The Bombay High Court has clarified that institutions cannot be compelled to refund tuition or development fees after the official admission cut-off date unless a vacant seat is filled by another candidate. This judgment reinforces the binding nature of AICTE and DTE guidelines in fee refund disputes, setting a clear precedent for educational institutions and students alike.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose when Ms. Mitali Ghotgalkar, a student admitted to the Usha Mittal Institute of Technology under CAP Round-II on 9th July 2013, cancelled her admission on 13th August 2013 - after the official cut-off date of 12th August 2013. She sought a full refund of Rs. 85,215, arguing that the AICTE’s last admission date of 15th August 2013 permitted her to cancel and claim a refund. The Institute refused, citing its published schedule and DTE guidelines.
Procedural History
- 9 July 2013: Respondent No.1 admitted to B.Tech (Computer Science) via CAP Round-II.
- 13 August 2013: Student cancelled admission after attending 20 days of classes.
- 19 August 2013: Cancellation uploaded on DTE website (delay due to system closure).
- 22 August & 5 September 2013: Father of student wrote to Institute and DTE, requesting refund only if the seat was filled.
- 17 July 2014: Grievance filed with Institute’s Grievance Redressal Committee.
- Undated Order (Exh. ‘H’): Ombudsman ordered refund of Rs. 55,000 as proportionate fees.
- 571 of 2015: Writ petition filed by SNDT University and Institute challenging the Ombudsman’s order.
Relief Sought
The Petitioners sought quashing of the Ombudsman’s order directing refund of Rs. 55,000. The Respondent sought affirmation of the refund order, claiming entitlement under AICTE norms.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a student who cancels admission after the cut-off date is entitled to a proportionate refund of fees under AICTE and DTE guidelines, even if the vacated seat remains unfilled.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The Petitioners argued that the DTE’s published schedule clearly fixed 12th August 2013 as the cut-off for all admissions, and Clause 8.9 of the DTE guidelines explicitly denied refunds if the seat was not filled before the cut-off. They emphasized that the student never challenged these guidelines, and the Ombudsman ignored binding norms. They relied on the AICTE Guidelines No. AICTE/Legal/04(01)/2007, which tie refunds to vacancy filling, and distinguished Parshvanath Charitable Trust as inapplicable since it dealt with institutional relocation, not fee refunds.
For the Respondent
The Respondent contended that the AICTE’s notification permitted admissions until 15th August 2013, and therefore the Institute’s earlier cut-off of 12th August was ultra vires. She cited Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. AICTE to argue that no authority can vary AICTE’s schedule. She further claimed that the Institute’s refusal to refund was arbitrary and violated her right to fair treatment under consumer protection principles.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the DTE’s provisional schedule, Clause 8.9, and the AICTE Guidelines. It held that while AICTE prescribed the last date for admission as 15th August 2013, it did not prescribe a cut-off date for cancellation. The cut-off date for cancellation, as a procedural mechanism to determine refund eligibility, was lawfully set by the DTE and adopted by the Institute.
"The AICTE Notification does not prescribe the cut-off date for cancellation of all types of admissions."
The Court found that the student’s own letters admitted awareness of the rules: she explicitly requested refund only if the seat was filled. Crucially, no evidence showed that the seat was filled before or after the cut-off date. The Ombudsman’s order failed to address this, making it arbitrary.
The Court distinguished Parshvanath Charitable Trust: that case concerned unauthorized institutional relocation, not fee refund mechanics. Here, the Institute adhered to the DTE’s schedule, and the student did not challenge it. The Ombudsman’s failure to record reasons rendered the order legally unsustainable.
However, the Court noted that development fees, levied for infrastructure expansion, were unjustly retained since the student never benefited from the facilities. The Court held that such fees must be refunded as a matter of equity, even if tuition fees are forfeited.
The Verdict
The Petitioners succeeded in part. The Bombay High Court quashed the Ombudsman’s order directing a Rs. 55,000 refund but upheld the entitlement to refund of Rs. 3,600 in security deposits and Rs. 15,500 in development fees. The Court held that no refund of tuition or other fees is due if the seat remains unfilled after the cut-off date, as per binding DTE guidelines.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Fee Refunds Are Conditional on Vacancy Filling
- Practitioners must now prove that a vacated seat was filled by another candidate before the cut-off date to claim tuition refunds.
- Institutions may lawfully retain tuition fees if no replacement student is admitted, even if cancellation occurs within the AICTE admission window.
Development Fees Cannot Be Retained Without Service
- Development fees are not recoverable if the student did not access infrastructure or services.
- Institutions must refund such fees as a matter of equity, regardless of cut-off dates.
Guidelines Must Be Challenged Proactively
-
Students cannot rely on AICTE’s admission deadlines to override institution-specific cut-offs unless they have formally challenged the institution’s published schedule.
-
Failure to challenge guidelines precludes later claims of arbitrariness.
-
Always verify the institution’s published schedule, not just AICTE’s broad timelines.
-
Demand written confirmation of seat filling before filing refund claims.
-
Separate claims for development fees from tuition fees in litigation.
