Information in relation to refund of amount deposited for M.Tech. (IT) after the withdrawal of admission - CIC: University should have laid down some policy in exceptional cases; University directed to specify the policy which is mandatory u/s 4(1)[c]
1. Appellant through his RTI application had sought for information in relation to refund of amount deposited by his son for M.Tech. (IT) Course after the withdrawal of admission namely, why the amount has not been refunded, what is the normal time for refund of the same etc.
CIC Direction :
2. CIC directed the FAA to take appropriate action.
Ground For Second Appeal :
3. Non-furnishing of information even after direction of CIC.
Proceedings before the Commission:
4. Both the parties made their submissions. The appellant submitted that his son had deposited Rs. 32,000/ for admission into the M.Tech (IT) course on 25-8-2010 and immediately after two days i.e. on 27-8-2010, he applied for refund of the same as he had got the job and wanted to join the job. But the respondent authority has not refunded the same and also not provided the information as to the reasons for not refunding the same. He only got the refund of Rs. 5,000/ deposited as security deposit/caution deposit, initially when his son was admitted to 4year B.Tech. course in the respondent/University, that too, after 3 months of withdrawing the M. Tech admission.
5. The respondent authority, on the other hand, submitted that it is the policy of their University that once the student, who finished B.Tech in their University, opted for admission into the M.Tech course in the same University, much before the onset of the new academic year, the University reserves a M.Tch. seat for that student and the same will not be filled by the outside candidates. In this case, the student not only opted for M.Tech course and further confirmed his option in the month of August 2010 by depositing the required fees. As the University had already closed the admission into M.Tech. course for outside candidates, there is no scope for the University to fill the seat vacated by the appellant’s son, by outside candidates. The number of seats in the M.Tech / B.Tech. is constant in any University, and is governed by the AICTE rules. Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University is a Government university and the fee of this University is very much less, compared to the private Engineering Colleges. Therefore, as per the Government’s policy, once the student opted for the admission into the M.Tech. course and further confirmed the same by depositing the fees, the fees cannot be refunded to the student, as his M.Tech. seat reserved for him, will remain vacant throughout the academic period (2 years).
6. The Commission having heard the submissions and having perused the record thoroughly, considers that the respondent university, which is a Government university, should have laid down some policy in exceptional cases, as in the case of the appellant’s son. The Commission, therefore, directs the University to specify the policy which is mandatory under section 4(1)[c] of the RTI Act. The Commission recommends the University authorities to consider the request of the appellant’s son and inform their decision within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: R.D.Indora vs. Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University in Case No. CIC/SA/A/2014/1381