Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Y. Eqbal and C. Nagappan, JJ.
S. Nihaal Ahamed - Appellant
Versus
The Dean, Velammal Medical College Hospital and Research Institute and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8067-8068, 8069-8070 of 2015 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3139-3140, 10354-10355 of 2015).
Decided on : 30.9.2015.
Claim of compensation – Seeking for issuance – Appellants passed Higher Secondary examination - Division Bench affirmed view of the learned Single Judge that appellants were not entitled for admission in M.B.B.S Course and dismissed writ appeals preferred by them. It further held that appellants are not entitled for compensation and allowed writ appeals preferred by respondent-Medical College – Held, appellants herein though placed in merit list could not secure admission due to fault of respondent-Medical College - As rightly held by the High Court they are not entitled to relief of admission sought for by them in writ petition due to lapse of time - Reliance was placed by appellants on order of this Court and Ors. v. Secretary Association of Management of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges, Maharashtra and ors said bunch of SLPs was filed in and petitioners therein were students who appeared for entrance examination conducted by Association of Private Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges Maharashtra and petitioners were heard together and this Court held that inspire of pendency of SLPs for over a year State of Maharashtra never thought it fit to file any affidavit explaining its stand in matter and the grievance of the petitioners was fully justified but the petitioners cannot be granted admission in view of long lapse of time but they are entitled to public law damages and awarded a sum to each one of petitioners as public law damages - In present case the learned Single Judge after elaborately considering facts and circumstances held that appellants-writ petitioners are entitled to a compensation payable -Medical College and directed to pay within a period of 8 weeks said direction has been erroneously reversed by Division Bench. In our view order of learned Single Judge has to be restored learned Single Judge in his order has observed that respondent-Medical College admitted receipt of communication from Committee on the very same day in the evening and there is also a specific admission to that effect in counter affidavit filed by them - Thereafter respondent-Medical College drafted letters directing the appellants to appear for counseling and marked copy of same to Monitoring Committee said letters have been posted only as evident from post office seal affixed on envelope produced by appellants - Finding of the learned Single Judge that respondent-Medical College is at fault in not sending call letters in time is based on proper appreciation of factual matrix – Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
C. Nagappan, J. - Leave granted.
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 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 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 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
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
