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.

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