FIVE FOLD Increase in DM,Mch Fee: Telangana HC sets aside GO order

Published On 2019-04-29 12:03 GMT   |   Update On 2019-04-29 12:03 GMT

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has set aside the Government Order (GO) issued by the state on enhancing the Tuition Fee by over five times for PG Super Speciality (SS) (DM and MCh) Medical Courses under the Management Quota.


The court ruled that the G.O.Ms.No.78, Health, Medical and Family Welfare, dated 14.08.2018, in view of which the Tuition Fee for PG SS Medical Courses, was increased from Rs 5.85 lakh to Rs 25 lakh from 2018-19; was issued without following the procedure prescribed by law.


The verdict was pronounced in view of the petition filed by one Dr Y Anil Reddy who was allotted a seat in MCh Urology in the Mamata medical college, Khammam. In his petition, he had challenged the concerned GO.


During the hearing on the case, the court was notified about the sudden implementation of the order.


Read Also: PG Medical Admissions: Hyderabad-Karnataka Quota Challenged in Supreme Court


It was submitted that at the time of commencement of the admission process, the fee payable per annum Rs 5.85 lakh for Private Un-aided Minority Medical Colleges whereas the fees payable by students admitted under the quota for Competent Authority in Non-minority Institutions was Rs 3.7 lakh and the fee payable by those admitted under the Management Quota was Rs 7.5 lakh.


However, all of a sudden, immediately after the conclusion of the 1st phase of the counselling but before commencement of the 2nd phase of counselling, the Government issued an Order in G.O.Ms.No.78, Health, Medical and Family Welfare, dated 14.08.2018, enhancing the fee payable by those admitted under the Management Quota to Rs 25 lakh. Therefore, challenging the Government Order, Dr Reddy moved the HC.


In its judgment rendered on 12.08.2005, the Supreme Court had directed the Government to constitute a Committee headed by a retired Judge of the High Court for fixation of fee. Accordingly, the Government constituted a Committee.


It was pointed out that while passing the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.78, the state never consulted the Fee Regulatory Committee.


The state, in its defence, contended that the fees have not been hiked since 2011. It further made a comparison with the corresponding state and submitted that the Andhra Pradesh government had also issued GO which enhanced the tuition fee to Rs 24 lakh per annum for SS courses from 2017-18.


According to the counter affidavit of the state had immediately addressed a letter to the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, requesting them to examine the representation of the Deccan College of Medical Sciences and to submit a report. But, even before the report could be received, the Government took note of the financial burden on the Colleges with regard to the actual cost and passed the GO.


Read Also: Supreme Court notice to Union Health Secy, AP, Telangana Govts over PG Medical Admissions


The court noted that the judgment of the Supreme Court was totally thrown to the winds by the Government while passing the GO, Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.


The HC bench of Honourable Justices V Ramasubramanian and P Keshava Rao noted that the enhancement of fee was not ordered on the basis of the recommendations of the Fee Regulatory Committee.




“We are merely concerned in this case with the question whether the procedure prescribed by Law was followed before revising the fee structure or not. Since the procedure has not been followed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.”



In its conclusion, the court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order.




“In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and if any fee in excess of what was already fixed by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.167, dated 18.06.2011 had been collected, the same shall be refunded by the concerned college to the petitioner within 4 weeks. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.”



Attached is the detailed judgment below:

Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2020 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd

Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Similar News