would not pay tuition fees beyond what is stated in the admissions opinion.
To do so, one bench of Justice Anu Sivaram directed the Indian Institute of Space Science Technology (IIST), Thiruvananthapuram, to recoup some of the money collected from the researchers, which did not mention the approvals issued in 2013.
This decision is based on a petition filed by 51 PhIST students of IIST challenging the decision by the institution to introduce tuition fees (Rahul O. R and others in accordance with IIST and others).
The prospect of admission for 2013 had no scholarship; all that was said was that academics would have to pay for the services provided by the boarding center, accommodation, medical facilities etc.
In 2017, the center decided to introduce tuition fees of Rs.12,500 / -. This was challenged by Rahul OR and fifty other students in contrast to the UGC Principles.
Referring to Clause 6.1 of the UGC (Deemed to be Universities) Rules 2016, the applicant's adviser, Advocate Surya Binoy, submitted that no university is deemed to have received a salary that was not announced to it in the hope of approval and its official website. It was further clarified that in terms of section 6.5 of the Regulation, the institution must publish the prospects within 60 days of the commencement of the course, outlining the different financial components. This was also not submitted by the center, the adviser said.
Seeking to clarify the decision, IIST argued that the fee was small compared to the student-provided relationships. Looking for a fee as a "prerogative" for the institute, Iist said it would "not be able to afford students not to pay the same."
The UGC took a prominent position before the Court and stated that its policies were "quiet even if Dememed To Be University could increase / strengthen medium-term funding". The UGC also said it had "no control over" the university's tuition fees.
"... depending on the curriculum and other resources that Deemed To Be University may charge for their fees. Since the UGC does not say that the fees charged in Ext. P1 are excessive or otherwise", the UGC said in this case an affidavit was filed on HC.
Besides, the HC continued to enforce the rules imposed by the UGC itself. The court noted that the pledge adopted did not cover tuition fees, and that the fee was started within a short period of time. This finding is contrary to certain provisions in the UGC Terms.
"In view of the specific provisions contained in the UGC rules that money can only be collected after notifying applicants in the form of a template and noting certain disputes that there was no such proximity to admission notices after the applicants have been accepted, I am of the opinion that Exhibit P1 circulars do not apply to applicants, who are approved prior to the same issue. ", held the court.
Endorsing the petition, the Court ordered Iist to collect "only the payments made on the notification / credentials on the basis of which the applicants were accepted".
Excess fees were directed to reimburse applicants now.
Judging as empowering students, Sreenath J, a law student at NUALS Kochi, said:
"We hope that this decision will serve as a reminder to institutions of higher learning that operate under the law. Allow this to strengthen students to question management if policies are enforced on them."
Sreenath is a member of 'Your Friend Representative', a group of students and lawyers working for student rights, who have assisted applicants in the case immediately.
86540
103860
630
114
59824