The Hindu : Front Page : Panel fee for management seats

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jul 24, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Front Page

Front Page

Panel fee for management seats

High Court says agreement should get Supreme Court approval

Petitioner wanted agreement between government and medical colleges quashed
Says it goes against Supreme Court ruling on capitation fee, cross-subsidy

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court, on Wednesday, ordered that only the fee prescribed by the Admission Supervisory Committee, headed by P.A. Mohammed, former judge, be collected for management seats in self-financing medical colleges which had reached an agreement with the State government on fee structure and seat-sharing till the Supreme Court approved the agreement.

The court said the difference in the fee prescribed by the committee and that proposed in the agreement could be paid later if the Supreme Court gave its approval.

The Government Pleader submitted that the government had filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking its approval.

Justice S. Siri Jagan passed the interim order on a writ petition filed by Fathima Haseena and others. They said the agreement was illegal and arbitrary and should be quashed.

Under the agreement, the annual fee for the management seats had been fixed at Rs. 5 lakh. Besides, Rs. 5 lakh had to be paid as a refundable deposit. This fee structure was applicable to the 35 per cent management seats in Kochi and Kannur cooperative self-financing medical colleges which had also entered into an agreement with the government.

However, the self-financing colleges which refused to ink an agreement with the government could only collect a fee ranging from Rs. 2.4 lakh to Rs. 2.5 lakh. They were not entitled to collect the refundable deposit also.

The petitioner said the agreement had not been approved either by the committee or the Supreme Court. But the government was going ahead with its implementation. The agreement went against the Supreme Court verdict ruling out capitation fee and cross-subsidy. Therefore, the increase in fee could not be substantiated. The action of the government was against Article 14 (equality before law) and 21A (right to education) of the Constitution. She wanted the court to quash the agreements.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page