Students at a private medical college in Puducherry have been prohibited from attending internship classes for the past four days because the college administration wants them to pay an additional fee of Rs 8.10 lakh (Rs 1.62 lakh per year), which is more than the Rs 3.13 lakh fee per year set by the Fee Fixation Committee and a "other fee" of Rs 50,000 levied by the college.
Through the Centralised Admission Committee of the Government (CENTAC), the college has made this demand of the 35 students enrolled to the government quota seats in the college in 2017–2018. The administration recently verbally informed to them the breakdown of the additional charge, despite the fact that they had paid Rs 3.13 lakh each year (the government bearing Rs 2.15 lakh), according to M Narayanassamy, president of Puducherry UT All CENTAC Students Parent Association.
The students had been waiting outside the campus since the internship started on July 25. The students must finish the one-year internship by July 31, 2023, in order to be eligible to take the NEET-PG entrance exam. A father said that if the internship does not begin by July 31 this year, the pupils will lose a year.
The parent added that it is very difficult to pay such a high amount all of a sudden, despite the fact that the parents demanded a meeting to discuss the matter. Instead, the management remained silent and only asked whether they would pay the amount or not. On Thursday, the parents and Narayanassamy met with the health secretary to request government action in the situation.
The government allegedly would start taking action after receiving a formal complaint, beginning with a show cause notice. A few students have already paid the tuition while others wait for government assistance because it is anticipated that the government procedures will take time, and time is running short. The problem has developed since the UT government's Charge Fixation Committee only sets the tuition fee, leaving the "other" costs up to the discretion of the college administrations.
This is in spite of a Supreme Court ruling that explained that when setting fees, the Fee Fixation Committees of the States should take into account all the components of fees, leaving no scope for managements to collect any additional amount aside from what has been periodically stipulated by the committee. If the management wants to charge more than the price range set by the fee fixation committee, or for any element that is not part of the structure set by the fee fixation committee, they must get the fee fixation committee's approval first.