SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 686

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.
Bonnie Anna George – Petitioner
VERSUS
Medical Council of India & Anr. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.986 OF 2013
Decided On : 18-09-2014

IMPORTANT POINTS
One cannot hold out a commitment on the ground of anticipating a judgment from Court.
Denying seat to a NRI sponsored candidate just to avoid refund to another is wholly unjustified warranting imposition of exemplary cost.

Headnote:(a) Administration of Justice – Judicial propriety – Anticipating a judgment from Court and holding out a commitment on that basis – Not permissible. (Para 23, 28)

       (b) Medical Education – Admission to PG courses – Prospectus stating “vacant seats arising in the N.R.I. category will be filled up from the sponsored category” – Petitioner, a sponsored candidate, denied available seat in third counselling on ground that the same would be first offered to NRI candidates then only to sponsored candidates – Institute cannot state that petitioner should wait for absentee NRI to appear till end of third counselling. (Para 24, 25)

       (c) Medical Education – Admission – Refund Rules – NRIs entitled to full refund in case their seat is filled up by Institution – In case of non-filling of seats no refund payable – Institution deliberately denying petitioner seat to avoid refund – Conduct not bona fide. (Para 27)

       (d) Medical Education – Admission – PG course – Petitioner deprived of right of admission to MD General Medicine in unjustified manner – However, as per time schedule fixed by Supreme Court admission cannot be directed now – Institution directed to pay compensation of 5,00,000 to petitioner. (Para 29)

       Facts of the case:

       According to the Petitioner, she is a candidate under NRI category ‘A’ and her first preference was General Medicine. She secured thirteenth rank in the entrance examination. However as her first choice was not available for her rank in the first couselling, she joined the P.G. course M.D. Pathology in the academic year 2013-14.

       In the second counselling though one seat of her choice was available, the candidate at 12th rank opted for the same and she could not get her choice.

       Subsequently, the third counselling was scheduled on 31.07.2013. On the evening of 30.07.2013, since the second Respondent displayed in the website the availability of two vacancies under the N.R.I. quota, namely, M.D. Anaesthesia and M.D. General Medicine, the Petitioner paid the necessary fee of Rs.13,000/- for participating in the third counselling, inasmuch as in the category ‘A’ upto the twelfth rank holders seats had already been allotted based on their options exercised in the second counselling for M.D. General Medicine and she was next in the order of merit i.e. in the thirteenth rank.

       On 31.07.2013, the Petitioner participated in the third counselling and stated that the second Respondent announced that the available N.R.I. vacant seats will not be shifted to the sponsored category ‘A’ as per the prospectus and in the said circumstances the Petitioner was forced to opt for the very same seat which she decided to vacate on the evening of 30.07.2013 or otherwise she was placed in a piquant situation in which she would have lost that seat also.

       The Petitioner, therefore, contends that by the illegal conduct of the second Respondent in not shifting the available vacant seat of M.D. General Medicine from the N.R.I. category to the sponsored category ‘A’ during the course of the day of the third counselling, the Petitioner was deprived of her valuable right to opt for the said course.

       Finding of the Court:

       Depriving the Petitioner of the opportunity to opt for the available N.R.I. seat in M.D. General Medicine during the third counselling was wholly unjustified.

       Result: Writ Petition partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. The Petitioner who has joined the Christian Medical College, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘second Respondent’) in the P.G. Course i.e. M.D. Pathology, has come forward with this writ petition with a prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to permit her to shift her P.G. course from M.D. Pathology to M.D. General Medicine in the available vacant seat under the N.R.I. quota within the College. According to the Petitioner, she joined the P.G. course M.D. Pathology in the academic year 2013-14 based on the prospectus issued by the second Respondent. She claims to belong to sponsored category ‘A’. She contended that after her success in the entrance examination wherein she secured thirteenth rank in the category ‘A’, she participated in the first counselling on 21.05.2013, that though her first preference was M.D. General Medicine, as there was no seat available for her rank in the category ‘A’, she accepted M.D. Pathology and paid the full fee (Rs.3.98 lakhs) and joined the course. The second counselling was stated to have been held on 28.05.2013. Though there was a seat vacant in M.D. General Medicine, since the higher rank holder, namely, Chris Baby Paranayil who was in the twelfth rank opted for the said vacant seat of M.D. General Medicine, the Petitioner did not make any attempt in the second counselling. Subsequently, the third counselling was scheduled on 31.07.2013. On the evening of 30.07.2013, since the second Respondent displayed in the website the availability of two vacancies under the N.R.I. quota, namely, M.D. Anaesthesia and M.D. General Medicine, the Petitioner paid the necessary fee of Rs.13,000/- for participating in the third counselling, inasmuch as in the category ‘A’ upto the twelfth rank holders seats had already been allotted based on their options exercised in the second counselling for M.D. General Medicine and she was next in the order of merit i.e. in the thirteenth rank.

2. On 31.07.2013, the Petitioner participated in the third counselling and stated that the second Respondent announced that the available N.R.I. vacant seats will not be shifted to the sponsored category ‘A’ as per the prospectus and in the said circumstances the Petitioner was forced to opt for the very same seat which she decided to vacate on the evening of 30.07.2013 or otherwise she was placed in a piquant situation in which she would have lost that seat also. The Petitioner, therefore, contended that by the illegal conduct of the second Respondent in not shifting the available vacant seat of M.D. General Medicine from the N.R.I. category to the sponsored category ‘A’ during the course of the day of the third counselling, the Petitioner was deprived of her valuable right to opt for the said course. It is in the above stated background that the Petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking for the relief as mentioned above. This writ petition was resisted by the second Respondent by filing a counter affidavit opposing the claim made in the writ petition.

3. The Petitioner relied upon the provisions contained in the prospectus under the caption ‘filling up of vacant seats’. As per the said part of the prospectus, the stipulation contained therein was that all candidates who cleared the Christian Medical College-PG Entrance Examination (including those who have already taken admission in Christian Medical College and those who were absent in the previous counselling), would be eligible for the vacant seats arising. It also stated that vacant seats arising during the third counselling due to shifting of courses from already admitted candidates would be announced immediately and would be offered to the next meritorious candidate onwards. It further stated that vacant seats arising in the N.R.I. category would be filled from the sponsored category. Administrative fee of Rs.13,000/- would be charged from the candidates who were alr








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top