Calcutta High Court Directs Dental College To Refund ₹9.5 Lakh, Return Documents To Student Who Left Course After 6 Days

The Calcutta High Court has directed Haldia Institute of Dental Sciences and Research (HIDSAR) to refund ₹9.5 lakh to a postgraduate dental student and return all her original certificates, holding that the institution could not withhold educational documents or deny fee refund after the student withdrew from the course within the period stipulated under the UGC Fee Refund Policy.

Justice Krishna Rao passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by Dr. Sreeparna Ghosh, who had sought return of her original documents and refund of fees deposited for admission to the MDS course in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.

The petitioner, a BDS graduate, had secured admission to the MDS programme under the management quota on August 29, 2024, after paying ₹9.5 lakh and depositing several original certificates. However, after attending classes for six days, she decided to discontinue the course, alleging inadequate educational facilities and guidance at the institution.

Despite her withdrawal request on September 10, 2024, the college refused to return her certificates or refund the fee, insisting that she first pay the remaining ₹18 lakh tuition fee for the three-year course in terms of a "discontinuity bond" executed at the time of admission.

Before the Court, the petitioner argued that withholding her original certificates prevented her from practising as a dentist and pursuing further academic opportunities. She also relied on the University Grants Commission's Fee Refund Policy dated June 12, 2024, which mandates a full refund of fees for admissions cancelled up to September 30, 2024.

The college contended that UGC guidelines were inapplicable to dental institutions, which are regulated by the Dental Council of India and the West Bengal Medical Counselling Committee. It further argued that the petitioner had voluntarily executed a discontinuity bond undertaking to pay the balance course fee if she left the programme before completion.

Rejecting the college's stand, the Court noted that HIDSAR is recognised by the UGC and that the Supreme Court has previously held that UGC guidelines issued under statutory powers are binding on universities and higher educational institutions.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Praneeth K. v. University Grants Commission, the Court observed that universities are under a statutory obligation to adopt UGC guidelines and cannot treat them as merely advisory.

The Court found that the petitioner had sought withdrawal on September 10, 2024, well before September 30, 2024, thereby becoming entitled to a full refund under Clause 3(a) of the UGC Fee Refund Policy.

Addressing the issue of retention of original certificates, Justice Rao held that the discontinuity bond did not contain any clause authorising the college to retain the petitioner's testimonials until payment of the remaining fee.

The Court further relied on decisions of the Madras and Kerala High Courts, which held that educational institutions cannot withhold certificates as a means of enforcing disputed monetary claims. Such claims, if any, must be pursued through appropriate legal proceedings.

Significantly, the Court observed that the college had issued its own circular regarding seat surrender after the UGC's fee refund policy came into force and had failed to take the UGC policy into account while obtaining the discontinuity bond from the petitioner.

"This Court finds that the College without considering the UGC policy dated 12th June, 2024, has refused to refund the fee and original testimonials of the petitioner," the Court held.

Accordingly, the Court directed the college to refund the entire amount of ₹9.5 lakh and return all original certificates to the petitioner within two weeks.

Case Title: Dr. Sreeparna Ghosh v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No.: WPA 28769 of 2024

Click here to read order