A bank judges AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Mohammed Nias CP said that conceptually, fees are remuneration for a service rendered and if they were collected for a future period it would be a payment for services still to be rendered and, in such a situation, “the” educational institutions would then resort to profiteering “.
“The COVID pandemic undoubtedly resulted in an extraordinary or extraordinary situation with financial repercussions. The exceptional situation did not only affect the educational institutions, but also the student community and their supervisors.
You have successfully cast your vote
“We consider it unreasonable if the private medical educational institutions concerned demand the fixed fees regardless of the difficulties faced by the students,” said the bank.
The court’s comments and instructions stemmed from several petitions filed by medical students admitted to the 2019-2020 MBBS course at various private medical colleges against the fee notices for the third year of their undergraduate studies when they were still in their second Year that could not be completed in the allotted time due to the pandemic.
The students had claimed to demand fees for a year other than the year of the apprenticeship, the educational institutions concerned actually collect the fixed fees in advance and this is not permitted.
The educational institutions, however, justified the demand by stating that it was the third calendar year since admission and that they were therefore entitled to collect the annual fee set for the third year.
The higher court ruled that the curfew imposed by the state government in the wake of the global COVID pandemic “unavoidably dropped out of studies and thus during the months of the calendar year there was no simultaneous progress in the teaching months that made up the academic year”.
“This led to petitioners (students) being asked to pay the third year fee when they were actually only completing the second year,” she added.
Referring to the various legal provisions and the Supreme Court’s decision in the Islamic Academy of Education and Others v. Karnataka State and Others, the Supreme Court said it believed that “it would be totally unjust and unjust to allow the education “. institutions involved in these written applications to collect the fixed annual fees for each academic year, except for the one for which instructions are currently being issued “.
In the case of the Islamic Academy, the top court ruled that institutions only charge fees for one year and not the fees for the entire course, the higher court found.
The Supreme Court had also ruled that if, for whatever reason, fees have already been collected for an extended period of time, the amount collected in this way will be kept on a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank, against which no loan or advance may be granted in order to pay the interest The students can benefit from the costs, according to the Higher Regional Court.
“It is therefore clear that the educational institutions are not entitled to charge fees for a period longer than the academic year in question. If the fee for the third academic year were being charged while the student was completing the second academic year, you would do just that,” said the bank.
Thereafter, it instructed, “We are therefore allowing these written petitions by instructing those of the defendant private medical institutions where the petitioners are studying in these written petitions to refrain from charging or charging them tuition fees in relation to any other academic year than that for which instructions are currently being given
“We make it clear that the instructions issued in this judgment are only to be operated in the above-mentioned special situation, which is caused by the COVID pandemic.”
नीचे दिए गए लिंक को क्लिक करे और Government Recruitments – Study Guide and Study Tips की ताज़ा खबरों से जुड़े रहें |
भारत माता की जय |