Back
1996 Supreme(SC) 593
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. P. Jeevan Reddy, Suhas .C. Sen
ADMISSION COMMITTEE C.I.I. 1995 AND ANOTHER, APPELLANTS
Versus
ANAND KUMAR AND ANOTHER, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. ... of 1996 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6665 of 1994),
decided on March 15, 1996.
In the absence of mala fide or supporting material, the court should prefer the version of the Selection Committee in admission disputes.
Headnote:
Selection Committee - Admission Dispute - The court set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal, but did not disturb the respondent's admission due to the passage of time.
Fact of the Case:
The High Court believed the student's version over the Selection Committee's in an admission dispute, causing the Selection Committee to justify each selection made.
Finding of the Court:
The court was unhappy with the High Court's decision and set it aside, but did not disturb the respondent's admission due to the passage of time.
Issues: Dispute over admission selection, burden of proof, and passage of time.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of mala fide or supporting material, the court should have preferred to accept the version of the Selection Committee. Burdening the Selection Committee to justify each selection made without evidence of mala fides is unreasonable.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and did not disturb the respondent's admission due to the passage of time.
ORDER
1. Heard counsel for the parties. Leave granted.
2. We are unhappy to note that the High Court has chosen to believe the version of the student against the Members of the Selection Committee. It was a case of word against word and in the absence of any mala fide or any other supporting material, one should have thought that the Court would have preferred to accept the version of the Selection Committee. Moreover, calling upon the Selection Committee to answer and justify each and every selection made, in the absence of any mala fides is to cause impossible burden upon it. We therefore set aside the judgment of the High Court but so far as the respondent is concerned, since three years have passed by since the admission to the course of his choice, we are not inclined to disturb him at this distance of time.
3. The appeal is accordingly allowed subject to the above directions.
4. No costs.
