# Lakshya Kumar Singh v. Union Of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 731
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-03-14
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lakshya-kumar-singh-v-union-of-india-ors-43682
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C.S.C., A.S.G.I., Shri Neeraj Tiwari, Shri Rijwan Ali Akhtar

Facts and background - Factual matrix and origin of PIL- The Court records facts about petitioner's
daughter's UPSEE‐2015 rank, allotment, deposit of Rs.15,000/-, withdrawal before admission, complaint, UGC
letter, and University's stand about the confirmation fee and counselling mechanism.(Paras 1,2,3)

University's justification for non‐refund-- Counselling process and nature of confirmation fee- Held that
Rs.15,000/- is a non‐refundable confirmation fee, adjusted against annual fee, meant to ensure serious
participation in counselling and accurate calculation of vacant seats; amount is transmitted to colleges and
remaining balance is used for Government Engineering Colleges with State sanction.(Paras 4,5)

Limited scope of UGC/AICTE circulars- Limited field of operation of UGC/AICTE refund norms- Held that
the UGC and AICTE circulars relied upon by petitioner do not cover the present factual situation; they deal
with institutions taking full fee and retaining original certificates long before session, and prescribe refund
(after Rs.1,000/- deduction) when a student withdraws before course starts or leaves after joining and the
seat is refilled.(Paras 6,7)

Distinction between 'admission taken' and 'seat only blocked'- Held that UGC/AICTE guidelines apply
where a student has actually taken admission and then withdraws, enabling admission of a wait‐listed
candidate and refund of fee after permissible deductions; however, where a candidate only blocks a seat by
depositing Rs.15,000/- and does not turn up for admission, the seat cannot be included in the next round of
732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counselling, causing loss to other students and institutions, and the UGC/AICTE regime does not apply.(Paras
8,9)

Reliance on brochure / governing norms- Held that the petitioner's daughter participated in counselling
fully aware of the norms and brochure, including that once Rs.15,000/- is deposited as confirmation fee in an
earlier round, it is not to be deposited again in subsequent rounds, thereby justifying the University's
mechanism to secure commitment to take admission after allotment. (Para 10)

Clarification of legal position and final order- Court clarifies that if a candidate withdraws after taking
admission, UGC/AICTE principles on refund (with up to Rs.1,000/- deduction) would apply; since in the
present case withdrawal was after allotment but before admission, those guidelines are inapplicable and the
University's rule stands; petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (para 11)

Petition Dismissed

## Text

4 All. Lakshya Kumar Singh Vs Union Of India & Ors.

731
 equivalence lies purely within the domain of the employer alone. The petitioner may be
well advised to take up the matter with the employer for any such benevolent benefit which we do
not find to be within the scope of existing rules. It is well settled that a plea which is unfounded
deserves to be rejected, however, we leave it open to the employer to come out with any such
beneficial scheme as may govern the cases of the like nature.

9. In view of above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.03.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.- 6973 Of 2016

Lakshya Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shri Anand Mani Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G.I., Shri Neeraj Tiwari, Shri Rijwan Ali Akhtar

Facts and background - Factual matrix and origin of PIL- The Court records facts about petitioner's
daughter's UPSEE‐2015 rank, allotment, deposit of Rs.15,000/-, withdrawal before admission, complaint, UGC
letter, and University's stand about the confirmation fee and counselling mechanism.(Paras 1,2,3)

University's justification for non‐refund-- Counselling process and nature of confirmation fee- Held that
Rs.15,000/- is a non‐refundable confirmation fee, adjusted against annual fee, meant to ensure serious
participation in counselling and accurate calculation of vacant seats; amount is transmitted to colleges and
remaining balance is used for Government Engineering Colleges with State sanction.(Paras 4,5)

Limited scope of UGC/AICTE circulars- Limited field of operation of UGC/AICTE refund norms- Held that
the UGC and AICTE circulars relied upon by petitioner do not cover the present factual situation; they deal
with institutions taking full fee and retaining original certificates long before session, and prescribe refund
(after Rs.1,000/- deduction) when a student withdraws before course starts or leaves after joining and the
seat is refilled.(Paras 6,7)

Distinction between 'admission taken' and 'seat only blocked'- Held that UGC/AICTE guidelines apply
where a student has actually taken admission and then withdraws, enabling admission of a wait‐listed
candidate and refund of fee after permissible deductions; however, where a candidate only blocks a seat by
depositing Rs.15,000/- and does not turn up for admission, the seat cannot be included in the next round of
732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counselling, causing loss to other students and institutions, and the UGC/AICTE regime does not apply.(Paras
8,9)

Reliance on brochure / governing norms- Held that the petitioner's daughter participated in counselling
fully aware of the norms and brochure, including that once Rs.15,000/- is deposited as confirmation fee in an
earlier round, it is not to be deposited again in subsequent rounds, thereby justifying the University's
mechanism to secure commitment to take admission after allotment. (Para 10)

Clarification of legal position and final order- Court clarifies that if a candidate withdraws after taking
admission, UGC/AICTE principles on refund (with up to Rs.1,000/- deduction) would apply; since in the
present case withdrawal was after allotment but before admission, those guidelines are inapplicable and the
University's rule stands; petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (para 11)

Petition Dismissed

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.
&
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.)

1. The daughter of the petitioner appeared in the State Entrance Examination (UPSEE2015) conducted by Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Uttar Pradesh and was ranked at
10833. She was allotted the Kamla Nehru Institute of Physical and Social Sciences in district
Sultanpur in the branch of Electronics and Communication Engineering. She deposited an amount
of Rs.15,000/- against the confirmation of a seat on 8 July 2015. Subsequently on 21 July 2015, she
decided against accepting the allotment of admission and sought a refund. On the complaint made
by the daughter of the petitioner, the University Grants Commission addressed a letter to the
Registrar of the University to examine the matter to which the University responded on 28
September 2015, a copy of which is marked to the petitioner. That has given rise to the petition.

2. The basis of the petition is the guidelines which have been framed by the UGC, New
Delhi on 23 April 2007 and the public notice which was issued by the All India Council for
Technical Education4. According to the petitioner, both these notices contain a direction that after a
student has obtained admission and withdraws before the commencement of the course, a wait
listed candidate should be admitted against the vacant seat and the entire fee collected should be
refunded after retaining an amount of Rs.1,000/-. The petitioner contends that this provision is
applicable and hence his daughter would be entitled to a refund of an amount of Rs.14,000/- after
the University retains an amount of Rs.1,000/- from the amount paid at the time of registration.

3. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 17 February 2016, the University has filed a
counter affidavit in these proceedings through its Registrar. The University has stated that after the
entrance examination is conducted, students are at that stage required to deposit only an amount of
Rs.500 for registration for the purpose of counselling and document verification. Thereafter
students are furnished with an opportunity to participate in counselling and to lock "the college of
their own choice". The allotment of institutions is made after this process is completed on the basis
of merit and the choice which is indicated by the students. After the institution is allotted to a
4 All. Lakshya Kumar Singh Vs Union Of India & Ors.

733
successful candidate, the candidate is required to confirm his or her seat by depositing an amount of
Rs.15,000/- as a confirmation fee against which a confirmation slip is generated. The purpose of
generating a confirmation slip is to calculate the actual number of vacant seats for the next round of
counselling. At this stage, it is open to the candidates either to deposit an amount of Rs. 15,000/-
for confirmation of the seat or to quit the process of counselling so as to leave the seat open for the
next round of counselling. The University retains the amount of Rs.15000/- which is nonrefundable for the reason that the students must seriously participate in the counselling, otherwise
students would lock their choice and obtain a letter of allotment and subsequently not turn up to
take admission. If this were to take place, the University will not be in a position to calculate the
actual number of vacant seats for the second round of counselling for other students who have not
obtained admission in the first round. This amount of Rs.15,000/- is adjusted against the annual fee
and the University transmits the amount to the college where the students have taken admission.
The amount is kept in a separate account of the U.P. State Entrance Examination. The balance
which remains after transmission of the amount to respective colleges is spent on the development
of Government Engineering Colleges in the State and not for the use of the University. The
Government Degree Colleges charge a low fee and as a result of this, these colleges are unable to
generate funds for their work. Moreover, it has been stated that the sanction of the State
Government is taken for the utilization of the amount. For the current session, it has been stated
that 26,589 students deposited an amount of Rs.15,000/- each after counselling, out of which, until
date, the University has transmitted the amount deposited by 20,365 students to the concerned
colleges against the annual fee for 2015-16 where they have taken admission. For 2015-16, the
process is going on since the University transmits the amount to the college after a demand being
raised.

4. As regards, the submission based on the circulars of UGC and AICTE, it has been stated
that these apply only to a situation where a student has taken admission in a college and has left the
course of study under which circumstances, guidelines have been laid down. After withdrawal of
admission, wait listed candidates are required to take admission against a vacant seat upon which
the fee is to be refunded. In the present case, it is stated that the student who has locked one seat
after depositing an amount of Rs.15,000/- and has not turned up for admission causes a serious
prejudice since the seat cannot be included in the next round of counselling resulting in irreparable
loss to other students as well as the seat being left vacant not only for the current session but for the
next three sessions.

5. At the outset, it would be necessary to note that the which have been relied upon by the
petitioner, do not cover a situation such as the present. We extract hereinbelow the relevant part of
the circular issued by UGC:

 "It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission that Institutions and
Universities including institutions deemed to be universities are admitting students to various
programmes of studies long before the actual starting of academic session; collecting full fee from
the admitted students; and, retaining their schools/institutions leaving certificate in original. The
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by
such dates.

 2. The Commission is of the view that the Institutions/Universities, by way of retaining
the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students which limits the opportunities for the
candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. However, it
would not be permissible for Institutions and Universities to retain the School/Institution Leaving
Certificate, mark sheet, caste certificate and other documents in original.

 3. The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission
have considered the issue and decided that the Institutions and Universities, in the public interest,
shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates. In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing
before the starting of the course, the wait listed candidates should be given admission against the
vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not
more than Rs.1000/- (one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the
Institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. Should a student
leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another
candidate by the last date of admission, the Institution must return the fee collected with
proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable."

6. The public notice which has been issued by AICTE is in the following terms:

 "In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the
wait listed candidates should be given admissions against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected
from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- (Rupees one
thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/University to the student/candidate
withdrawing from the programme. It would not be permissible for Institutions and Universities to
retain the School/Institution Leaving Certificates in original. Should a student leave after joining
the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the
last date of admission, the Institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of
monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable."

7. Finally, it may be necessary to also advert to the UGC guidelines on the subject which
provide as follows:

 "Fee and financial aid
 3.1 The students are entitled to prior and full information about amount, components,
frequency and mode of any kind of payment including fees or charges of any other kind and refund
rules. If a student withdraws before the beginning of the course, the students should be refunded the
entire fee given to it with a maximum deduction of Rs.1000. [As notified by UGC on 23 April
2007, F.No.1-3/2007 (CPP II)]."
4 All. Lakshya Kumar Singh Vs Union Of India & Ors.

735
8. The public notice which was issued by UGC on 23 April 2007 dealt with a specific
issue. It covers cases where institutions, long before the actual commencement of the academic
session, collect the full fee from admitted students and retain the original certificates. The
Institutions and Universities were confiscating the entire fee paid, if a student fails to join the
course by the date prescribed. As a result, in the view of the UGC, this precluded candidates from
exercising other options for joining institutions of their choice. In this background, the public
notice states that if a successful candidate withdraws before the start of the course, the wait listed
candidate should be given admission against a vacancy and the entire fee collected from the student
should be refunded after retaining an amount of not more than Rs.1,000/- per student. If the student
leaves the course after joining it and if the seat which consequently fall vacant is filled in by
another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution returns the fee collected with
proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent.

9. The public notice issued by AICTE is in similar terms. The UGC guidelines also cover a
situation where a student has withdrawn before the beginning of the course. In the counter affidavit
which has been filed by the University, the distinction in a case, such as the present, is duly
clarified. The guidelines and circulars issued by UGC and AICTE are applicable in a situation
where a student seeks to withdraw the admission, in which event, a wait listed candidate can be
admitted against the seat. In the present case, when the student, after depositing an amount of
Rs.15,000/- blocks one seat which is allotted to him or her and does not turn up for admission, the
University is precluded from including the seat in the next round of counselling. This results in an
irreparable loss both to other students and to the institutions, as the seat cannot be included in the
next round of counselling. If the student were to take admission and thereafter withdraw, the UGC
guidelines would, undoubtedly, become applicable and the student would be entitled to the entire
amount of fee deposited after the retention of an amount not exceeding Rs.1,000/-. In such a case,
no prejudice is caused for the reason that a wait listed candidate can be allotted a seat. The
petitioner's daughter participated in the counselling clearly cognizant of the governing norms and
Regulations. Moreover, we may also note that the brochure which has been issued for the U.P.
State Entrance Examination also stipulates that a candidate who has deposited a confirmation fee of
Rs.15,000/- in an earlier round of counselling, is not required to submit the confirmation fee again
in a subsequent round of counselling. The purpose of the provision which has been made by the
University is to ensure that once an allotment is made to a candidate under the process of
counselling, a candidate proceeds to take admission to the institution where the allotment has been
made.

10. We clarify that after taking admission, if a candidate seeks to withdraw from
admission, the principles which have been laid down by the UGC and AICTE would apply. The
present case does not fall in that category since the petitioner had sought to withdraw from
admission granted after the allotment of the institution and before the admission was taken. The
reason why the University has made such a provision has already been explained above. Therefore,
we do not find any merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
 ----------
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.09.2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Service Single No.- 7015 Of 2003

Mohd. Ashraf [Objection Filed] ...Petitioner
 Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Manish Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,H A B Sinha, M.M. Asthana, Murli Manohar Srivastava,Vikas Singh,Y K Mishra

Service Law - Direct Recruitment - Group 'C' Posts - Lower Division Clerk/Typist - Rules, 2001 - Rule 6(a),
(b), (c) and Rule 7 - Preparation of Merit List - Whether Typing/Shorthand Test only qualifying or marks to be
included - Government Order dated 3.10.2001 - Executive instructions vis-à-vis statutory rules - Executive
order modifying statutory scheme - Ultra vires - Merit to be prepared strictly under Rules, 2001.

Merit list has to be prepared on the basis of written test and marks obtained by retrenched employee, if
applicable, i.e. as per marks obtained under Rule 6 (a) and 6 (b). Rule 7 thereafter contemplates that subject
to reservation under Rule 4, final merit list shall be prepared on the basis of marks obtained by candidates in
Rule 6 (a) (b) and (c) and if two candidates have secured equal marks, candidate higher in age shall be
placed higher in merit. (Para 14)

It is thus clear that for the purpose of constituting merit, marks obtained in typing/stenography or both, as
the case may be, have to be added. The marks obtained in written test are subject to reduction to 70% (of
written test) and 20% (of typing/stenography test) as stated above, would be added. (Para 15)

It is thus evident that respondents instead of proceeding strictly in accordance with Rules 2001, have guided
themselves by Government Order dated 3.10.2001 which is in deviation and contravention of scheme of
statutory Rules contained in Rules 2001. (Para 16)

Held: (Para 20-22) In the present case, statutory rules clearly make typing/shorthand test a part of
procedure of assessment of merit and total 100 marks are divided, in such cases in the manner- 70% consists
of written test, 20% of shorthand/typing and 10% for retrenched persons wherever applicable. Executive
order however has created a news scheme by excluding the typing/shorthand test, stipulated under Rule 6(c)
and making it only a qualifying test, so as to exclude from computation of total marks to be determined for
merits and confining merit to the written test only and wherever applicable, marks obtained by candidates
belonging to retrenched employees category. This is clearly inconsistent with and in the teeth of statutory
rules and executive order, i.e. Government Order dated 03.10.2001, to this extent, is ultra vires and could not
have been followed. The authorities were bound to follow Rules of 2001 strictly and nothing else.