S. NIHAAL AHAMED Vs. THE DEAN VELAMMALMEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND ORS.
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 8067-8068 of 2015, Judgment Date: Sep 30, 2015
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8067-8068 OF 2015
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.3139-3140 of 2015]
S. Nihaal Ahamed .. Appellant
-vs-
The Dean,
Velammal Medical College Hospital
and Research Institute & Ors. .. Respondents
With
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8069-8070 OF 2015
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.10354-10355 of 2015]
J U D G M E N T
C. NAGAPPAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. All these appeals have been preferred against the common judgment
dated 25.9.2014 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Writ
Appeal (MD)Nos. 794, 898, 921 and 923 of 2014.
3. The facts are briefly as follows: The appellants passed Higher
Secondary examination in March 2013 and submitted application for admission
to M.B.B.S. Course to the Consortium of Tamil Nadu Private Professional
Colleges Association, affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical
University which is one of the respondents herein, and both of them had
preferred the same Private Medical College which is also one of the
respondents herein, as their first choice. On 23.9.2013 results were
published in which appellant-Nihaal Ahamed was placed in Rank No. 731 and
appellant-Gayathri in Rank No. 551 in the merit list. According to them,
they went to the respondent-Medical College on 24.9.2013 and sought
admission and they were directed to come after 26.9.2013. Both of them
made complaints against respondent-Medical College to the Monitoring
Committee which is one of the respondents herein and the said Committee
called for remarks from the Medical College. Meanwhile the respondent-
Medical College drafted letters dated 24.9.2013 addressed to both the
appellants which were posted on 29.9.2013 directing them to appear for
counselling on 26.9.2013. The appellants received the said letters on
1.10.2013 and 30.9.2013 respectively and immediately approached the
respondent-Medical College to allot seats and same was refused on the
ground that they did not approach them within the stipulated time. Both
the appellants filed independent writ petitions on the file of the
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court seeking for issuance of writ of
mandamus to direct the respondent-Medical College to admit them in the
first year M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 2013-14 in their college.
Learned Single Judge heard both the writ petitions and by common order held
that the appellants-writ petitioners were not entitled for admission in the
M.B.B.S. Course and on the other hand they are each entitled to a sum of
Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation payable by the respondent-Medical College
within a period of 8 weeks. Challenging the denial of relief of admission,
both the appellants preferred independent writ appeals and challenging the
grant of compensation, the respondent-Medical College preferred two writ
appeals. The Division Bench affirmed the view of the learned Single Judge
that the appellants were not entitled for the admission in the M.B.B.S
Course and dismissed the writ appeals preferred by them. It further held
that the appellants are not entitled for compensation and allowed the writ
appeals preferred by the respondent-Medical College. Aggrieved by the
same, appellants have preferred the present appeals.
4. Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-
Nihaal Ahamed contended that the appellants approached the respondent-
Medical College on 24.9.2013 itself and the college with a malafide
intention directed them to come after 26.9.2013 and on the complaint lodged
by the appellants with the Monitoring Committee, in order to wriggle out,
the respondent-Medical college drafted ante dated letters dated 24.9.2013
and posted it calling upon the appellants to appear for counselling at a
prior date and in fact the college had given admission to students who had
secured lesser marks than that of the appellants and the appellants are
entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petitions. We also heard
the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Gayathri.
Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent-Medical College contended that the appellants were orally told
on 24.9.2013 to report on 26.9.2013 in the college and the call letters
dated 24.9.2013 were also sent and since they were not present in the
college on 26.9.2013, the vacancies were filled up according to merit list
and there is no denial of admission to the appellants and they are not
entitled to any relief. We also heard learned counsel appearing for the
other respondents.
5. It is not in dispute the Consortium of Medical Colleges issued a
prospectus for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course and as per the instruction
therein, preference would be given to first choice opted by the candidate.
In the merit list published by them on 23.9.2013 the names of the
appellants found place at Sl. Nos. 731 and 551 respectively. It is also
not in dispute that both the appellants had opted the respondent-Medical
College as their first choice. Both of them had in fact approached the
respondent-Medical College on 24.9.2013 for admission and they were
directed to come after 26.9.2013. Annoyed by the reply they immediately
sent complaints to the Monitoring Committee which now in turn called for
the remarks of the respondent-Medical College. The learned Single Judge in
his order has observed that the respondent-Medical College admitted the
receipt of the communication from the Committee on the very same day in the
evening and there is also a specific admission to that effect in the
counter affidavit filed by them. Thereafter the respondent-Medical College
drafted letters dated 24.9.2013 directing the appellants to appear for
counselling on 26.9.2013 and marked copy of the same to the Monitoring
Committee. The said letters have been posted only on 29.9.2013 as evident
from the post office seal affixed on the envelope produced by the
appellants. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the respondent-
Medical College is at fault in not sending call letters in time is based on
proper appreciation of factual matrix.
6. After having culled out the broad principles from the previous
decisions, this Court in the decision in Chandigarh Administration and
another Vs. Jasmine Kaur and others; (2014) 10 SCC 521) held as follows:
“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 victimized for no fault of his/her and the court may consider grant of
appropriate compensation to offset the loss caused, if any.”
The appellants herein though placed in the merit list could not secure
admission due to the fault of the respondent-Medical College. As rightly
held by the High Court they are not entitled to the relief of admission
sought for by them in the writ petition due to lapse of time.
7. Reliance was placed by the appellants on the order of this Court
dated 2.9.2014 in Krina Ajay Shah and Ors. Vs. The Secretary, Association
of Management of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges, Maharashtra
and ors. (SLP No. 31900 of 2013 etc). The said bunch of SLPs was filed in
2013 and the petitioners therein were students who appeared for the
entrance examination conducted by the Association of Private Medical
Colleges and Dental Colleges, Maharashtra and the petitioners were heard
together and this Court held that inspite of the pendency of the SLPs for
over a year, the State of Maharashtra never thought it fit to file any
affidavit explaining its stand in the matter and the grievance of the
petitioners was fully justified but the petitioners cannot be granted
admission in view of the long lapse of time but they are entitled to public
law damages and awarded a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to each one of the
petitioners as public law damages. In the present case the learned Single
Judge after elaborately considering the facts and circumstances held that
the appellants-writ petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs each
as compensation payable by the respondent-Medical College and directed to
pay within a period of 8 weeks. The said direction has been erroneously
reversed by the Division Bench. In our view the order of the learned
Single Judge has to be restored.
8. In the result the appeals are partly allowed and the impugned
judgment in so far as setting aside the order of the Single Judge awarding
compensation to the appellants is, set aside and the order of the Single
Judge awarding compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to each of the appellants is
restored alongwith time schedule for payment.
………………….J.
(M.Y. Eqbal)
.…………………J.
(C. Nagappan)
New Delhi;
September 30, 2015.
For the Latest Updates
Join Now