Institution must refund tuition fees when an allotted admission is subsequently cancelled.

The petitioner was allotted a seat in the second respondent college under the Management Quota pursuant to an allotment letter issued by the first respondent–Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences on 27 October 2025.

Relying on the allotment, she paid ₹3,32,000 towards tuition fees and was permitted to pursue the course.

Subsequently, by proceedings dated 23 January 2026, the University cancelled her admission on the ground that she had secured 128 marks in NEET, whereas 144 marks were required.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation as arbitrary and contrary to the allotment letter, and alternatively sought refund of the tuition fee and compensation.

The respondents did not dispute the allotment, payment of fees, or subsequent cancellation, and left the matter to the Court’s discretion.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the tuition fee paid pursuant to an allotment and admission that were subsequently cancelled by the respondents?

Whether the Court was required to adjudicate the validity of the cancellation of the petitioner’s admission?

The Court applied the principle that an institution cannot unjustly enrich itself by retaining fees paid for a seat when the student is ultimately not permitted to continue the course due to cancellation of the admission.

It further held that where admission was granted pursuant to an allotment made by the competent authority itself, the student should not bear the financial consequences of any error in the allotment or admission process.

Although the petitioner referred to the doctrine of legitimate expectation and to Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 3 SCC 563, the Court did not rely on those authorities to decide the validity of the cancellation or to award compensation.

The Court accepted that the petitioner had not obtained the minimum NEET score, but noted that the seat had nevertheless been allotted by the University and that the petitioner had paid the entire tuition fee in reliance on that allotment.

Since the respondents themselves subsequently cancelled the admission, retaining ₹3,32,000 for a seat that the petitioner was not permitted to continue would result in unjust enrichment of the institution.

The Court therefore separated the question of refund from the legality of the cancellation and considered it unnecessary to determine whether the cancellation order was substantively valid.

The Court expressly declined to give any opinion on the validity of the cancellation of admission and did not grant the alternative claim for ₹50,00,000 compensation.

There was no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.