2023 Supreme(Mad) 579
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAJA, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, JJ.
The Secretary, Selection Committee, Chennai & Another - Appellantss
Versus
Dr. R. Aashritha & Another - Respondents
W.A. No. 810 of 2023 & C.M.P. No. 7731 of 2023
Decided On : 31-03-2023
For the Appellants:N. Sneha, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, M/s. Sudharshana Sundar, Advocate.
Headnote:
Discontinuation - Medical College Admission - Clauses 24(c) & 27(a) - [24(c), 27(a)] - The court discussed the conflicting clauses in the prospectus regarding discontinuation fees and the cut-off date for payment, and applied the contra proferentem rule to interpret the benefit in favor of the student, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the direction to return the original certificates to the student.
Fact of the Case:
The first respondent was admitted to a medical college but discontinued the course due to personal reasons. The college demanded a discontinuation fee, leading to a writ petition. The court found that the discontinuation occurred before the cut-off date, and the student was not liable to pay the fee.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the conflicting clauses in the prospectus and applied the contra proferentem rule to interpret the benefit in favor of the student, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the direction to return the original certificates to the student.
Issues: Interpretation of clauses in the prospectus regarding discontinuation fees and cut-off date for payment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the contra proferentem rule to resolve the ambiguity in the prospectus in favor of the student, considering the timing of discontinuation and the conflicting clauses.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the college was directed to return the original certificates to the student.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 27.06.2019 in W.P.No.14840 of 2019.)
For the Appellants: N. Sneha, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, M/s. Sudharshana Sundar, Advocate.
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
1. The first respondent in the Writ Appeal, Dr.R.Aashritha, was granted admission to the prestigious Madras Medical College, Chennai in the second round of counseling on 17.04.2019 in MD (Tuberculosis and Respiratory diseases) / Pulmonary Medicine UR/MD (Respiratory Medicine) pursuant to her score in the P.G NEET, 2019. She paid her tuition fee on the same day i.e., on 17.04.2019 and joined the course on 01.05.2019. However, within two days, she submitted a letter and discontinued the course. It is stated in paragraph No.6 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that she had to discontinue the course for sudden change of events in her personal life viz., fixing of her marriage. Thereafter, when she was ready to forego her tuition fee, the certificates which includes her M.B.B.S., Degree Certificate, Registration Certificate, Transfer Certificate etc., which she handed over at the time of joining of the college, were not returned to her insisting that she has to pay the discontinuation fee of Rs. 15,00,000/- besides the tuition fee. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
2. The Writ Petition was resisted by the respondents therein by submitting that as per Clause - 24(c), the petitioner, being a candidate under All India Quota, if discontinues the course after the last phase of counseling, is liable to pay the discontinuation fee. The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions on both sides, considered the instructions contained in Clauses - 24(c) & 27(a) and upon a cumulative reading, found that as per Clause - 27(a), if only the discontinuation had taken place after the cut-off date for admission, i.e., after 31.05.2019 which is specifically mentioned in Clause - 27(a), the liability to pay the sum of Rs.15,00,000/- arises. But, in this case, the discontinuation had taken place on 03.05.2019 i.e., before the cut-off date for the admission and the liability of payment of Rs.15,00,000/- does not arise and allowed the Writ Petition by directing the second respondent to return the educational documents. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed by the said authorities.
3. Heard Mrs.N.Sneha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr.Sudharshana Sundar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent.
4. Mrs.N.Sneha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, taking this Court through the schedule for counseling, submitted that the first phase of counseling took place between 27.03.2019 to 03.04.2019 and the second phase of counseling took place between 13.04.2019 to 22.04.2019. As per the said schedule, the non-reported seats, non-joined seats and vacant seats would be transferred to the State Quota by 6.00 P.M on 22.04.2019 and only such of those seats which are transferred to the State Quota can be thereafter filled up by way of mop up counseling. In the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was allotted P.G seat in the second round of counseling. As per the decision of the Director General of Health Services, Government of India, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi, the candidates, who got admitted under All India Quota in the second round, will not be able to resign from their allotted seats or participate in any further counseling. This being the situation, the petitioner cannot resign and even if she resigns, the seat will not be reverted to the State and accordingly, one precious P.G Medical Seat at the Madras Medical College went waste on account of the resignation of the petitioner.
5. It is in this context, she would further submit that the State maintains all facilities including Professors for teaching P.G students who are limited in number and if the petitioner, in a casual ma