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.