Summary
On the representations of private medical colleges, the Andhra Pradesh Government issued a G.O. dated 06.09.2017 raising MBBS tuition fees for 2017-2020 to Rs 24 lakh a year, about seven times the earlier fee. It did so while the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee's own review was still pending. The High Court quashed the enhancement and ordered refunds. The Supreme Court dismissed the college's appeal. Under the 2006 Rules and P.A. Inamdar, fees can be fixed only on the Committee's recommendation, applying the Rule 4 factors. Education is not a business, and fees must stay affordable. Colleges cannot keep money collected under an illegal G.O., and costs of Rs 5 lakh were imposed.
Issues
- Whether the State could enhance tuition fees for private unaided medical colleges by G.O. without the recommendation of the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, while the Committee's review was pending.
- Whether colleges must refund fees collected under the invalid G.O. in excess of the previously notified fee.
Provisions considered
- Rule 4, Andhra Pradesh Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for Professional Courses offered in Private Un-Aided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006The AFRC must determine fees after inquiry into the location, course, infrastructure cost, expenditure, reasonable surplus and fee waivers, ensuring no profiteering; the State cannot fix fees on its own. (¶¶ 3.1, 5)
- Objects and scheme, Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983Unilateral enhancement of fee during the AFRC review defeats the object of the Act and the Rules. (¶ 5)
Held
- Under Rule 4 of the 2006 Rules and P.A. Inamdar, fees for private unaided professional institutions can be fixed only on the report and recommendation of the AFRC; the G.O. dated 06.09.2017, issued on the colleges' representations while the AFRC review begun by notification of 08.12.2016 was pending, was impermissible and arbitrary, as the appellant itself conceded. (¶¶ 3, 3.1, 4.3, 5)
- Raising the fee to Rs 24 lakh per annum, about seven times the earlier fee, was unjustifiable; education is not a business for profit, fees must be affordable, and their determination must have a direct nexus with the Rule 4 factors. (¶ 5)
- The colleges, as beneficiaries of the illegal G.O., cannot retain amounts collected under it, students having often borrowed at high interest; the direction to refund the excess after adjusting the fee under the G.O. of 18.06.2011 is upheld, leaving colleges free to recover any higher fee the AFRC may later fix. (¶¶ 4.2, 6)
Result
Civil Appeal Nos. 8185-8186 of 2022 against the High Court's judgment dated 24.09.2019 in W.P. Nos. 33656 of 2018 and 8210 of 2019 dismissed with costs of Rs 5 lakh, payable equally by the appellant and the State of Andhra Pradesh to NALSA and the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee.