S. NIHAAL AHAMED Vs THE DEAN VELAMMALMEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE .
Bench: M.Y. EQBAL,C. NAGAPPAN
Case number: C.A. No.-008067-008068 / 2015
Diary number: 42779 / 2014
Advocates: V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN Vs
Page 1
1
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.
1. Leave granted.
Page 2
2
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
Page 3
3
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
Page 4
4
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
Page 5
5
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
Page 6
6
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.
Page 7
7
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.
Page 8
8
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
Page 9
9
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.