Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • R. Singaravelan, Advocate for Appellant.
  • G. Sankaran, Special Government Pleader (Edn.) for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2; V.P Raman, Advocate for Respondent No. 3; G. Masilamani, Senior Counsel for T. Meikandan, Advocate for Respondent No. 4; K.R Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No. 6; M.A Mohamed Ali, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
Judges
  • M.Y Eqbal, C.J
  • T.S Sivagnanam, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • R. Singaravelan, Advocate for Appellant.
  • G. Sankaran, Special Government Pleader (Edn.) for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2; V.P Raman, Advocate for Respondent No. 3; G. Masilamani, Senior Counsel for T. Meikandan, Advocate for Respondent No. 4; K.R Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No. 6; M.A Mohamed Ali, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
Judges
  • M.Y Eqbal, C.J
  • T.S Sivagnanam, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a girl from a backward community, scored 1137/1200 in the +2 examination (March 2010). She was initially selected and joined a BDS course at the 5th Respondent (Ragas Dental College). After second counselling she was re-allotted an MBBS seat at the 4th Respondent (Sri Muthukumaran Medical College) by order dated 26.9.2010. The Appellant's father collected the Appellant’s original certificates and a transfer certificate on 27.9.2010 and obtained a bank draft of Rs. 4 lakhs (plus additional sums claimed) to pay fees. Because the Appellant was delayed by a motor accident on 30.9.2010 (police certificate records an accident at 4.45 p.m.), she reached the College at about 5.45 p.m and was refused admission on the ground that she did not arrive by 5.00 p.m as required by the re-allotment order. The College admitted other candidates in her place, treating the seats as if they had reverted to the Management quota and admitting eight candidates after 5.00 p.m.

The Appellant filed a writ petition (seeking a mandamus for admission as per the re-allotment order). The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the basis of Supreme Court authorities concerning time limits for completion of admissions, observing that the Appellant arrived after 5.00 p.m. The Appellant appealed. The appellate Bench conducted multiple hearings, directed counter affidavits, permitted impleadment of the candidate admitted in the Appellant’s place, examined affidavits from the College and the Medical Council of India (MCI), and directed supplementary information and affidavits concerning the time taken to admit the eight candidates after 5.00 p.m.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the 4th Respondent-College could lawfully refuse admission to the Appellant because she reached after 5.00 p.m on 30.9.2010 despite a re-allotment order in her favour dated 26.9.2010.
  2. Whether seats allotted under the Government quota that were not taken by 5.00 p.m on 30.9.2010 automatically reverted to the Management quota and, if so, whether the College could admit Management-quota candidates after 5.00 p.m on that day.
  3. Whether the College’s conduct in refusing admission to the Appellant and admitting other (lower-scoring) candidates thereafter was mala fide, arbitrary or illegal, and if so what relief (including compensation) was appropriate.
  4. What (if any) regulatory action or consequences should follow if the College had admitted students in excess of its Management quota or otherwise breached applicable regulations or recognized judicial principles regarding admission cut-off dates/times.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • The Appellant was re-allotted an MBBS seat on 26.9.2010 and sought admission accordingly; she (or her father) had the required fees and original documents available.
  • The Appellant was delayed by a road accident on 30.9.2010, for which a police station certificate was produced, and she reached the College at 5.45 p.m requesting admission; she was nevertheless refused.
  • The refusal resulted in the College admitting other candidates in her stead and thereby depriving a meritorious candidate of her allotted Government-quota seat.

4th Respondent-College's Arguments

  • The re-allotment order required candidates to join the institution on or before 5.00 p.m on 30.9.2010; the Appellant did not reach by that time, so the College was not accountable.
  • The seats that lapsed because Government-quota candidates did not report by 5.00 p.m reverted to the Management quota and the College filled those seats with available Management-quota applicants after 5.00 p.m on the same day.
  • There was no illegality or impropriety in admitting the Management-quota candidates after 5.00 p.m because the Government-quota seats had lapsed at 5.00 p.m.
  • The Appellant’s late arrival due to the accident cannot be a ground to claim illegality in the College’s conduct of admitting other candidates.

Medical Council of India's (3rd Respondent) Position

  • In initial submissions the MCI referenced Supreme Court decisions concerning the fixing of time-limits for completion of admissions to MBBS and PG courses (generally highlighting judicial authorities on the subject).
  • At one point the MCI’s counsel argued that the Regulations did not themselves specify a specific time limit such as "5.00 p.m" by which admission must be completed.
  • The MCI sought specific information from the 4th Respondent-College about admissions (numbers under various quotas, number admitted after 30.9.2010, etc.) and indicated that if the College had exceeded its Management quota the Council could take action (including reducing Management quota in the next academic year to set off the excess admission).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Medical Council of India v. Naina Verma, 2005 (12) SCC 626 Authority relied upon for the proposition that courts and authorities must respect judicially established time limits for completion of medical admissions (i.e., limitations on admissions past a prescribed date/time as determined by Supreme Court precedent). The Single Judge relied upon this decision to refuse the Appellant’s claim for admission because she arrived after the prescribed cut-off time. The Bench acknowledged the rule but, following the Supreme Court ratio, declined to cancel the admissions made after 5.00 p.m on 30.9.2010.
Mridul Dhar & another v. Union of India, 2005 (1) CTC 764 (SC) : 2005 (2) SCC 65 Also cited for the principle that admissions cannot be permitted after the date/time fixed by the controlling authority or as established by the Supreme Court in the context of medical admissions. The Single Judge relied on this authority in concluding no direction could be issued for admission of the Appellant who arrived after the relevant time; the appellate Bench accepted that the Supreme Court ratio constrained cancellation of the later admissions, though it found prima facie mala fide conduct by the College and awarded compensation instead.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Bench set out the undisputed factual matrix and then analysed the legal and regulatory context as disclosed in affidavits and orders:

  1. Fact-finding: The Court noted that the Appellant reached the College after 5.00 p.m on 30.9.2010 (about 5.45 p.m) due to an accident, that the College admitted eight candidates after 5.00 p.m treating Government-quota seats as lapsed and filled from Management-quota applicants, and that no document was produced to show that Government quota seats automatically revert to Management quota upon lapse at a given time.
  2. Regulatory ambiguity: The Court observed that the MCI’s Regulations (as argued by MCI’s counsel) did not expressly fix a time limit such as 5.00 p.m for admission on the last date; yet Supreme Court decisions had been invoked as establishing limits for completion of admissions.
  3. Fee differential significance: The Court emphasised that Government-quota and Management-quota fee structures differ, and that accepting Management-quota candidates after the Government-quota candidate (Appellant) arrived late could permit the College to collect higher/undisclosed sums under Management quota — suggesting motive for denying the Appellant admission.
  4. Prima facie mala fide and arbitrariness: After weighing facts and affidavits (including the College’s statements that it completed admission formalities for the eight Management-quota candidates by 5.40 p.m), the Court concluded that the College’s conduct in treating the Appellant’s late arrival as reason to deny admission while admitting others after 5.00 p.m was "highly illegal, arbitrary, malicious and unjustified" and indicated mala fide action to secure seats for candidates chosen by the management for extraneous consideration.
  5. Constraint by Supreme Court ratio: Notwithstanding the Court’s strong adverse view of the College’s conduct, the Bench stated that following the ratio of the Supreme Court it was not proper to cancel the admissions already made after 5.00 p.m on 30.9.2010.
  6. Equitable remedy: Given the injustice to a meritorious minor from a backward community (loss of a year and adverse career impact), and because cancellation of subsequent admissions was not considered appropriate under Supreme Court precedents, the Court chose to grant compensatory and consequential relief instead of vacating later admissions.
  7. MCI’s enforcement role: The Court recorded the MCI’s investigatory inquiries and its position that it would take action (including quota reduction in the next year) if excess admissions were found, leaving regulatory enforcement to the Council where appropriate.

Holding and Implications

Final Disposition: The Writ Appeal was disposed of with specific directions and relief to the Appellant.

Core Rulings (emphasized):

  • The Appellant was held entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) and Rs. 50,000 as litigation expenses, to be paid by the 4th Respondent-College within two weeks from the date of the order.
  • The Appellant was entitled to join the BDS course in the 5th Respondent-College where she earlier held admission, if a seat there remained vacant.
  • The Appellant was entitled to appear in the next selection for admission to MBBS/BDS courses for the academic year 2011-2012.
  • The Court declined to cancel the admissions already made after 5.00 p.m on 30.9.2010 (i.e., it did not disturb the admissions of the eight candidates admitted after 5.00 p.m), following the ratio of the Supreme Court.

Implications and consequences:

  • Direct effect on the parties: The 4th Respondent-College must pay monetary compensation and litigation costs to the Appellant; the Appellant receives limited prospective relief to mitigate the injury (opportunity to join BDS if a seat frees up and the right to participate in the next admission cycle for 2011-2012).
  • Regulatory follow-up: The MCI had undertaken fact-finding and signalled that it might take administrative action (including reduction of Management quota in the next academic year) if it found excess admissions; the Court recorded this and left such enforcement to the Council and relevant authorities.
  • No new precedent displacing Supreme Court ratio: The Court expressly noted it was following the Supreme Court’s ratio and therefore did not cancel the later admissions — indicating that the decision provides remedial relief in the particular facts but does not create a rule permitting cancellation of admissions contrary to existing Supreme Court authority.

Note: This summary is strictly drawn from the facts, arguments, reasoning and orders recorded in the provided opinion. No information not present in the opinion has been added.

Show full summary ...

    Minor S. Kiruthika v. State Of Tamil Nadu

    1. This case is a classic example of how a Private Medical College like the Fourth Respondent, Sri Muthukumaran Medical College herein, deprived a genuine candidate in getting admission for unlawful gain.

    2. The Appellant, a girl, belonging to a backward community, secured 1137 marks out of 1200 marks in the Plus Two (+2) examination conducted in March, 2010. Initially, she was selected for BDS Course in the 5th Respondent-Ragas Dental College, where she joined. However, on extension of second Counselling, the Appellant appeared on the date fixed i.e, 26.9.2010, and she was re-allotted a seat of MBBS course in the 4th Respondent-College namely, Sri Muthukumaran Medical College at Mangadu. Immediately, on 27.9.2010, the Appellant went to the 5th Respondent-College to collect her original certificates and transfer certificate, which were given to her on the same day. The Appellant's case is that on 28.9.2010, she along with her father approached the 4th Respondent-College for admission to MBBS course and they were asked to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 2.19 lakhs towards fee and other charges. In order to arrange for money, the Appellant and her father went to their native place at Tanjore and arranged to get a Bank draft for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs dated 29.9.2010 drawn in favour of the 4th Respondent-College from Indian Bank, Easwari Nagar Branch, Tanjore. On the same night i.e, 29.9.2010, the Appellant's father left Tanjore and reached Chennai on the morning of 30.9.2010 He reached the College on the same day i.e, 30.9.2010 at about 10.00 a.m along with the draft of Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 2.19 lakhs towards admission fee and other charges. The Appellant could not accompany her father, as she was unwell due to tension and continuous traveling. Hence, she started in the early morning of 30.9.2010 in order to reach the College for admission by 5.00 p.m on the same day. Although, she started from Tanjore, but she could not reach in time because the car in which she was travelling met with an accident and for that some time was consumed in the process of lodging First Information Report with the Police Station. From the certificate issued by the D-6, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, it is seen that the accident took place on 30.9.2010 at 4.45 p.m opposite S.R.M University, Potheri. However, she managed to reach the College at 5.45 p.m and requested the authorities to receive the fees and complete the admission process. But she was denied admission on the ground that she could not reach the College within 5.00 p.m The Appellant, therefore, when not succeeded in impressing the authority of the College, immediately moved this Court by filing a Writ Petition for a mandamus directing the Respondents to admit her as per the re-allotment order dated 26.9.2010 issued by the Second Respondent namely, the Selection Committee, represented by its Secretary to Medical Education, Chennai. It appears that the Writ Petition was filed on 3.10.2010 and it is stated that despite opportunity being granted, the Fourth Respondent-College did not file Counter Affidavit, but contested the matter through their Counsel. In the Affidavit filed in the Writ Petition, the Appellant's father has averred that he was present in the College from 11.00 a.m onwards with a demand draft for Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 2.50 lakhs in hand, along with the original certificates of his daughter, but the College refused admission since the Appellant reached the College only by 5.45 p.m

    3. The 4th Respondent-College opposed the prayer of the Appellant in the Writ Petition on the ground that as per re-allotment order, the College had to wait only till 5.00 p.m on 30.9.2010 Since the Appellant had not reach the College within the time prescribed, as per the re-allotment order, the College, instead of allowing the seat to get lapsed, filled the seat by admitting another candidate. The learned Single Judge, relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Medical Council of India v. Naina Verma, 2005 (12) SCC 626 and Mridul Dhar and another v. Union of India, 2005 (1) CTC 764 (SC) : 2005 (2) SCC 65 took a view that since the Appellant had gone to College on 30.9.2010 only after 5.00 p.m no direction can be issued to the College for admitting the Appellant, although the Court is very sympathetic to the Appellant. Consequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of with an observation that the Fifth Respondent-College may consider the feasibility to accommodate the Appellant in BDS course in which she had already joined.

    4. This Appeal was listed for the first time before this Bench on 1st November, 2010. This Court passed orders directing the Respondents to file their Counter Affidavits. Thereafter, the case was adjourned on several dates with certain directions. The details of the order passed on various dates and the stand taken by the Respondents are reproduced hereinbelow:

    M.Y Eqbal, C.J and T.S Sivagnanam, J.

    The Appellant is permitted to implead the candidate who has been admitted in her place and serve papers. The Appellant shall also serve copies to the learned Counsel, who appeared for the Respondents before the learned Single Judge. Private Notice is also permitted. Put up the matter on 15.11.2010

    Sd/- 01.11.2010

    M.Y Eqbal, C.J and T.S Sivagnanam, J.

    The Fourth Respondent is directed to file Counter Affidavit within a week, and file all supporting documents to show that admission to a different person, other than the Appellant, was done on the same date by receiving amount in cash or cheque. The Fourth Respondent shall also file documents to show that the amount so received in cash on that date, was, in fact, deposited in the respective Bank or treasury.

    Before we pass any harsh orders against the Respondents on the next hearing date i.e, 29th November, 2010, we direct the Respondents to file their respective counters.

    In the meantime, the validity of the admission of the Sixth Respondent, who is now impleaded, shall be subject to the result of the Writ Petition. Post on 29th November, 2010.

    Sd/ 15.11.2010

    M.Y Eqbal, C.J and T.S Sivagnanam, J.

    It appears that after the Sixth Respondent was impleaded, no notice was served on him. Let this case be listed after ten days i.e, 13.12.2010 In the meantime, the Petitioner shall serve notice on the Sixth Respondent both through Court, as also privately. List the case on 13.12.2010 at the top.

    Sd/ 02.12.2010

    M.Y Eqbal, C.J and T.S Sivagnanam, J.

    Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the Application seeking to implead the Seventh Respondent in M.P No. 3 of 2010 as the Seventh Respondent in the Writ Appeal. Having regard to the statements made in the Affidavit filed in support of the impleading Petition, we direct one of the Trustees of the Fourth Respondent-College to personally swear an Affidavit by way of reply to the said Petition and state as to why in the facts of the case, the Management quota reserved for admission be not declared illegal and cancelled. It is made clear that any admission made as against the Management quota after 5.00 p.m on 30.9.2010 shall also be subject to the result of the writ appeal. In the meantime, let notice be issued to the proposed Seventh Respondent. Private notice is also permitted. Put up this case on 21st December, 2010 within the first five cases.

    Sd/ 08.12.2010

    M.Y Eqbal, C.J and T.S Sivagnanam, J.

    1. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, prima facie, it appears that the Petitioner arrived at the College after 5.00 p.m but before 5.45 p.m on 30.9.2010 But she was refused admission and in her place, the College admitted the Seventh Respondent herein. Further, it appears that after 5.00 p.m on the same day, as many as eight candidates were admitted including the Seventh Respondent herein.

    2. In spite of service of notice on the Seventh Respondent, no Affidavit has been filed. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Medical College is directed to accept notice on behalf of the Seventh Respondent and file an Affidavit stating as to how much time it took after 5.30 p.m to complete the formalities of admitting eight more candidates under the Management quota.

    3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Third Respondent-Medical Council of India submits that the Regulation does not provide for any such time limit viz., 5.00 p.m before which all candidates should get admission. If that is so, why not the Respondent-College admitted the Petitioner also after 5.00 p.m that too when as many as eight candidates were admitted under the Management quota including the Seventh Respondent herein, who was admitted in the place of the Petitioner. If factually this is correct, then what action the Medical Council of India will take against the College, this Court wants to know it. Let the Third Respondent-Medical Council of India file a Counter Affidavit.

    4. Put up this case on 03.01.2011 If the Affidavit is not filed by the Medical Council of India before 03rd January, 2011, we shall pass orders for the personal appearance of the authority concerned.

    Sd/- 21.12.2010

    5. By order dated 1st Nov., 2010, the Appellant was permitted to implead the candidate, who was admitted in her place and by order dated 15th Nov., 2010, the 4th Respondent-College was directed to file Counter Affidavit and all supporting documents to show that admission of different candidates other than the Appellant was taken on the same date by receiving the amount. The Court further ordered that the admission of the 6th Respondent, who was then impleaded, shall be subject to the result of the Writ Appeal.

    6. In the first Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent-College, it was stated that in the allotment order issued to the Appellant on 26th Sept., 2010, it was categorically mentioned that the Appellant and others have to join the institution before 5.00 p.m on or before 30th Sept., 2010 and since the Appellant did not approach the College for admission till the last minute, i.e, till 5.00 p.m on 30th Sept., 2010, the College is not accountable for that. It was stated that the Appellant's father, who was allegedly present in the College on 30th Sept., 2010, had not made any attempt to approach the College Authorities to inform the fact that the arrival of his daughter had been delayed due to alleged accident. Since the Appellant did not approach the College till 5.00 p.m on 30th Sept., 2010, the seat allotted to the Appellant reverted back to the Management to be filled up by the management as Management quota seat and the Management was constrained and forced by the circumstances to fill up that seat after 5.00 p.m on 30th Sept., 2010 with the available candidates in the Management quota. The Counter Affidavit further discloses that as many as 8 candidates were allotted seats under the Government quota by the Directorate of Medical Education, including the Appellant, but all of them did not report to the College for joining before 5.00 p.m on 30th Sept., 2010 and, therefore, the Management was constrained to fill up the 8 seats from out of the Applications received by the College for admission under the Management quota after 5.00 p.m on 30th Sept., 2010. Hence, there was no illegality or impropriety in admitting the students under the Management quota since the Government quota seats had lapsed at 5.00 p.m on 30th September, 2010. According to the Respondent-College, the late arrival of the Appellant after 5.00 p.m on 30th Sept., 2010 because of the fact that the Appellant's car met with an accident cannot be a ground for alleging that the College had committed an illegality in not admitting the Appellant after 5.00 p.m on 30th Sept., 2010.

    7. On the other hand, the 3rd Respondent, Medical Council of India, in its First Affidavit dated 2nd December, 2010, simply highlighted the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, from time to time, in the matter of fixing the time limit within which admission to MBBS and PG Courses should be completed. However, on 21st December, 2010, when the Appeal was heard, it was argued on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Medical Council of India that the Regulation does not provide for any such time limit, viz., 5.00 p.m, before which all candidates should get admission. On this submission, this Court observed that if no time was fixed in the Regulation, why not the Respondent-College admitted the Appellant after 5.00 p.m when as many as 8 candidates were admitted under the Management quota after 5.00 p.m The Medical Council of India was therefore directed to file Affidavit as to what action the Medical Council will take against the College for admitting 8 candidates under the Management quota after 5.00 p.m while denying admission to the Appellant. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the Medical Council of India filed Affidavit stating inter alia that the Council, vide letter dated 1st Oct., 2010, directed the 4th Respondent-College to furnish the following information in respect of the 1st year MBBS students admitted for the academic year 2010-2011:

    “1. Total No. of students admitted.

    2. Total No. of students admitted under Govt. quota.

    3. Total No. of students admitted under Management quota.

    4. Total No. of students admitted under NRI/Foreign/PIO quota.

    5. Total No. of students admitted under General category.

    6. Total No. of students admitted under SC category.

    7. Total No. of students admitted under ST category.

    8. Total No. of students admitted under OBC category.

    9. Total No. of students admitted under others.

    10. Total No. of female students admitted.

    11. No. of students admitted after 30.09.2010, if any.

    12. No. of students admitted with less percentage of marks as prescribed in the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997.”

    8. In the Affidavit it is categorically mentioned that although the College forwarded the list of students admitted in the First year MBBS course, but the College had not furnished satisfactory information as sought for by the Council. Consequently, the Council, vide letters dated 8th Sept., 2010, 1st Nov., 2010 and 27th Dec., 2010, sought information from the State Government and the Directorate of Medical Education, Tamil Nadu about the ratio fixed by the State Government for Government and Management quota for Unaided Self-Financing Medical Colleges for the academic year 2010-2011. Lastly it is stated that if the Medical Council finds that the 4th Respondent-College granted admission in excess of its Management quota for any academic year, the Council shall take action to the effect that the Management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission under the Management quota in the previous academic year.

    9. On 21st December, 2010, this Court, after hearing the parties directed the 4th Respondent-College to file Additional Affidavit stating as to how much time the College took after 5.00 p.m on 30th Sept., 2010 to complete the formalities of admitting the 8 candidates under the Management quota. In compliance of that order, the Respondent-College in the Affidavit has stated that the Respondent-College completed the process of admission of 8 candidates under the Management quota by 5.40 p.m on 30th Sept., 2010.

    10. From the facts narrated hereinabove, the following undisputed facts emerge:

    (a) In the Respondent-Medical College, out of the total seats under the 1st year MBBS course, 50% was earmarked as Government quota seats and 50% was earmarked as Management quota seats. However, no document has been produced before us to show that if a candidate who is allotted seat in the Government quota fails to report for admission on or before the time fixed in the allotment order, the seat would automatically revert back to the Management quota and will be considered as lapsed seat and such lapsed seats are to be treated as Management quota seats.

    (b) According to the Respondent-College, when 8 candidates out of the total seats allotted under the Government quota did not turn up on 30th September, 2010 till 5.00 p.m, the College treated all the 8 seats as Management quota seats and took admission of the candidates waiting for admission against the Management quota seats. This admission process commenced after 5.00 p.m and the College took admission of the 8 candidates after 5.00 p.m, but denied admission to the Appellant in the College, who reached the College after 5.00 p.m

    (c) At this juncture it would be pertinent to mention here that the learned Counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India vehemently opposed the contention made by the Respondent-College that any time limit was fixed for admission. In other words, learned Counsel for the Medical Council of India submitted that there is nothing mentioned in the Regulation or any instruction issued by the Medical Council of India to take admission of the candidates under the Government quota, who reached on the last date after 5.00 p.m

    11. It cannot be disputed that the fee structure for admission under the Government quota and under the Management quota is different. For admission of candidates, who are allotted seats under the Government quota, the College has no option but to accept the fees as provided under the fee structure; but for admission of the candidates under the Management quota, although the fee structure is provided, but how much amount is collected by the College from the candidates for admission under the Management quota, it cannot be brought to the notice of the Court.

    12. Considering all these facts it is evidently clear that the Appellant was denied admission by the 4th Respondent-College only because she reached the College after 5.00 p.m on 30th September, 2010. The only purpose of denial was to get the seat reverted to the Management quota and to accommodate the candidates as per the choice of the College and on receipt of fee or donation as fixed by the College. Such procedure for reverting back Government quota seat under the Management quota on the same day after 5.00 p.m and taking admission of the candidates under the Management quota is highly illegal, arbitrary, malicious and unjustified. Although such practices are prevalent in unaided Medical Colleges in the country, especially in the State of Tamil Nadu, where there is a mushroom growth of Private Medical and Engineering Colleges, which has become a business, but the Medical Council of India is not taking any action against those Medical Colleges.

    13. This is such a heart burning case where a minor girl, after securing highest marks i.e, 1137 out of 1200 was allotted a seat in MBBS course under the Government quota in the 2nd counselling, but was denied admission only because of her late arrival after 5.00 p.m The career of the Appellant, a village girl, hailing from backward community has been ruined because earlier she got admission in the BDS course in the 5th Respondent-College, wherefrom she obtained transfer certificate and other documents in order to get admission in the MBBS course.

    14. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-College gave more emphasis on the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court to the effect that no admission could be taken in the Medical College after the date as specified in the judgment. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of admission in the medical Colleges. But here is a case where the Appellant was denied admission when she reached the College on the last date, only on the ground that she reached the College after 5.00 p.m, when admittedly after 5.00 p.m 8 candidates were given admission treating those seats as Management quota, who have admittedly secured lesser marks than the Appellant, who was a meritorious candidate.

    15. The mala fide of the Fourth Respondent-College is manifestly apparent and the conduct of the College cannot be approved. However, following the ratio decided by the Supreme Court, we do not think it proper to cancel the admission of the candidates, who were taken after 5.00 p.m on 30th Sept., 2010, treating them as candidates under the Management quota. But, prima facie, we are of the view that admission to the Appellant under Government quota was deliberately denied so also her request for admission under Management quota, so that the candidates under the Management quota could be accommodated on extraneous consideration. The denial of admission led to frustration and resulted in serious injustice to the Appellant, who is a minor girl hailing from a backward community, and has also adversely affected the career of the Appellant, as she will not only lose one year, but also it will have a bearing in her future career. Hence, in our view, it is a fit case where the Appellant should be adequately compensated for the illegality committed by the Respondent-College in denying admission to the Appellant in the Medical College. We, therefore, hold that the Appellant shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses from the 4th Respondent-College, which shall be paid to the Appellant within two weeks from today. We further hold that the Appellant shall be entitled to join the BDS course in the 5th Respondent-College where she got admission, if the seat remains vacant. The Appellant shall also be entitled to appear in the next selection for admission to the MBBS/BDS course for the academic year 2011-2012. The Writ Appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

    BV

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Minor S. Kiruthika v. State Of Tamil Nadu
    (Jan 7, 2011)