//
you're reading...
legal issues

private education institution = fees regulations = When the State Government accepted the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission for revision of the pay and allowances of the employees with effect from 01.01.2006, different private engineering and technical colleges and institutions sought revision of the fees for students admitted in their colleges and institutions before the Fee Regulatory Committee on the ground that they have to pay their teaching and non-teaching staff the revised pay and allowances as per the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission, but the Fee Regulatory Committee declined to revise the fees. = “10(3). The fee structure so determined by the Fee Regulatory Committee shall be binding to the unaided professional educational colleges or institutions for a period of three years and the fee so determined shall be applicable to a student who is admitted to a professional educational college or institution in that academic year and shall not be revised till the completion of his professional course in that college or institution.” = We accordingly set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and direct that the increase in cost suffered by the respondents-colleges/institutions on account of the higher pay and allowances payable to the teaching and non- teaching staff on the basis of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission will be taken into consideration by the Fee Regulatory Committee while determining the fees for the academic years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 and subsequent period of three years in accordance with the

Students of Nan Hua High School gathering in t...

Image via Wikipedia

 Reportable

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8543 OF 2011

 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.34150 OF 2010)

Fee Regulatory Committee ...... Appellant

 Versus

Kalol Institute of Management, Etc. ...... Respondents

 WITH

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8544 OF 2011

 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.34200 OF 2010),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8545 OF 2011

 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1396 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8546 OF 2011

 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1383 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8547 OF 2011

 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1431 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8548 OF 2011

 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1478 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8549 OF 2011

 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1494 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8550 OF 2011

 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1502 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8551 OF 2011

 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1507 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8552 OF 2011

 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1531 OF 2011),

 2

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8553 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1565 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8554 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1738 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8555 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1750 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8556 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1789 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8557 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1851 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8558 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1874 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8559 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1897 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8560 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1952 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8561 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1960 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8562 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.2058 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8563 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.2090 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8564 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.2214 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8565 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.2224 OF 2011),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8566 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.2308 OF 2011),

 3

 J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

 Leave granted.

2. These are appeals by special leave against the 

impugned orders of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High 

Court.

3. The facts very briefly are that the respondents are 

different unaided private professional and educational 

colleges and institutions in the State of Gujarat. The fees 

for admission to the private unaided professional and 

educational colleges and institutions in the State of Gujarat 

are regulated by the Gujarat Professional Technical 

Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of 

Admission Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007 (for short `the Act'), 

which came into effect on 30.04.2008. Section 9 of the Act 

provides that the State Government shall, for the purpose of 

determining the fees for admission of students in the 

professional educational colleges or institutions, constitute 

a Fee Regulatory Committee with a retired judge of the High 

Court nominated by the State Government as its 

 4

Chairperson. Section 10(1) of the Act provides that the Fee 

Regulatory Committee shall determine the fee structure for 

admission of students in the professional course and 

different fee structure may be determined for admission of 

students in different professional courses and in different 

professional educational colleges or institutions. Section 

10(3) of the Act states that the fee structure so determined 

by the Fee Regulatory Committee shall be binding on the 

unaided professional educational colleges or institutions for 

a period of three years and the fee so determined shall be 

applicable to a student who is admitted to a professional 

educational college or institution in that academic year and 

shall not be revised till the completion of his professional 

course in that college or institution. Section 11(1) of the Act 

provides that the Fee Regulatory Committee shall determine 

and fix the fee or fees to be charged by an unaided 

professional education college or institution taking into 

consideration the factors mentioned therein and one of the 

factors mentioned therein is the expenditure on 

administration and maintenance. In accordance with these 

provisions of the Act, the Fee Regulatory Committee 

 5

determined the fees for the students of the unaided 

professional educational colleges and institutions in the 

State of Gujarat for the three academic years 2008-2009, 

2009-2010 and 2010-2011 by different orders for different 

colleges and institutions passed in the years 2009 and 

2010. When the State Government accepted the 

recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission for revision 

of the pay and allowances of the employees with effect from 

01.01.2006, different private engineering and technical 

colleges and institutions sought revision of the fees for 

students admitted in their colleges and institutions before 

the Fee Regulatory Committee on the ground that they have 

to pay their teaching and non-teaching staff the revised pay 

and allowances as per the recommendations of the Sixth 

Pay Commission, but the Fee Regulatory Committee 

declined to revise the fees.

4. The respondents-colleges/institutions then moved the 

High Court in different writ petitions under Article 226 of 

the Constitution and by the impugned orders, the High 

Court held that the Self-Finance Institutions, like the 

institutions of the respondents, are liable to pay salary and 

 6

allowances to its teaching and non-teaching staff on the 

basis of the recommendations made by the Sixth Pay 

Commission and the revision of pay of Teachers in 

accordance with the recommendations of the Sixth Pay 

Commission is one of the criteria to be taken into 

consideration for determination of fee by the Fee Regulatory 

Committee. The High Court, relying on its orders passed in 

similar cases, set aside the orders of the Fee Regulatory 

Committee and remitted the matters to the Fee Regulatory 

Committee for fresh consideration and decision in 

accordance with the observations made in the impugned 

orders. The High Court also held that if the respondents file 

undertaking that they will actually implement the 

recommendations made by the Sixth Pay Commission for 

their teaching and non-teaching staff, such additional 

burden on account of implementation of the 

recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission shall also be 

taken into consideration while deciding the fee structure 

afresh by the Fee Regulatory Committee. The High Court 

observed that till such orders are passed by the Fee 

Regulatory Committee, the respondents shall continue to 

 7

collect the same fees from the students as are collected 

presently under the orders of the Fee Regulatory Committee. 

Aggrieved by the impugned orders of the High Court, the 

Fee Regulatory Committee has filed these appeals.

5. The only contention raised before us by Dr. Rajiv 

Dhavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, is 

that the direction of this Court in Islamic Academy of 

Education and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others 

[(2003) 6 SCC 697] is that the fee fixed by the Committee 

shall be binding for a period of three years and at the end of 

the period of three years, the institution would be at liberty 

to apply for revision and accordingly it has been provided in 

Section 10(3) of the Act that the fee structure determined by 

the Fee Regulatory Committee shall be binding on the 

unaided professional educational colleges or institutions for 

a period of three years and the fee so determined shall be 

applicable to a student who is admitted to a professional 

educational college or institution in that academic year and 

shall not be revised till the completion of his professional 

course in that college or institution. He submitted that 

despite this statutory provision in Section 10(3) of the Act, 

 8

the High Court has directed to revise the fees for the 

academic years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, 

which had already been determined by the Fee Regulatory 

Committee and which could not be revised for a period of 

three years.

6. Mr. Dushyant A. Dave, learned counsel appearing for 

the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that unaided 

private engineering and professional colleges have to pay the 

revised pay and allowances as per the recommendations of 

the Sixth Pay Commission and, therefore, they are entitled 

to recover the additional cost on account of payment of 

revised pay and allowances from the students by enhancing 

fees in accordance with the judgments of this Court in 

T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and 

Others [(2002) 8 SCC 481], Islamic Academy of Education 

and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others (supra) and 

P.A. Inamdar and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others 

[(2005) 6 SCC 537].

7. We have considered the submissions of the learned 

counsel for the parties and we find that Section 10(3) of the 

Act reads as follows:

 9

 "10(3). The fee structure so determined by the 

 Fee Regulatory Committee shall be binding to the 

 unaided professional educational colleges or 

 institutions for a period of three years and the fee 

 so determined shall be applicable to a student 

 who is admitted to a professional educational 

 college or institution in that academic year and 

 shall not be revised till the completion of his 

 professional course in that college or institution."

8. Obviously, the Fee Regulatory Committee cannot 

overlook the aforesaid statutory provisions in Section 10(3) 

of the Act that the fee structure so determined by the Fee 

Regulatory Committee shall be binding on the unaided 

professional educational colleges or institutions for a period 

of three years and the fee so determined shall be applicable 

to a student who is admitted to a professional educational 

college or institution in that academic year and shall not be 

revised till the completion of his professional course in that 

college or institution. The High Court, therefore, could not 

have directed revision of the fees already fixed by the Fee 

Regulatory Committee for the academic years 2008-2009, 

2009-2010 and 2010-2011 contrary to the aforesaid 

statutory provisions. Nonetheless, the unaided private 

professional and technical colleges or institutions were 

entitled to recover the extra cost on account of payment of 

 10

revised pay and allowances to the teaching and non-

teaching staff through the fees collected from the students 

and this could be done only by enhancing the fees from the 

students for the academic years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 

2013-2014 and for period of three years thereafter. Exactly 

how much of this cost would be recovered through the fees 

collected from the students during the first period of the 

three years and how much of this cost would be recovered 

through fees collected from the students during the second 

period of three years can only be appropriately worked out 

by the Fee Regulatory Committee keeping in mind both the 

interest of the colleges/institutions and the students.

9. We accordingly set aside the impugned orders of the 

High Court and direct that the increase in cost suffered by 

the respondents-colleges/institutions on account of the 

higher pay and allowances payable to the teaching and non-

teaching staff on the basis of the recommendations of the 

Sixth Pay Commission will be taken into consideration by 

the Fee Regulatory Committee while determining the fees for 

the academic years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 

and subsequent period of three years in accordance with the 

 11

provisions of the Act and the observations made herein. 

These appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to 

costs.

 .............................J.

 (R. V. Raveendran)

 .............................J.

 (A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi,

October 11, 2011. 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,458 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: