Full Judgment Text
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No . 3940 of 2020
National Medical Commission .... Appellant(s)
Versus
Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi & Ors. …. Respondent (s)
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
st
1. Aggrieved by the denial of admission to 1 year
Post-Graduate Medical Specialty course of MS (General
Surgery) for the academic year 2020-2021, the
Respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana. The
High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the
Appellant-National Medical Commission/ Medical Council
of India to create or sanction one seat in MS (General
Surgery). A further direction was given to Respondent
No.2- Kamineni Academy of Medical Sciences and
Research Centre, Hyderabad to grant admission to the
1 | P a g e
Respondent No. 1 in MS (General Surgery) course. The
judgment of the High Court is challenged in the above
Appeal.
2. The Respondent No.1 passed the final year MBBS
Examination in January, 2019. She completed the one-
year Compulsory Rotary Internship as a Resident Intern
from 28.03.2019 to 27.03.2020 at Malla Reddy Narayana
Multispecialty Hospital. Thereafter, she was awarded
Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery Degree on
11.06.2020. In the meanwhile, she appeared in the All-
India National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET)
Medical PG Entrance examination, 2020 on 05.01.2020.
She secured All India Rank-93563 with 327 marks in the
NEET examination for admission into Post Graduation
Medical Course. The Respondent No.1 was called for
counselling and was given provisional admission to the
MS (General Surgery) course in the Mop-up Phase (MQ)-
P3 on 28.07.2020 and was allotted to the Respondent
No.2- College under Management Quota. According to
the provisional allotment order, Respondent No.1 was
required to report before the Principal of Respondent
No.2-College by 04:00 PM on 30.07.2020. In case of
2 | P a g e
failure to report before Respondent No.2-College within
the prescribed time, the provisional selection of
Respondent No. 1 shall be automatically cancelled.
According to Respondent No.1, she approached
Respondent No.2-College along with her father on
29.07.2020 and 30.07.2020 for submission of certificates
and payment of tuition fees as well as college fees. In
spite of her presence in Respondent No. 2-College, the
admission of Respondent No.1 was not completed. On
30.07.2020, the last date for admission into PG Medical
Courses was extended till 30.08.2020 pursuant to the
directions issued by this Court. Respondent No.1 made
an attempt to meet the Chairman of Respondent No.2-
College on 07.08.2020. However, she was not permitted
to meet the Chairman.
3. Having left with no other alternative, Respondent
No.1 filed a Writ Petition for seeking a declaration that
denial of admission to her in the PG Medical Course for
the academic year 2020-2021 as illegal. Respondent No.
1 also sought a direction to Respondent No.2-College to
grant admission in MS (General Surgery). Respondent
No.2-College filed a counter in the Writ Petition in which
3 | P a g e
it was stated that the University constituted a
Committee for verification of original certificates and
students who were allotted provisional admission by the
University were directed to approach the said Committee
for the purpose of verification of original certificates.
Respondent No.2-College denied that Respondent No.1
approached the College for admission on 29.07.2020 or
30.07.2020. In the next sentence the Respondent No.2-
College averred that Respondent No.1 and her father
visited the College on 29.07.2020 only for the purpose of
enquiring about the admission procedure and the
requisite fee. As Respondent No.1 did not avail the
opportunity of admission, Respondent No.1-College
contended that Respondent No.5 was given admission
on 11.08.2020.
4. By its judgment dated 18.09.2020, a Division Bench
of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed
the Appellant to create a seat in MS (General Surgery)
and to grant admission to Respondent No.1. The High
Court disbelieved the statement of Respondent No.2-
College that Respondent No.1 did not approach the
4 | P a g e
College either on 29.07.2020 or 30.07.2020. The
admission granted to Respondent No.5 who is 2000
ranks below Respondent No.1 on 11.08.2020 was found
fault with by the High Court. As Respondent No.1 was
illegally denied admission by Respondent No.2-College,
the High Court directed creation of a seat and to grant
admission in MS (General Surgery) to her. Admission
that was granted to Respondent No.5 was not interfered
with as he might have been an innocent party unaware
of the circumstances in which seat was denied to
Respondent No.1 by Respondent No.2-College. The
Appellant is mainly aggrieved by the direction given by
the High Court to create or sanction an additional seat in
Post-Graduate Medical Specialty course of MS (General
Surgery) for the academic year 2020-2021.
5. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel appearing for
the Appellant- National Medical Commission submitted
that Respondent No.1 did not pursue available remedies
immediately after 30.08.2020. She should have
approached the concerned authorities without delay to
voice her grievance about the illegal action of
Respondent No.2-College in not granting admission to
5 | P a g e
her. As the last date of admission was 30.08.2020, Mr.
Sharma contended that no direction could have been
granted by the High Court for admission to Respondent
No.1 on 18.09.2020. He argued that the direction given
for creation of a seat is contrary to the law laid down by
this Court.
6. Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.1 submitted that the denial of admission
by Respondent No.2-College to Respondent No.1 in GS-
MS (General Surgery) in spite of her being more
meritorious than Respondent No.5 who was granted
admission on 11.08.2020 has resulted in irreparable loss
to Respondent No.1. He contended that the High Court
was right in directing the creation of a seat in MS
(General Surgery) in Respondent No.2-College and
granting admission to Respondent No.1. Mr.
Parameshwar submitted that the judgment of this Court
in S. Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra
1
Pradesh & Ors. is applicable on all fours to Post
Graduate Courses as well. Mr. Siddhant Buxy, learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No.2-College argued
1 (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1609.
6 | P a g e
that the procedure prescribed under the Regulations of
the Medical Council of India for admission to PG Medical
Courses was scrupulously followed by the College.
Having not approached the College before the last date
of admission, Respondent No.1 cannot complain that she
was denied admission. According to Mr. Buxy,
Respondent No.5 was rightly given admission on
11.08.2020 and that Respondent No.2-College did not
have any objection to the direction issued by the High
Court for creation of a seat in favour of Respondent No.1.
Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 3-the Kaloji Narayana Rao University of
Health Sciences and Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 have submitted
that they have no objection to the judgment of the High
Court. Mr. Balan submitted that Respondent No.5 joined
MS (General Surgery) on 11.08.2020 when he was
offered admission and he was not aware of the instant
events which gave rise to this dispute.
7. There is no dispute that Respondent No.1 was
provisionally granted admission to MS (General Surgery)
Course in Respondent No.2- College on the basis of her
7 | P a g e
merit in the NEET PG Examination. The dispute before
the High Court was whether Respondent No.1
approached Respondent No.2-College before the last
date prescribed for admission i.e. 30.07.2020.
Respondent No.1 asserted that she visited Respondent
No. 2-College with her father on 29.07.2020 and
30.07.2020 but her admission process was not
completed. On the contrary, Respondent No. 2-College
insisted before the High Court that Respondent No.1 did
not turn up for the admission before the last date. The
High Court recorded a finding that it is clear from the
counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2-College that
Respondent No.1 visited the College on 29.07.2020. The
High Court also took note of the fact that Respondent
No.1 paid the University Fee of Rs.49,600/- on
29.07.2020, and she was given a check list and also a PG
Student Personnel Data Form by Respondent No.2-
College. After taking into account the material on record
and considering the submissions made on behalf of the
parties, the High Court arrived at a conclusion that
Respondent No.2-College had intentionally and illegally
8 | P a g e
denied admission to GS-MS (General Surgery) seat to
Respondent No.1 for the academic year 2020-2021.
8. We are in agreement with the said finding of the
High Court. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by
Respondent No.2-College in the High Court would show
that there is a contradiction in the pleadings by
Respondent No.2-College. On one hand, it is stated that
Respondent No.1 and her father did not approach
Respondent No. 2-College either on 29.07.2020 or
30.07.2020 for the purpose of admission. Having said
so, Respondent No.2-College in its counter also stated
Respondent No.1 had approached the College on
29.07.2020 to enquire about the admission procedure
and the requisite fee. There is no reason to believe that
Respondent No.1 did not approach Respondent No. 2-
College for admission, especially after paying the
University Fee on 29.07.2020. The last date for
admission to the PG Medical Courses for the academic
year 2020-2021 was extended from 30.07.2020 to
30.08.2020. Respondent No.5 was granted admission on
11.08.2020 to the seat which was provisionally allotted
to Respondent No.1. He is 2000 ranks below Respondent
9 | P a g e
No.1. There is nothing on record to show that
Respondent No. 2-College followed the procedure
prescribed by the Regulations for filling up the seat due
to non-joining. As the last date for admission has been
extended beyond 30.07.2020, there was sufficient time
for Respondent No.2-College to have intimated
Respondent No.1 to come and join in the seat that was
allotted to her provisionally. In case of refusal by
Respondent No.1 to join, it was incumbent upon
Respondent No.2-College to have followed the merit list
and offered the seat to doctors who were immediately
ranked below Respondent No.1. The manner in which
Respondent No.2-College acted in depriving admission to
Respondent No.1 and giving admission to Respondent
No.5 on 11.08.2020 is deplorable. The Managements of
the Medical Colleges are not expected to indulge in such
illegalities in making admissions to Medical Courses.
9. The question that arises for our consideration is
whether the High Court was right in directing creation of
a seat for this academic year for granting admission to
Respondent No.1. It has been repeatedly held by this
10 | P a g e
Court that directions cannot be issued for increasing
annual intake capacity and to create seats. The annual
intake capacity is fixed by the Medical Council of India
(now National Medical Commission) which has to be
strictly adhered. Admissions to Medical Colleges cannot
be permitted to be made beyond the sanctioned annual
intake capacity of a medical college as has been
repeatedly held by this Court.
10. The next point that arises for our consideration is
whether Respondent No.1 can be left high and dry in
spite of having suffered due to the illegal action of
Respondent No.2-College in denying admission to her.
This Court in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) had occasion
to consider the nature of relief to be granted to a student
after the last date of admissions in case it is found that
he or she was denied admission illegally. The conflicting
in the judgments of this Court in Asha v. Pt. D.B.
2
Sharma University of Health Sciences & Ors. and
Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jasmine Kaur
3
& Ors. was resolved by this Court in the judgment of S.
2 (2012) 7 SCC 389
3 (2014) 10 SCC 521
11 | P a g e
Krishna Sradha (supra). In the case of Asha (supra), it
was held by this Court that the rule of merit for
preference of medical courses and colleges admits no
exception and that the said rule has to be followed
strictly and without demur. The last date for admissions
has to be strictly followed except in very rare and
exceptional cases of unequivocal discrimination or
arbitrariness or pressing emergency. In such cases,
admission can be granted by courts even after the last
date. A contrary view was taken in Jasmine Kaur case
(supra) wherein this Court was of the opinion that a
student is only entitled to a compensation in cases of
illegal denial of admission and no admission can be
directed after the last date. In S. Krishna Sradha case
(supra), this Court held as follows:
“33. 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:
12 | P a g e
(i) That in a case where candidate/student has
approached the court at the earliest and without
any 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 and if the time schedule
prescribed - 30th 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
month from 30th September, i.e., cut off date and
under no circumstances, the Court shall order any
Admission in the same year beyond 30th October.
However, it is observed that such relief can be
13 | P a g e
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 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
14 | P a g e
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 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.”
11. As the dispute in S. Krishna Sradha case (supra)
pertained to admission to the undergraduate MBBS
Course, this Court held that they have not dealt with the
Post Graduate Medical Courses. Mr. Parameshwar
argued that there is no reason why the logic behind the
15 | P a g e
judgment in S. Krishna Sradha case (supra) should not
be made applicable to Post Graduate Courses. We find
force in the said argument of Mr. Parameshwar. This
Court was only dealing with the admission to the MBBS
Course for which reason directions given in the said
judgment were restricted to the MBBS Course.
Directions issued in S. Krishna Sradha case (supra)
can be made applicable to admission to Post Graduate
Courses as well.
12. As the last date for admissions for the present
academic year is 30.08.2020, we are not inclined to
grant admission to Respondent No.1 for this academic
year. Even if the admission of Respondent No.5 is
cancelled as having not been in accordance with the
Regulations, it would not be of any use to Respondent
No.1 or to any other eligible candidate. Furthermore, the
High Court is right in holding that Respondent No.5
might not have known about the denial of admission to
Respondent No.1 illegally. Though we disapprove the
practice of Respondent No.2-College in picking up
students for granting admission without following the
16 | P a g e
merit list, we do not seek to disturb the admission
granted to Respondent No.5. Respondent No.2-College
adopted unfair means to deprive Respondent No.1
admission to PG course. Respondent No.1 has lost one
precious academic year for no fault of hers for which she
has to be compensated by way of an amount of Rs.10
Lakhs to be paid by Respondent No.2- College within a
period of four weeks from today. Furthermore,
Respondent No.1 is entitled for admission to the MS
(General Surgery) course in the next academic year
2021-22 and shall be given admission in a seat allocated
to Respondent No.2-College. In other words, one seat in
MS (General Surgery) course from the Management
Quota of Respondent No.2-College for the next academic
year (2021-22) shall be granted to Respondent No.1.
13. The Appeal is disposed off with the above
directions.
...................................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
..................................J.
[HEMANT GUPTA]
New Delhi,
December 07, 2020.
17 | P a g e