FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE versus KALOL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, ETC

Citation: [2011] 11 S.C.R. 829 · Decided: 11-10-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 11 S.C.R. 829 
FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE 
v. 
KALOL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, ETC. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8543 of 2011) 
OCTOBER 11, 2011. 
[R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
GUJARAT PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL EDUCA-
TIONAL COLLEGES OR INSTITUTIONS (REGULATION OF 
A 
B 
ADMISSION AND FIXATION OF FEES) ACT, 2007: 
C 
s. 10(3) - Fee structure - Revision of- Claim by private 
unaided educational institutions for revision of fee of their 
students on account of higher emoluments payable to 
teaching and non-teaching staff on the basis of the 
0 
recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission - Held: The 
institutions are entitled to collect the extra cost on account of 
payment of revised pay and allowances to the teaching and 
non-teaching staff through the fees collected from the students 
and this aspect will be taken into consideration by the Fee 
E 
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 
provisions of the Act and the observations made in the 
judgment -
The fee structure determined by the Fee 
Regulatory Committee for the years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 
F 
and 2010-2011 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 
G 
the completion of his professional course in that college or 
institution - Education/Educational Institutions. 
829 
H 
830 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
The respondents-unaided private professional and 
educational colleges and institutions in the State of 
Gujarat, sought revision of the fee determined by the Fee 
Regulatory Committee in the State of Gujarat for the three 
academic years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 for 
B students admitted in their colleges and institutions, on the 
ground that they were required to pay higher emoluments 
to their teaching and non-teaching staff w.e.f. 1.1.2006 on 
the basis of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay 
Commission, but the Fee Regulatory Committee declined 
c to revise the fees. The respondents-colleges/institutions 
filed writ petitions before the High Court, which held that 
the respondents-institutions were liable to pay salary and 
allowances to their teaching and non-teaching staff on 
the basis of the recommendations made by the Sixth Pay 
0 Commission and this would be one of the criteria to be 
taken into consideration for determination of fee by the 
Fee Regulatory Committee. The High Court set aside the 
orders of the Fee Regulatory Committee and remitted the 
matters to it for consideration and decision afresh in 
accordance with the observations made in the orders of 
E the High Court. Aggrieved, the Fee Regulatory Committee 
tias filed the appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. The Fee Regulatory Committee cannot 
overlook the statutory provisions in s. 10(3) of the Gujarat 
Professional Technical Educational Colleges or 
Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of 
Fees) Act, 2007 that the fee structure so determined by 
the Fee Regulatory Committee shall be binding on the 
G 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 
H 
FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE v. KALOL INSTITUTE 
831 
OF MANAGEMENT, ETC. 
of his professional course in that college or institution. 
A 
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 said statutory provisions. 
[Para 8) [836-D·G] 
B 
1.2. Nonetheless, the unaided private professional 
and technical colleges or institutions were entitled to 
recover the extra cost on account of payment of revised 
pay and allowances to the teaching and non-teaching 
C 
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 
t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.