Judicial intervention to preserve academic continuity during institutional failure does not create permanent rights to subsidized fees. Financial liability must be equitably apportioned, ensuring the defaulting institution bears the primary burden and preventing unjust enrichment of students who originally contracted for higher fee structures.

J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave Granted.

3. Application(s) for impleadment/intervention are allowed.

Scope of the Present Controversy: -

4. These appeals, though arising out of special leave petitions challenging the judgment and order dated 18th November, 2015, and 9th December, 2015 Signature Not Verified POOJA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.14 Reason:

passed by the High Court of Orissa, Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”., have, over the course of time, assumed a distinct and focused contour. What commenced as a challenge to the directions issued by the High Court concerning the relocation of students from Sardar Rajas Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Jaring, Kalahandi, Odisha, For short, “SRMCH”. was subsequently shaped by a series of interim orders passed by this Court regulating the process of relocation and safeguarding the academic interests of the students. By order dated 8^th January, 2016, this Court expressed reservations with the approach adopted by the High Court in directing relocation based strictly on quota distinctions. Thereafter, another order dated 12^th January, 2016 was passed permitting the continuation of students in recognised private institutions and enabled the State authorities to carry out relocation in a manner consistent with maintaining academic continuity. Pursuant to these directions, the relocation process was undertaken through a State-supervised counselling mechanism, ensuring that the students were accommodated in

recognised private medical colleges (transferee colleges) thereby preventing loss of an academic year. 5. During the course of these proceedings, the transferee private medical colleges, namely, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), Bhubaneswar, Institute of Medical Sciences & SUM Hospital, Bhubaneswar, and Hi-Tech Medical College & Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Hereinafter, referred to as the “transferee colleges”., have filed interlocutory applications being I.A. Nos. 73763 of 2019, 69514 of 2019 and 151684 of 2022, seeking issuance of appropriate directions/clarifications, inter alia, for payment/reimbursement of fees for the education imparted by them to the transferred students pursuant to the orders of this Court.

6. The present controversy is no longer centred around the validity of the impugned orders passed by the High Court but is focused on a fair resolution of the financial liabilities arising out of an extraordinary situation, where the academic trajectory of the students was preserved through judicial intervention, but the resultant financial burden remains to be equitably apportioned. In view of the

subsequent developments and the directions issued by this Court, the lis now stands crystallised around the adjudication of the claims raised in the said interlocutory applications.

Background: -

7. The brief background facts are that two batches of students for the MBBS course were admitted in a college named SRMCH, which is under the control and management of the Selvam Educational and Charitable Trust4 (respondent No.76). The admissions pertain to the academic sessions 2013- 2014 and 2014-2015. After the students had undergone a few academic sessions, numerous deficiencies in infrastructure, facilities, and regulatory compliances were noticed in the college by the Medical Council of India5 during its inspections, resulting in denial of renewal of recognition to the institution. These developments, during the academic sessions 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, led to a situation wherein the academic future of the students admitted in these batches was placed in grave jeopardy.

4 Hereinafter, referred to as the “Selvam Trust”.

5 Hereinafter, referred to as the “MCI/NMC”.

8. Initially, the controversy was taken up by the High Court, which passed various directions in order to safeguard the interests of the st