IMPORTANT POINTS
Granting only compensation to a student who has been denied admission is not enough.
Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521 needs reconsideration.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The centripodal issue that emerges for consideration in this appeal, by special leave, compels us to think and constraints us to ruminate over the principle whether grant of monetary compensation can be considered as the sole and adequate remedy for a student who has been deprived of admission to the MBBS course, despite he or she being meritorious, vigilant and diligent and thereby abandoning the path of recalcitrance and eventually being found flawless, is forced to suffer non-admission to the course for which he had aspired for and found suitable because of lapses committed either by the counselling authority or the administrating authority intrinsically connected with the process of admission; and the ancillary issue that arises for deliberation is whether the constitutional courts, be it High Court or this Court, while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Article 32 or 136 of the Constitution, would feel handicapped because of expiry of time schedule fixed by the Court to deny the relief to the candidate by pronouncing, "relief denied as the time has expired". Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India would support the proposition that grant of compensation is the only possible remedy on the strength of a two-Judge Bench decision in Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jasmine Kaur & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 521] which has been placed reliance upon by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order to decline the relief to the appellant (as it had no other alternative), and that forces us to cogitate on "superstitious sanctity" as put forth by Walter Clark in State v. Falkner Walter Clark, American Jurist, 1921 and simultaneously also recapitulate the saying by Oliver Wendell Holmes:-

"To an imagination of any scope the most far-reaching form of power is not money, it is the command of ideas"[Oliver Wendell Holmes "The Path of the Law," Collected Legal Papers. 1921]

And above all we cannot be oblivious to our duty, a sanguine one, of the constitutional courts to protect and preserve the fundamental rights of the citizens as the sentinel on the qui vive.

3. The facts which are necessary to be stated to appreciate the controversy lie in a narrow compass. The appellant preferred W.P. No.32710 of 2015 before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh alleging that the Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, the respondent No.2 herein, had rejected her candidature for taking admission to the first year MBBS course for the academic Session 2015-2016 in Sports and Games quota and granted admission to the respondent Nos.7 and 8 on unacceptable grounds and on that basis sought issue of a writ of mandamus to the University to consider her case by giving priority over others in Sports and Games quota as she so deserved. We need not advert to the facts in detail as neither the University nor the Medical Council of India has challenged the order passed by the High Court.

4. It is submitted by Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned counsel for the appellant that from the order passed by the High Court, it is clearly evident that the appellant was more meritorious in the Sports and Games quota than the candidates who have been given admission. He has drawn our attention to certain passages from the judgment of the High Court. They read as follows:-

"11. ...From the material placed before this Court, it is clear that petitioner participated in World Artistic Skating Championship, 2014 held at Reus, Spain under senior division from 28th September, to 12th October, 2014 and certification to that effect is made by no other than Roller Skating Federation of India. When there is such certification on record, there is no reason to deny priority due to the petitioner on the ground that there was no response from the Sports Authority of India. It is relevant to mention here that 3rd respondent-SAAP has n