COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY & ANR. versus THOMAS P. JOHN & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 887 · Decided: 06-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 7 S.C.R. 887 
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & 
A 
TECHNOLOGY & ANR. 
II. 
THOMAS P. JOHN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4159 of 2003) 
MAY 6, 2008 
B 
.... 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI, G.S. SINGHVI AND B.N. 
AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Administrative Jaw: Educational institutions - Fixation of 
fee - Held: Matter relating to fixation of fee is a part of the c 
administration of educational institution - The Courts should 
be slow in interfering with this purely administrative matter -
However, it should not be understood that educational 
institution has a carte b/anche to fix any fee that it likes but 
substantaial autonomy must be left to it. 
D 
., 
Education/Educational institutions: Fee - Reduction of 
- Introduction of new course - 10% seats reserved for Non-
resident Indian (NRI) students - NRI students required to 
deposit US $5000 at the time of their admission towards 
E 
'development charges' and to pay in addition a fee of 
Rs. 20, 0001- per semester whereas all other categories of 
students required to pay a uniform fee of Rs. 20, 0001- per 
:::.J 
semester - After a year, University increased the fee for NRI 
students to US $4000 per annum whereas the other students 
F 
" 
continued to pay fee at the rate of Rs. 20, 000 per semester -
This practice continued for three admission years - Thereafter 
provisions made in the first year re. confining payment of fee 
to one time payment US $5,000 and Rs.20,0001-per semester 
were restored - Challenged by NRI students admitted in 
( 
second and third year claiming that they had been adversely 
treated by the appellant University and that they were entitled 
to claim parity vis-a-vis the fee structure for other NRJ students 
- Held: The new course required funds for infrastructure 
887 
r 
888 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 7 S.C.R. 
A development and the development of faculty - It would be 
impossible for educational institution to have effective 
administration and to maintain high educational standards, if 
a downward revision during the pendency of a course would 
be automatically made applicable to students admitted earlier 
8 
under a different fee structure - NRI students took admission 
on certain specific conditions and University has a right to 
insist that those conditions are observed - Argument of 
estoppel in such a case would thus be available to educational 
institution - Doctrine of estoppel. 
c 
In 1995, the appellant university started 4 yea rs 
B.Tech Course of 8 semesters wherein 10% seats were 
reserved for Non-Resident lntlian (NRI) students. As per 
the prospectus such students were required to make a 
0 deposit of US $5000 at the time of their admission towards 
'development charges' and to pay in addition a fee of 
Rs.20,0001- per semester whereas all the other categories 
of students were required to pay a uniform fee of 
Rs.20,000/- per semester. From the academic year 1996-
E 97, however, the University increased the fee for NRI 
students to US $4000 per annum whereas the other 
students continued to pay fee at the rate of Rs.20,000 per 
semester. This practice was continued for three 
admission years, i.e. 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99, but 
F from the year 1999-2000 the provisions made in the year 
1995-96 i.e. confining the payment of fee to a one time 
payment US $5,000 and Rs.20,000/-per semester were 
restored. The respondents who had been admitted to the 
course in question during the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 
G filed representations claiming that they had been 
adversely treated by the appellant University and that 
they were entitled to claim parity vis-a-vis the fee 
structure for NRI students as from the years 1999-2000 
onwards. As the representations bore no result, 34 of the 
H 56 NRI students who had been admitted to the course 
> 
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 
889 
& ANR. v. THOMAS P. JOHN & ORS. 
during the two years, filed two writ petitions before the 
A 
High Court. 
High Court allowed the writ petitions holding that 
there was no rationale for subjecting the respondents to 
a higher rate of fee than the rate fixed in the years 1995-96 
8 
and 1999-2000; that even assuming that the university had 
the right to fix the rate of fee, a duty was still cast on it to 
act fairly, and being a statutory body, its decision was to 
be based on reasonable facts and if a classification 
between the different categories of students was pleaded, 
it must satisfy the test of having a rational basis; that C 
though the University had i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.