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

denied admission as a relief, because the cut­off date of 30th

September has passed.  In such a situation the relief which can

be  given by the  Court is to  grant  appropriate  compensation

only?

1

2. Having noticed the conflict between the pronouncement of

this Court in  Asha  vs.  Pt. B.D. Sharma UHS1  and

Chandigarh Admn. vs. Jasmine Kaur2, the aforesaid issue is

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

Jasmine Kaur  (Supra) observed that no direction can be

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 Jasmine Kaur (Supra).  In the case of

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

rules and regulations, an exception may be made to 30th

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

appellant that in the case of Indu Kant vs. State of U.P.3, 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

31993 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  Asha  (Supra) cannot be

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

fixed for the admission by this Court, namely, 30th 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.

Madhu Singh4,  and  Neelu Arora vs. Union of India5,  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

vs. State of J & K6.

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

Services7, the Courts cannot be generous in issuing directions

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

after the cut­off date for admission i.e. 30th 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?

(b) Whether the cut­off date of 30th

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.   

38.2 Question (b): 30th 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 close by holding of second counselling by 15th

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 30th  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 Asha (Supra).  This

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

denied  admission as  a relief,  because of cut­off  date  of  30th

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 Asha (Supra) and in the case of 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.   

38.2 Question (b): 30th 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 close by holding of second counselling by 15th

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 30th  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

Jasmine Kaur  (Supra)  after  considering  the decision of this

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  Jasmine Kaur  (Supra) it was specifically found

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 Asha (Supra)?

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

Kaur (Supra) that the only relief which can be granted to such

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  Jasmine Kaur  (Supra) are satisfied,  the

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

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

26

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

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 Jasmine Kaur (Supra) or any other decisions contrary to the

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