F.P. Report
ISLAMABAD: President Dr Arif Alvi on Friday directed the National University of Science and Technology (NUST) to refund an amount of $11,270 as it committed maladministration by unjustly confiscating the admission dues of a student 15 years ago.
The president gave these directions in a 15-year-old matter, referred to him in 2022. He said that NUST, having been established/controlled by the federal government, fell under the definition of “Agency” of the government, was not a private commercial entity but a service provider in the public sector, and confiscating the dues of a student was tantamount to exploitation and malpractice.
As per details, a student was admitted to MBBS on the Foreign SAT basis session 2007 in NUST and his father (the complainant) deposited the admission fee of $11,420. The complainant’s son got admission in another medical university of Pakistan and he applied to NUST for a refund. The NUST refused his request on the basis of its Refund Policy.
Feeling aggrieved, the complainant approached Wafaqi Mohtasib in 2008, which directed NUST to refund the amount. The NUST, then, filed a representation which was rejected on the ground that NUST did not explain how its policy was lawful and it failed to show that it suffered any financial loss due to the student’s decision to join another university.
Hence, the decision of NUST to retain the fee was termed as unjustified.
NUST then filed a writ petition in Islamabad High Court in 2015 which asked the Mohtasib to pass a reasoned order on the questions that whether any maladministration was committed by NUST and that it was an “Agency” of the government. Subsequently, the matter was remanded to the president.
President Alvi in his decision said that since the “provisional admission” offered to the student could not be converted into final admission and another student was admitted by NUST on the seat vacated by him, therefore, NUST charged double dues against one seat which, prima facie, was tantamount to exploitation and malpractice. He said that the act of declining a refund in the present case amounted to “forfeiture and confiscation” which was not permissible except backed by the law. (INP)
