1. Medical colleges seeking compensatory seats after interim court orders to keep MBBS seats vacant resulted in unfilled seats for the academic year. (Para 2 , 3 , 9 , 13 , 15 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 999
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K. V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12235 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11785 of 2024) WITH
RKDF Homeopathy Medical College – Appellants
VERSUS
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12236 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20267 of 2024)
Decided On : 07-11-2024
Important Points
The court emphasized the necessity of caution in issuing interim orders affecting medical seat allocations, affirming the principle of restitution for parties adversely affected by such orders.
Subject
Education Law - Medical Admissions
Headnote
(A) Interim Orders – Judicial Proceedings – The court emphasized the need for caution in passing interim orders, particularly regarding the allocation of medical seats. The interim order keeping one seat vacant led to grievances from the appellant colleges regarding financial loss and resource wastage. (Paras 2, 20, 30) (B) Medical Admissions – The court reiterated that a medical seat has life only in the year it falls due and cannot be carried forward. The court also discussed the principles governing interim reliefs and the need for a prima facie assessment. (Paras 21, 23) (C) Restitution – The court acknowledged the principle of restitution in cases where interim orders have caused disadvantage to a party, allowing the appellant colleges to seek compensation for the vacant seat through the Fee Fixation Committee. (Paras 27, 32)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, two colleges, were directed to keep one MBBS seat vacant due to interim orders related to Writ Petitions filed by students. This led to claims of financial loss and resource wastage by the colleges.
Findings of Court:
The court recognized the prejudice faced by the colleges due to the vacant seat and allowed them to represent to the Fee Fixation Authority for compensation. Issues: The main issue was whether the colleges could claim a compensatory seat for the subsequent academic year due to the interim order keeping a seat vacant. Ratio Decidendi: The court held that interim orders must be cautiously issued, and the principle of restitution applies when parties suffer due to such orders. Result: Appeals partly allowed.
Facts of the case:
The appellants, two colleges, were directed to keep one MBBS seat vacant due to interim orders related to Writ Petitions filed by students. This led to claims of financial loss and resource wastage by the colleges.
Findings of Court:
The court recognized the prejudice faced by the colleges due to the vacant seat and allowed them to represent to the Fee Fixation Authority for compensation. Issues: The main issue was whether the colleges could claim a compensatory seat for the subsequent academic year due to the interim order keeping a seat vacant. Ratio Decidendi: The court held that interim orders must be cautiously issued, and the principle of restitution applies when parties suffer due to such orders. Result: Appeals partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Harsh Parashar, AOR Mr. Piyush Parashar, Adv. Mr. Chanakya Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, D.A.G. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Harsh Parashar, AOR Mr. Piyush Parashar, Adv. Mr. Chanakya Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, D.A.G. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Colleges claim financial loss and resource wastage due to court-ordered vacancies; authorities argue they merely followed court orders and bear no liability. (Para 11 , 18 )
3. Interim orders keeping seats vacant require strict adherence to prima facie case and balance of convenience; medical seats cannot be carried forward to subsequent years. (Para 20 , 21 , 25 )
4. While additional seats cannot be created, the principle of restitution applies to neutralize financial loss caused by unsustainable interim orders through monetary adjustments. (Para 27 , 29 , 31 , 32 )
5. Appeals partly allowed; colleges granted liberty to seek monetary restitution from the Fee Fixation Authority for the loss of fees. (Para 33 )
6. What standards must courts follow when granting interim orders to keep medical seats vacant?
Courts must conduct a brief prima facie assessment, discuss the balance of convenience and irreparable harm, and exercise great caution. In exceptional cases, courts may require the petitioner to provide security to the college to guarantee compensation if the petition is dismissed and the seat remains unfilled. (Para 20 , 25 )
7. Can a medical seat that falls vacant in one academic year be carried forward or created as an additional seat in the next year?
No. A medical seat has life only in the year it falls due until the cut-off date. Due to National Medical Commission regulations regarding sanctioned capacity, seats cannot be carried forward or created in the succeeding year. (Para 21 )
8. How can a party be compensated for losses resulting from an unsustainable interim order?
Under the principle of restitution and the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, the court can neutralize the effect of wrong interim orders by directing the party that obtained the advantage to compensate the party that suffered the disadvantage. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 )
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. These cases highlight the complications that may arise if adequate caution and circumspection are not exercised, while passing interim orders in judicial proceedings. The two appellants are colleges to whom the Director, Medical Education (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Director’) issued orders dated 26.09.2023 directing them to keep one MBBS seat vacant in the appellant- colleges with a direction that the said seat will not be included in the College Level Counseling (CLC) Round for the academic year 2023-24. The direction was issued pursuant to the interim order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the High Court in Writ Petitions filed by the respondent students.
3. In the first matter, the Writ Petition was dismissed on 04.03.2024 denying the relief to the Writ Petitioner-student (R-5 herein). In the second matter also, the Writ Petition was dismissed on 22.12.2023 denying the relief to the student-writ petitioner (R- 4 herein). The appellant-colleges have been caught in the crossfire and their attempt to intervene having failed in the High Court, they are before us seeking a compensatory seat in the subsequent academic year. Their case is that because the seat was kept on hold, they have been deprived of the opportunity to fill that seat. Their grievance is that the consequential loss has befallen solely on them due to an act of court.
Facts in SLP (Civil) No. 11785 of 2024 :
4. In the year 2017, the first respondent-State Government introduced the ‘Mukhyamantri Medhavi Vidyarthi Yojana’ as per which eligible students who were covered under the scheme were entitled to payment of fees for certain courses. One of the conditions was that the income of the parent of the candidate should be less than Rupees six lacs per annum. The respondent no. 5 (Mohammad Eaan Shaikh) herein, who had secured 86% marks in 12th standard, appeared for National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test, 2023 (in short ‘NEET’) and in the declaration of result of 13.06.2023, he obtained 430 marks out of 750 with an All India Rank of 163660. In the results of the first round of counselling published on 07.08.2023, no college was allotted to him. Equally so, in the second round, results of which were declared on 28.08.2023, no college was allotted to him. Pending the last round of the counselling on 18.08.2023, the State Government notified an amendment to the Mukhyamantri Medhavi Vidyarthi Yojana whereunder the income ceiling of the parent/guardian was increased to Rupees eight lacs and the said amendment was to apply for the academic year 2023-24. Even in the results of MOP- UP Round counselling, which were declared on 15.09.2023, R-5 was not allotted the seat.
5. Setting up a plea that because of the increase in the income ceiling, more students have participated and his chance of getting the college in the last round of counselling was jeopardized, the respondent no. 5 filed a Writ Petition.
6. Reliefs were sought, in the nature of a direction to not apply the amendment notification dated 18.08.2023 to the Mukhyamantri Medhavi Vidyarthi Yojana for the academic year 2023-24 and to set aside the mop-up round allotment list dated 15.09.2023 and conduct fresh mop-up round without considering the amendment notification. Interim relief staying the mop-up round allotment was sought.
7. When the matter came up for hearing, interim order was passed stating that one seat in the mop-up round to be held on 22.09.2023 be kept vacant (if available). This interim order passed on 22.09.2023 was continued on 12.10.2023, 07.11.2023 and 29.11.2023.
8. A reply affidavit by the State was filed clearly pleading as follows:
“5. That, in reply to the paragraphs 5.8 and 5.9, it is submitted that it is significant to mention that as stated by the petitioner the allotment process in second round was closed at 454 marks whereas the petitioner secured 450 marks and therefore, he was not given the allotment being not placed suitably in the merit. However, it is also relevant
