Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1081 OF 2017
S. Krishna Sradha …Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. The issue arises for consideration is whether a student, a
meritorious candidate, for no fault of his/her and who has
pursued his/her legal right expeditiously without delay, can be
th
denied admission as a relief, because the cutoff date of 30
September has passed. In such a situation the relief which can
be given by the Court is to grant appropriate compensation
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2019.12.13
16:57:35 IST
Reason:
only?
1
2. Having noticed the conflict between the pronouncement of
1
this Court in Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma UHS and
2
vs. , the aforesaid issue is
Chandigarh Admn. Jasmine Kaur
referred to a larger Bench.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present
case, in spite of submitting the necessary material in support of
the claim of the appellant for reservation in the sports and
game category for admission into MBBS Course, she was
denied due priority in admission into MBBS Course. Therefore,
the appellant immediately approached the High Court seeking
admission in the reserved quota of sports and games category.
However, it was found that at the time the petition was heard,
the Academic Session for the year in question already
commenced from 01.09.2015 and as per the decision of this
Court the last date for admission would be 30.09.2015, the
High Court considering the decision of this Court in the case
(Supra) observed that no direction can be
Jasmine Kaur
issued to the appellant for grant of admission for the Academic
Session 201516. However, relying upon the decision of this
1
(2012) 7 SCC 389
2
(2014) 10 SCC 521
2
Court in the case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra), the High Court
granted compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. It is required to be noted
that the High Court came to a categorical and unequivocal
conclusion that the appellant was entitled to get priority. It
was also found that the appellant was more meritorious than
others on the basis of the marks obtained. However, the High
Court denied the admission solely on the ground that time limit
has expired. The High Court has relied upon the decision of
this Court in the case of (Supra). In the case of
Jasmine Kaur
Asha (Supra) this Court held that in rarest of rare cases, when
the Court returns the finding that (i) no fault is attributable to
the candidate; (ii) the candidate has pursued her rights and
legal remedies expeditiously and without delay; (iii) where there
is fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach of
th
rules and regulations, an exception may be made to 30
September cutoff date and in an exceptional case the Court
can direct for admission even in a case where cutoff date as
directed by this Court had expired. As observed hereinabove,
the contrary view is taken subsequently in the case of
Jasmine
3
Kaur (Supra) and therefore, the matter is referred to a larger
Bench to consider the aforesaid issue.
4. Learned Counsel Mr. K. Parameshwar appearing on behalf
of the appellant, has vehemently submitted that the present
case refers only to cases where (i) no fault is attributable to the
candidate; (ii) the candidate has pursued his/her rights and
legal remedies expeditiously and without delay; (iii) where there
is fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach of
rules and regulations. It is submitted that the relief of
admission is being denied because the case has been pending
in the relevant Court and the time for admission has expired.
It is vehemently submitted by Learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant that even in a case where a candidate is
meritorious and though entitled to admission, but denied by
the authorities illegally and irrationally and though no fault is
attributable to the candidate and the candidate has pursued
his/her rights and legal remedies expeditiously and without
delay and when there is fault on the part of the authorities and
apparent breach of rules and regulations, to deny the
admission would be injustice to such a meritorious candidate
4
and punishing him/her for no fault of him/her. It is submitted
that it is therefore rightly observed in the case of Asha (Supra)
that in rarest of rare cases, the Court can, while exercising
powers under Article 226 and/or under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India can direct to grant admission despite the
fact that the time for admission has expired.
4.1. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted
that earlier this Court has considered different remedies in
cases of medical admissions where candidates were denied
medical seats.
4.2. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel appearing for the
3
appellant that in the case of Indu Kant vs. State of U.P. , this
Court has observed therein that in case where the candidate is
found to be meritorious, she can be accommodated in a
subsequent year with a direction that seats be increased in the
next year.
4.3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that
when the candidate is found to be meritorious and denied the
3
1993 Suppl (2) SCC 71
5
admission more particularly in the courses like MBBS and has
approached the Court expeditiously, to grant relief only of
compensation cannot be said to be just and equitable relief.
4.4 It is submitted that right to equal and fair treatment is a
component of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted
that a transparent and fair procedure is the duty of every legal
authority connected with admissions. It is submitted that in
such cases, denial of fair treatment to the candidate would not
only violate his/her right under Article 14 but would seriously
jeopardize his/her right under Articles 19 and 21. It is
submitted that in the case of violation of constitutional rights,
restitution is the norm and compensation, an exception. It is
submitted that the citizen injured must be put back to his/her
original position. It is submitted that in that sense, the
primary relief is restitutionary.
4.5. It is further submitted that compensation could be an
additional remedy but not a substitute for restitutionary
remedies. It is submitted that in case of medical admissions,
even the restitutionary remedy of providing a seat in a
subsequent year would lead to the loss of one full academic
6
year of a meritorious candidate, which cannot be compensated
in real terms. It is submitted that compensation for loss of year
could be provided but denial of admissions to meritorious
candidate, even after the cutoff date in exceptional
circumstances, set out in para 32 in (Supra) cannot be
Asha
compensated in monetary terms. It is further submitted that
the value and the enforcement of a fundamental right depends
upon the nature of remedies that a court of justice can fashion.
It is submitted that the power of Articles 32 and 226 ought not
to be read in a constricted manner so as to limit the scope of
remedies. If the courts do not have the power to fashion
remedies, appropriate and adequate remedies, the enforcement
of fundamental rights would be rendered meaningless. This is
not just a principle of constitutional remedies but also a rule of
equity.
4.6. It is further submitted by Learned Counsel appearing for
the appellant that the compensation and constitutional torts
are cases where restitution is impossible in real terms. It is
submitted that the compensation cannot be the only remedy as
observed by this Court in the case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra).
7
5. Mr. Vikas Singh, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
MCI has as such supported the decision of this Court in the
case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra). It is submitted that the time
th
fixed for the admission by this Court, namely, 30 September
has to be scrupulously followed so that they are not to be
allowed to be derailed, under no circumstances. It is submitted
that as per catena of decisions of this Court the time schedule
relating to admissions to the professional courses should be
strictly adhered to and shall not be restricted under any
circumstances either by this Court or the Board and
admissions should not be permitted. It is submitted that this
Court had consistently held that no admission should be given
in technical courses in midstream after the course has
commenced, even if there are unfilled seats in the same year.
5.1. It is further submitted by Mr. Vikas Singh, Learned
Counsel for the MCI that as held by this Court in MCI vs.
4 5
Madhu Singh , and Neelu Arora vs. Union of India , even
unfilled seats of one year cannot be telescoped into permissible
seats of the subsequent year. It is submitted that the Court
4
(2002) 7 SCC 258
5
(2003) 3 SCC 366
8
has held that there cannot be a carry forward of unfilled seats
from one year to next year. This is because, it would in effect,
increase the number of seats in the next year. It is submitted
that in the aforesaid decision, this Court has opined a medical
seat has life only in the year it falls and a vacancy cannot be
carry forward in the next year. In support, he has heavily
relied upon the decisions of this Court in Faiza Chowdhary
6
vs.
State of J & K .
5.2 It is further submitted that this Court has consistently
taken a stand that even in cases where the candidate before the
Court is found meritorious; she cannot be accommodated in a
subsequent year with a direction that seats be increased in the
next year. It is submitted that number of seats cannot be over
and above the number fixed by the MCI as per the regulations,
and cannot be increased indiscriminately without regard to
infrastructure. It is submitted that as held by this Court in the
case of Chhavi Mehrotra vs. Director General Health
7
, the Courts cannot be generous in issuing directions
Services
6
(2012) 10 SCC 149
7
(1994) 2 SCC 370
9
which in effect amount to directing authorities to violate their
own rules and regulations.
5.3. It is further submitted that however, with a view to see
that a meritorious student is not made to suffer because of no
fault of him/her and in rarest of rare cases or exceptional
circumstances, while exercising the powers under Article 226
or Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the Court alone can
grant the reliefs and may deviate from the normal rule.
5.4. It is further submitted by Mr. Vikas Singh, Learned
Counsel appearing for MCI that however, it is in rarest of rare
cases and in exceptional circumstances when it is found that
for no fault on the part of the candidate and due to the gross
negligence or inaction on the part of the concerned authority or
for some unforeseeable reasons a meritorious candidate has
been deprived of admission in medical course then in such
circumstances only the Court may consider granting relief to
the candidate, either by way of compensation or by directing
that the candidate may be accommodated in the quota of
sanctioned seats available for the next academic session. It is
submitted that however only in cases where the Court is
10
satisfied that monetary compensation will not be adequate to
redress the injury suffered by the candidate, then and then
only this direction to accommodate student in the next
academic year may be passed. It is submitted that however
while granting such a relief in the rarest of rare cases and in
exceptional circumstances, a candidate must have approached
the Court without any delay; candidate must be higher in the
merit list than the last student admitted in the college and the
candidate has complied with all the requirements and
submitted each and every document on time as prescribed by
the counselling authority and there is no delay attributable on
the part of the student in this regard.
5.5. It is submitted to ascertain whether the candidate has
approached the Court on time and to avoid mischievous
persons from filing frivolous petitions the Court may consider
the following criteria for determining the delay:
(i) Where the candidate is challenging the validity of any
provision in notification/Information Bulletin/
Prospectus issued by the concerned authority
pertaining to admission in medicine course, then the
11
candidate must have approached the Court before the
commencement of the counselling process;
(ii) Where the candidate is challenging any eligibility
criteria laid down in the notification/Information
Bulletin /Prospectus for Common Counselling issued
by the concerned authority, then the candidate must
have approached the Court before the commencement
of the counselling process i.e. first round of counselling;
(iii) Where the candidate is challenging the first round of
counselling process itself, then the candidate must
have approached the Court immediately after the first
round of counselling and before the commencement of
second round of counselling;
(iv) Where the candidate is challenging the second round or
mop up round of counselling process, then in that case
student must approach the Court immediately
thereafter but before the cut off/last date for
completion of admission process.
5.6 It is further submitted by Mr. Vikas Singh, Learned
Counsel appearing for MCI that in case all aforesaid pre
12
requisites are fulfilled by candidate and the Court is of the
opinion that a case is made out having found rarest of rare
case and exceptional circumstances and the Court is of the
opinion that such a student can be accommodated in the next
academic year, in that case also out of the total sanctioned
intake of seats not more than two seats in an
institution/college/University in a given academic year should
be considered to be filled by the students of the preceding
academic year who have been deprived of the MBBS students
due to the negligence and fault of the authorities.
6. Heard Learned Counsel for the respective parties at
length. The short but an important question of law posed for
consideration of this Court is what relief a meritorious
candidate is entitled to when it is found that a meritorious
candidate is denied an admission arbitrary and illegally by the
concerned authorities and the fault is not attributable to the
candidate at all and the candidate has pursued his/her legal
rights expeditiously and without delay, whether in such a
situation awarding compensation only can be said to be just
and an adequate relief? The issue which arises for
13
consideration is whether having fulfilled the aforesaid pre
requisites, the Court can grant relief and order admission even
th
after the cutoff date for admission i.e. 30 September is over
and whether the Court can grant admission beyond the intake
either in the same year or in the next academic year?
6.1. In the case of Asha (supra) following questions were posed
for consideration before the Court:
“(a) Is there any exception to the principle of strict
adherence to the rule of merit for preference of
courses and colleges regarding admission to
such courses?
th
(b) Whether the cutoff date of 30
September of the relevant academic year is a
date which admits any exception?
(c) What relief the courts can grant and to
what extent they can mould it while
ensuring adherence to the rule of merit,
fairness and transparency in admission in
terms of rules and regulations?
(d) What issues need to be dealt with and
finding returned by the court before passing
orders which may be more equitable, but
still in strict compliance with the framework
of regulations and judgments of this Court
governing the subject?”
After considering catena of decisions of this Court on the
subject in Asha (Supra) this Court answered the aforesaid
questions as under:
14
“38. Now, we shall proceed to answer the
questions posed by us in the opening part of this
judgment.
38.1 Question (a) : The rule of merit for
preference of courses and colleges admits no
exception. It is an absolute rule and all
stakeholders and authorities concerned are
required to follow this rule strictly and without
demur.
th
38.2 Question (b): 30 September is undoubtedly
the last date by which the admitted students
should report to their respective colleges without
fail. In the normal course, the admissions must
th
close by holding of second counselling by 15
September of the relevant academic year (in terms
of the decision of this Court in Priya Gupta).
Thereafter, only in very rare and exceptional cases
of unequivocal discrimination or arbitrariness or
pressing emergency, admission may be
permissible but such power may preferably be
exercised by the courts. Further, it will be in the
rarest of rare cases and where the ends of justice
would be subverted or the process of law would
stand frustrated that the courts would exercise
their extraordinary jurisdiction of admitting
candidates to the courses after the deadline of
th
30 September of the current academic year.
This, however, can only be done if the conditions
stated by this Court in Priya Gupta and this
judgment are found to be unexceptionally
satisfied and the reasons therefor are recorded by
the court of competent jurisdiction.
38.3. Questions (c) & (d): Wherever the court
finds that action of the authorities has been
arbitrary, contrary to the judgments of this Court
and violative of rules, regulations and conditions
of the prospectus, causing prejudice to the rights
of the students, the court shall award
compensation to such students as well as direct
initiation of disciplinary action against the erring
officers/officials. The court shall also ensure that
the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 are initiated against the erring
authorities irrespective of their stature and
empowerment. Where the admissions given by
the authorities concerned are found by the courts
15
to be legally unsustainable and where there is no
reason to permit the students to continue with the
course, the mere fact that such students have put
in a year or so into the academic course is not by
itself a ground to permit them to continue with
the course.”
This Court also cautioned the courts for giving interim
orders where admissions are matter of dispute before the
Court. This Court observed as under:
“39. With all humility, we reiterate the request
that we have made to all the High Courts in Priya
Gupta case that the Courts should avoid giving
interim orders where admissions are the matter of
dispute before the Court. Even in case where the
candidates are permitted to continue with the
courses, they should normally be not permitted to
take further examinations of the professional
courses. The students who pursue the courses
under the orders of the Court would not be
entitled to claim any equity at the final decision of
the case nor should it weigh with the courts of
competent jurisdiction.”
6.2. However, subsequently in the case of Jasmine Kaur
(Supra) a contrary view is taken by this Court, contrary to the
law laid down by this Court in the case of (Supra). This
Asha
Court has held that in such a situation grant of compensation
is the only relief which can be granted and which a candidate is
entitled to.
16
7. In view of the contradictory views and decisions in the
case of Asha (Supra) and in the case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra)
the question which has been referred to the larger Bench is
where a student, a meritorious candidate, for no fault of
his/her is denied admission illegally and arbitrary and who has
pursued her legal right expeditiously without delay, can be
th
denied admission as a relief, because of cutoff date of 30
September is over and in such a situation the relief which can
be given by the Court is to grant appropriate compensation
only? Another question which is required to be considered is
what relief can be granted by the Court in such a situation?.
7.1. The observations and the ultimate conclusion by this
Court in the case of (Supra) and in the case of
Asha Jasmine
Kaur (Supra) are required to be referred to and considered.
After considering catena of decisions of this Court on the
point this Court in the case of Asha (Supra) ultimately
concluded in para 38 as under:
“38. Now, we shall proceed to answer the
questions posed by us in the opening part of this
judgment.
38.1 Question (a) : The rule of merit for
preference of courses and colleges admits no
17
exception. It is an absolute rule and all
stakeholders and authorities concerned are
required to follow this rule strictly and without
demur.
th
38.2 Question (b): 30 September is undoubtedly
the last date by which the admitted students
should report to their respective colleges without
fail. In the normal course, the admissions must
th
close by holding of second counselling by 15
September of the relevant academic year (in terms
of the decision of this Court in Priya Gupta).
Thereafter, only in very rare and exceptional cases
of unequivocal discrimination or arbitrariness or
pressing emergency, admission may be
permissible but such power may preferably be
exercised by the courts. Further, it will be in the
rarest of rare cases and where the ends of justice
would be subverted or the process of law would
stand frustrated that the courts would exercise
their extraordinary jurisdiction of admitting
candidates to the courses after the deadline of
th
30 September of the current academic year.
This, however, can only be done if the conditions
stated by this Court in Priya Gupta and this
judgment are found to be unexceptionally
satisfied and the reasons therefor are recorded by
the court of competent jurisdiction.
38.3. Questions (c) & (d): Wherever the court
finds that action of the authorities has been
arbitrary, contrary to the judgments of this Court
and violative of rules, regulations and conditions
of the prospectus, causing prejudice to the rights
of the students, the court shall award
compensation to such students as well as direct
initiation of disciplinary action against the erring
officers/officials. The court shall also ensure that
the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 are initiated against the erring
authorities irrespective of their stature and
empowerment. Where the admissions given by
the authorities concerned are found by the courts
to be legally unsustainable and where there is no
reason to permit the students to continue with the
course, the mere fact that such students have put
in a year or so into the academic course is not by
18
itself a ground to permit them to continue with
the course.”
Thereafter in paragraph 39 this Court observed and
directed as under:
“39. With all humility, we reiterate the request
that we have made to all the High Courts in Priya
Gupta case that the Courts should avoid giving
interim orders where admissions are the matter of
dispute before the Court. Even in case where the
candidates are permitted to continue with the
courses, they should normally be not permitted to
take further examinations of the professional
courses. The students who pursue the courses
under the orders of the Court would not be
entitled to claim any equity at the final decision of
the case nor should it weigh with the courts of
competent jurisdiction.”
7.2. However, in the subsequent decision in the case of
(Supra) after considering the decision of this
Jasmine Kaur
Court in the case of Asha (Supra) ultimately in paragraph 33, it
is observed and held as under:
“33.1. The schedule relating to admissions to the
professional colleges should be strictly and
scrupulously adhered to and shall not be deviated
under any circumstance either by the courts or the
Board and midstream admission should not be
permitted.
33.2 Under exceptional circumstances, if the court
finds that there is no fault attributable to the
candidate i.e., the candidate has pursued his or her
legal right expeditiously without any delay and that
there is fault only on the part of the authorities or
there is an apparent breach of rules and regulations
19
as well as related principles in the process of grant
of admission which would violate the right to
equality and equal treatment to the competing
candidates and the relief of admission can be
directed within the time schedule prescribed, it
would be completely just and fair to provide
exceptional reliefs to the candidate under such
circumstance alone.
33.3 If a candidate is not selected during a
particular academic year due to the fault of the
institutions/authorities and in this process if the
seats are filled up and the scope for granting
admission is lost due to eclipse of time schedule,
then under such circumstances, the candidate
should not be victimised for no fault of his/her and
the Court may consider grant of appropriate
compensation to offset the loss caused, if any.
33.4. When a candidate does not exercise or pursue
his/her rights or legal remedies against his/her
nonselection expeditiously and promptly, then the
courts cannot grant any relief to the candidate in
the form of securing an admission.
33.5. If the candidate takes a calculated
risk/chance by subjecting himself/herself to the
selection process and after knowing his/her non
selection, he/she cannot subsequently turn around
and contend that the process of selection was
unfair.
33.6. If it is found that the candidate acquiesces or
waives his/her right to claim relief before the court
promptly, then in such cases, the legal maxim
vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt,
which means that equity aids only the vigilant and
not the ones who sleep over their rights, will be
highly appropriate.
33.7. No relief can be granted even though the
prospectus is declared illegal or invalid if the same
is not challenged promptly. Once the candidate is
aware that he/she does not fulfil the criteria of the
prospectus he/she cannot be heard to state that,
he/she chose to challenge the same only after
preferring the application and after the same is
refused on the ground of eligibility.
20
33.8. There cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of
one year with permitted seats of the subsequent
year i.e., carryforward of seats cannot be permitted
how much ever meritorious a candidate is and
deserved admission. In such circumstances, the
Courts cannot grant any relief to the candidate but
it is up to the candidate to reapply in the next
academic year.
33.9. There cannot be at any point of time a
direction given either by the court or the Board to
increase the number of seats which is exclusively in
the realm of the Medical Council of India.
33.10. Each of these above mentioned principles
should be applied based on the unique and
distinguishable facts and circumstances of each
case and no two cases can be held to be identical.”
However, it is required to be noted that in the case before
this Court in (Supra) it was specifically found
Jasmine Kaur
by this Court that there was a delay on the part of the
candidate. It was specifically found that the conduct of the
candidate in having fixed her own time limit in making the
challenge, namely, after three months of the issuance of the
prospectus and thereafter in filing the Letters Patent Appeal
which process resulted in the Division Bench in deciding the
Appeal only in the month of April, 2014 by which time the
substantial part of the academic year has been crossed,
disentitles the candidate any relief and the case would not fall
in any extraordinary circumstances.
21
8. However, the question is with respect to a student, a
meritorious candidate for no fault of his/her has been denied
admission illegally and who has pursued his/her legal rights
expeditiously without delay is entitled to any relief of admission
more particularly in the courses like MBBS the relief of
compensation as held by this Court in (Supra)?
Asha
The aforesaid question is required to be considered only to
the cases where (i) no fault is attributable to the candidate; (ii)
the candidate has pursued her rights and legal remedies
expeditiously and without delay; (iii) where there is fault on the
part of the authorities and apparent breach of rules and
regulations; and (iv) candidate is found to be more meritorious
then the last candidate who has been given admission.
8.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the question
is with respect to a student/candidate seeking admission in the
medical course more particularly in MBBS course. For a
student/candidate seeking admission in professional courses
more particularly the medical course each year is very
important and precious. Similarly, getting admission in
medical course itself is very important in the life of a
22
candidate/student and even a dream of man. In light of the
above, the question for consideration is whether compensation
for a meritorious candidate, who has been denied the
admission illegally and arbitrary having approached the court
in time can be said to be just and equitable relief?
8.2. The right to equal and fair treatment is a component of
Article 14 of the Constitution. As held by this Court
Asha
(Supra) that a transparent and fair procedure is the duty of
every legal authority connected with admissions. In such
cases, denial of fair treatment to the candidate would not only
violate his/her right under Article 14 but would seriously
jeopardize his/her right under Articles 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. A natural corollary of declaring that an
administrative act more particularly the denial of admission
illegally and for no fault of a candidate/student violates
principles of Article 14 is that the citizen injured must be put
back to his/her original position. In that sense, the primary
relief is restitutionary. As observed hereinabove, for a
meritorious student seeking admission in medical course is
very important in the life of student/candidate and denial of
23
admission to a meritorious candidate though no fault of
his/her violates his/her fundamental rights. Compensation
could be an additional remedy but not a substitute for
restitutionary remedies. In case of medical admissions, even
the restitutionary remedy of providing a seat in the subsequent
year would lead to loss of one full academic year to a
meritorious candidate, which cannot be compensated in real
terms. Thus compensation for loss of year could be provided,
but denial of admissions to a meritorious candidate cannot be
compensated in monetary terms. Thus denial of admission in
medical course to a meritorious candidate for no fault of
his/her and though he/she has approached the Court in time
and despite the same not granting any just and equitable relief
would be denial of justice. Therefore, the question is what
relief the Court can grant by which right to equal and fair
treatment to a candidate are protected and at the same time
neither there is injustice to other candidate/student and even
compromising with the quality education. Therefore, a balance
is required to be struck. However, at the same time it can
safely be said that the view taken by this Court in Jasmine
(Supra) that the only relief which can be granted to such
Kaur
24
a candidate would be the compensation only is not good law
and cannot be accepted. Even granting a relief to such a
candidate/student in the next academic year and to
accommodate him/her in the next year and in the sanctioned
intake may even affect the right of some other
candidate/student seeking admission in the next academic
year and that too for no fault of his/her. Therefore we are of
the view that in the exceptional and in the rarest of rare cases
and in case where all the conditions stipulated in paragraph
33.3 in the case of (Supra) are satisfied, the
Jasmine Kaur
Court can grant exceptional relief to the candidate of granting
admission even after the cut off date is over.
9. In light of the discussion/observations made hereinabove,
a meritorious candidate/student who has been denied an
admission in MBBS Course illegally or irrationally by the
authorities for no fault of his/her and who has approached the
Court in time and so as to see that such a meritorious
candidate may not have to suffer for no fault of his/her, we
answer the reference as under:
(i) That in a case where candidate/student has
approached the court at the earliest and without any
25
delay and that the question is with respect to the
admission in medical course all the efforts shall be
made by the concerned court to dispose of the
proceedings by giving priority and at the earliest.
(ii) Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds
that there is no fault attributable to the candidate
and the candidate has pursued his/her legal right
expeditiously without any delay and there is fault
only on the part of the authorities and/or there is
apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as
related principles in the process of grant of
admission which would violate the right of equality
and equal treatment to the competing candidates
th
and if the time schedule prescribed – 30 September,
is over, to do the complete justice, the Court under
exceptional circumstances and in rarest of rare cases
direct the admission in the same year by directing to
increase the seats, however, it should not be more
than one or two seats and such admissions can be
ordered within reasonable time, i.e., within one
th
month from 30 September, i.e., cut off date and
26
under no circumstances, the Court shall order any
th
Admission in the same year beyond 30 October.
However, it is observed that such relief can be
granted only in exceptional circumstances and in the
rarest of rare cases. In case of such an eventuality,
the Court may also pass an order cancelling the
admission given to a candidate who is at the bottom
of the merit list of the category who, if the admission
would have been given to a more meritorious
candidate who has been denied admission illegally,
would not have got the admission, if the Court
deems it fit and proper, however, after giving an
opportunity of hearing to a student whose admission
is sought to be cancelled.
(iii) In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of
admission can be granted to such a candidate in the
very academic year and wherever it finds that the
action of the authorities has been arbitrary and in
breach of the rules and regulations or the prospectus
affecting the rights of the students and that a
candidate is found to be meritorious and such
27
candidate/student has approached the court at the
earliest and without any delay, the court can mould
the relief and direct the admission to be granted to
such a candidate in the next academic year by
issuing appropriate directions by directing to
increase in the number of seats as may be
considered appropriate in the case and in case of
such an eventuality and if it is found that the
management was at fault and wrongly denied the
admission to the meritorious candidate, in that case,
the Court may direct to reduce the number of seats
in the management quota of that year, meaning
thereby the student/students who was/were denied
admission illegally to be accommodated in the next
academic year out of the seats allotted in the
management quota.
(iv) Grant of the compensation could be an additional
remedy but not a substitute for restitutional
remedies. Therefore, in an appropriate case the
Court may award the compensation to such a
meritorious candidate who for no fault of his/her has
28
to lose one full academic year and who could not be
granted any relief of admission in the same academic
year.
(v) It is clarified that the aforesaid directions pertain for
Admission in MBBS Course only and we have not
dealt with Post Graduate Medical Course.
10. In view of the above, the decision of this Court in the case
of (Supra) or any other decisions contrary to the
Jasmine Kaur
above stand overruled. The decision of this Court in the case of
Asha (Supra) is hereby affirmed to the aforesaid extent. The
reference is answered accordingly.
…………………………………J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
DECEMBER 13, 2019. [B.R. GAVAI]
29