S. KRISHNA SRADHA versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

[2019] 15 S.C.R. 93

S. KRISHNA SRADHA

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 1081 of 2017)

DECEMBER 13, 2019

[ARUN MISHRA, M. R. SHAH AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]

Education/Educational Reservation – Admission into MBBSCourse – Claiming reservation in the sports and game category foradmission into MBBS Course, the appellant submitted necessarymaterial – Denied due priority in admission – Immediatelyapproached the High Court – High Court in view of the decision ofSupreme Court in Jasmine Kaur case observed that no direction canbe issued to the appellant for grant of admission for the AcademicSession 2015-16 however, granted compensation of Rs.5 lakhs –Issue as to whether student/meritorious candidate, for no fault ofhis/her and who pursued his/her legal right expeditiously withoutdelay, can be denied admission as relief, because the cut-off dateof 30[th ]September has passed – If compensation is the only reliefwhich can be given by the Court – Conflict between the decision ofSupreme Court in Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma UHS and ChandigarhAdmn. v. Jasmine Kaur – Issue referred to larger Bench – Held:Under exceptional circumstances, if the court inter alia finds thatthere is no fault attributable to the candidate and the candidatepursued his/her legal right expeditiously without any delay, the faultis only on the part of the authorities and, if the time scheduleprescribed- 30[th] September, is over, to do complete justice, the Courtunder exceptional circumstances and in rarest of rare cases directthe admission in the same year by directing to increase the seats–However, it should not be more than one or two seats and suchadmissions can be ordered within reasonable time, i.e., within onemonth from 30[th] September, i.e. cut off date – Under nocircumstances, the Court shall order admission in the same yearbeyond 30[th] October – In such an eventuality, the Court may alsopass an order cancelling the admission given to the candidate atthe bottom of the merit list of the category however, after giving anopportunity of hearing – In case no relief of admission can be

Agranted to candidate in the very academic year, the court canmould the relief and direct the admission to be granted in the nextacademic year by directing to increase the number of seats asconsidered appropriate in the case– In such eventuality, if themanagement was found at fault, the Court may direct to reduce theBnumber of seats in the management quota of that year– Grant ofcompensation could be additional remedy but not substitute forrestitutional remedies – Decision in Jasmine Kaur case or any otherdecisions contrary to the above stand overruled while, that in thecase of Asha is affirmed to the aforesaid extent – Constitution ofIndia – Arts.14, 19, 21.CConstitution of India – Arts.14, 19, 21 – Violation of, in caseof illegal denial of admission – Discussed.

Answering the reference, the Court

HELD: 1. The right to equal and fair treatment is aDcomponent of Article 14 of the Constitution. As held by SupremeCourt Asha that transparent and fair procedure is the duty ofevery legal authority connected with admissions. In such cases,denial of fair treatment to the candidate would not only violatehis/her right under Article 14 but would seriously jeopardize his/Eher right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Anatural corollary of declaring that an administrative act moreparticularly the denial of admission illegally and for no fault of acandidate/student violates principles of Article 14 is that thecitizen injured must be put back to his/her original position. Inthat sense, the primary relief is restitutionary. For meritoriousFstudent seeking admission in medical course is very importantin the life of student/candidate and denial of admission to ameritorious candidate though no fault of his/her violates his/herfundamental rights. In case of medical admissions, even therestitutionary remedy of providing seat in the subsequent yearGwould lead to loss of one full academic year to meritoriouscandidate, which cannot be compensated in real terms. Thus denialof admission in medical course to meritorious candidate for nofault of his/her and though he/she has approached the Court intime and despite the same not granting any just and equitablerelief would be denial of justice. The view taken by this Court inH

Jasmine Kaur that the only relief which can be granted to such acandidate would be the compensation only is not good law andcannot be accepted. Even granting relief to such candidate/student in the next academic year and to accommodate him/herin the next year and in the sanctioned intake may even affect theright of some other candidate/student seeking admission in thenext academic year and that too for no fault of his/her. Therefore,in the exceptional and in the rarest of rare cases and in casewhere all the conditions stipulated in paragraph 33.3 in the caseof Jasmine Kaur are satisfied, the Court can grant exceptionalrelief to the candidate of granting admission even after the cutoff date is over. [Para 8.2][110-A-H; 111-A]

2. The reference is answered as under: (i) That in casewhere candidate/student has approached the court at the earliestand without any delay and that the question is with respect to theadmission in medical course all the efforts shall be made by theconcerned court to dispose of the proceedings by giving priorityand at the earliest. (ii) Under exceptional circumstances, if thecourt finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate andthe candidate has pursued his/her legal right expeditiously withoutany delay and there is fault only on the part of the authorities and/or there is apparent breach of rules and regulations as well asrelated principles in the process of grant of admission which wouldviolate the right of equality and equal treatment to the competingcandidates and if the time schedule prescribed – 30[th] September,is over, to do the complete justice, the Court under exceptionalcircumstances and in rarest of rare cases direct the admission inthe same year by directing to increase the seats, however, it shouldnot be more than one or two seats and such admissions can beordered within reasonable time, i.e., within one month from 30[th]September, i.e., cut off date and under no circumstances, theCourt shall order any Admission in the same year beyond 30[th]October. However, it is observed that such relief can be grantedonly in exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of rare cases.In case of such an eventuality, the Court may also pass an ordercancelling the admission given to candidate who is at the bottomof the merit list of the category who, if the admission would have

Abeen given to more meritorious candidate who has been deniedadmission illegally, would not have got the admission, if the Courtdeems it fit and proper, however, after giving an opportunity ofhearing to student whose admission is sought to be cancelled.(iii) In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of admissionBcan be granted to such candidate in the very academic year andwherever it finds that the action of the authorities has beenarbitrary and in breach of the rules and regulations or theprospectus affecting the rights of the students and that candidateis found to be meritorious and such candidate/student hasapproached the court at the earliest and without any delay, theCcourt can mould the relief and direct the admission to be grantedto such candidate in the next academic year by issuingappropriate directions by directing to increase in the number ofseats as may be considered appropriate in the case and in case ofsuch an eventuality and if it is found that the management was atDfault and wrongly denied the admission to the meritoriouscandidate, in that case, the Court may direct to reduce the numberof seats in the management quota of that year, meaning therebythe student/students who was/were denied admission illegally tobe accommodated in the next academic year out of the seatsEallotted in the management quota. (iv) Grant of the compensationcould be an additional remedy but not substitute for restitutionalremedies. Therefore, in an appropriate case the Court may awardthe compensation to such meritorious candidate who for nofault of his/her has to lose one full academic year and who couldFnot be granted any relief of admission in the same academic year.(v) The aforesaid directions pertain for Admission in MBBSCourse only and we have not dealt with Post Graduate MedicalCourse. The decision of this Court in the case of Jasmine Kauror any other decisions contrary to the above stand overruled.The decision of this Court in the case of Asha is affirmed to theGaforesaid extent. [Paras 9, 10][111-B-H; 112-A-F][112-G]

Chandigarh Admn. vs. Jasmine Kaur (2014) 10 SCC521 : [2014] 9 SCR 1122 – overruled.

S. KRISHNA SRADHA v. THE STATE OFANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma UHS (2012) 7 SCC 389 :[2012] 6 SCR 876 – affirmed.

Indu Kant v. State of U.P (1993) Suppl. 2 SCC 71; MCIv. Madhu Singh (2002) 7 SCC 258 : [2002] 2 Suppl.SCR 228; Neelu Arora vs. Union of India (2003) 3 SCC366 : [2003] 1 SCR 562; Faiza Chowdhary vs. Stateof J & K (2012) 10 SCC 149 : [2012] 7 SCR 528;Chhavi Mehrotra v. Director General Health Services(1994) 2 SCC 370 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1081of 2017.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.2016 of the High Courtof Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State ofAndhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 32710 of 2015.

K. Parameshwar and M. V. Mukunda, Advs. for the Appellant.

Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Sharma, Dhawal Mohan, PrassanaMohan, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Ms. Sourjya Das, G. N. Reddy, T. VijayaBhaskar Reddy, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Guntur Prabhakar and GauravSharma, Advs. for the Respondents.

98SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 15 S.C.R.

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. The issue arises for consideration is whether student, ameritorious candidate, for no fault of his/her and who has pursued his/Bher legal right expeditiously without delay, can be denied admission as arelief, because the cut-off date of 30[th ]September has passed. In such asituation the relief which can be given by the Court is to grant appropriatecompensation only?

2. Having noticed the conflict between the pronouncement of thisCCourt in Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma UHS[1]and Chandigarh Admn. vs.Jasmine Kaur[2], the aforesaid issue is referred to larger Bench.

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case,in spite of submitting the necessary material in support of the claim ofthe appellant for reservation in the sports and game category for admissionDinto MBBS Course, she was denied due priority in admission into MBBSCourse. Therefore, the appellant immediately approached the High Courtseeking admission in the reserved quota of sports and games category.However, it was found that at the time the petition was heard, theAcademic Session for the year in question already commenced fromE01.09.2015 and as per the decision of this Court the last date foradmission would be 30.09.2015, the High Court considering the decisionof this Court in the case Jasmine Kaur (Supra) observed that nodirection can be issued to the appellant for grant of admission for theAcademic Session 2015-16. However, relying upon the decision of thisCourt in the case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra), the High Court grantedFcompensation of Rs.5 lakhs. It is required to be noted that the HighCourt came to categorical and unequivocal conclusion that the appellantwas entitled to get priority. It was also found that the appellant wasmore meritorious than others on the basis of the marks obtained. However,the High Court denied the admission solely on the ground that time limitGhas expired. The High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court inthe case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra). In the case of Asha (Supra) thisCourt held that in rarest of rare cases, when the Court returns the findingthat (i) no fault is attributable to the candidate; (ii) the candidate has1 (2012) 7 SCC 389H2 (2014) 10 SCC 521

S. KRISHNA SRADHA v. THE STATE OF

pursued her rights and legal remedies expeditiously and without delay;(iii) where there is fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breachof rules and regulations, an exception may be made to 30[th] Septembercut-off date and in an exceptional case the Court can direct for admissioneven in case where cut-off date as directed by this Court had expired.As observed hereinabove, the contrary view is taken subsequently inthe case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra) and therefore, the matter is referredto larger Bench to consider the aforesaid issue.

4. Learned Counsel Mr. K. Parameshwar appearing on behalf ofthe appellant, has vehemently submitted that the present case refersonly to cases where (i) no fault is attributable to the candidate; (ii) thecandidate has pursued his/her rights and legal remedies expeditiouslyand without delay; (iii) where there is fault on the part of the authoritiesand apparent breach of rules and regulations. It is submitted that therelief of admission is being denied because the case has been pending inthe relevant Court and the time for admission has expired. It is vehementlysubmitted by Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant thateven in case where candidate is meritorious and though entitled toadmission, but denied by the authorities illegally and irrationally and thoughno fault is attributable to the candidate and the candidate has pursuedhis/her rights and legal remedies expeditiously and without delay andwhen there is fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach ofrules and regulations, to deny the admission would be injustice to such ameritorious candidate and punishing him/her for no fault of him/her. It issubmitted that it is therefore rightly observed in the case of Asha (Supra)that in rarest of rare cases, the Court can, while exercising powers underArticle 226 and/or under Article 32 of the Constitution of India can directto grant admission despite the fact that the time for admission has expired.

4.1. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted thatearlier this Court has considered different remedies in cases of medicaladmissions where candidates were denied medical seats.

4.2. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel appearing for theappellant that in the case of Indu Kant vs. State of U.P.[3], this Court hasobserved therein that in case where the candidate is found to bemeritorious, she can be accommodated in subsequent year with adirection that seats be increased in the next year.

A4.3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that whenthe candidate is found to be meritorious and denied the admission moreparticularly in the courses like MBBS and has approached the Courtexpeditiously, to grant relief only of compensation cannot be said to bejust and equitable relief.B4.4 It is submitted that right to equal and fair treatment is acomponent of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted that atransparent and fair procedure is the duty of every legal authorityconnected with admissions. It is submitted that in such cases, denial offair treatment to the candidate would not only violate his/her right underArticle 14 but would seriously jeopardize his/her right under Articles 19Cand 21. It is submitted that in the case of violation of constitutional rights,restitution is the norm and compensation, an exception. It is submittedthat the citizen injured must be put back to his/her original position. It issubmitted that in that sense, the primary relief is restitutionary.

4.5. It is further submitted that compensation could be an additionalDremedy but not substitute for restitutionary remedies. It is submittedthat in case of medical admissions, even the restitutionary remedy ofproviding seat in subsequent year would lead to the loss of one fullacademic year of meritorious candidate, which cannot be compensatedin real terms. It is submitted that compensation for loss of year could beEprovided but denial of admissions to meritorious candidate, even afterthe cut-off date in exceptional circumstances, set out in para 32 in Asha(Supra) cannot be compensated in monetary terms. It is further submittedthat the value and the enforcement of fundamental right depends uponthe nature of remedies that court of justice can fashion. It is submittedthat the power of Articles 32 and 226 ought not to be read in constrictedFmanner so as to limit the scope of remedies. If the courts do not havethe power to fashion remedies, appropriate and adequate remedies, theenforcement of fundamental rights would be rendered meaningless. Thisis not just principle of constitutional remedies but also rule of equity.

4.6. It is further submitted by Learned Counsel appearing for theGappellant that the compensation and constitutional torts are cases whererestitution is impossible in real terms. It is submitted that the compensationcannot be the only remedy as observed by this Court in the case ofJasmine Kaur (Supra).

5. Mr. Vikas Singh, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of MCIHhas as such supported the decision of this Court in the case of Jasmine

S. KRISHNA SRADHA v. THE STATE OF

Kaur (Supra). It is submitted that the time fixed for the admission bythis Court, namely, 30[th] September has to be scrupulously followed sothat they are not to be allowed to be derailed, under no circumstances.It is submitted that as per catena of decisions of this Court the timeschedule relating to admissions to the professional courses should bestrictly adhered to and shall not be restricted under any circumstanceseither by this Court or the Board and admissions should not be permitted.It is submitted that this Court had consistently held that no admissionshould be given in technical courses in mid-stream after the course hascommenced, even if there are unfilled seats in the same year.5.1. It is further submitted by Mr. Vikas Singh, Learned Counselfor the MCI that as held by this Court in MCI vs. Madhu Singh[4], andNeelu Arora vs. Union of India[5], even unfilled seats of one year cannotbe telescoped into permissible seats of the subsequent year. It is submittedthat the Court has held that there cannot be carry forward of unfilledseats from one year to next year. This is because, it would in effect,increase the number of seats in the next year. It is submitted that in theaforesaid decision, this Court has opined medical seat has life only inthe year it falls and vacancy cannot be carry forward in the next year.In support, he has heavily relied upon the decisions of this Court in FaizaChowdhary vs. State of J & K[6].

5.2 It is further submitted that this Court has consistently taken astand that even in cases where the candidate before the Court is foundmeritorious; she cannot be accommodated in subsequent year with adirection that seats be increased in the next year. It is submitted thatnumber of seats cannot be over and above the number fixed by the MCIas per the regulations, and cannot be increased indiscriminately withoutregard to infrastructure. It is submitted that as held by this Court in thecase of Chhavi Mehrotra vs. Director General Health Services[7], theCourts cannot be generous in issuing directions which in effect amountto directing authorities to violate their own rules and regulations.

5.3. It is further submitted that however, with view to see that ameritorious student is not made to suffer because of no fault of him/herand in rarest of rare cases or exceptional circumstances, while exercising

4 (2002) 7 SCC 2585 (2003) 3 SCC 3666 (2012) 10 SCC 1497 (1994) 2 SCC 370

Athe powers under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution of India,the Court alone can grant the reliefs and may deviate from the normalrule.

5.4. It is further submitted by Mr. Vikas Singh, Learned Counselappearing for MCI that however, it is in rarest of rare cases and inBexceptional circumstances when it is found that for no fault on the partof the candidate and due to the gross negligence or inaction on the partof the concerned authority or for some unforeseeable reasons ameritorious candidate has been deprived of admission in medical coursethen in such circumstances only the Court may consider granting reliefto the candidate, either by way of compensation or by directing that theCcandidate may be accommodated in the quota of sanctioned seatsavailable for the next academic session. It is submitted that howeveronly in cases where the Court is satisfied that monetary compensationwill not be adequate to redress the injury suffered by the candidate, thenand then only this direction to accommodate student in the next academicDyear may be passed. It is submitted that however while granting such arelief in the rarest of rare cases and in exceptional circumstances, acandidate must have approached the Court without any delay; candidatemust be higher in the merit list than the last student admitted in thecollege and the candidate has complied with all the requirements andsubmitted each and every document on time as prescribed by theEcounselling authority and there is no delay attributable on the part of thestudent in this regard.

5.5. It is submitted to ascertain whether the candidate hasapproached the Court on time and to avoid mischievous persons fromfiling frivolous petitions the Court may consider the following criteria forFdetermining the delay:

(i)Where the candidate is challenging the validity of anyprovision in notification/Information Bulletin/Prospectusissued by the concerned authority pertaining to admission inmedicine course, then the candidate must have approachedGthe Court before the commencement of the counsellingprocess;

(ii)Where the candidate is challenging any eligibility criteria laiddown in the notification/Information Bulletin/Prospectus forCommon Counselling issued by the concerned authority, thenH

S. KRISHNA SRADHA v. THE STATE OF

the candidate must have approached the Court before theAcommencement of the counselling process i.e. first round ofcounselling;(iii) Where the candidate is challenging the first round ofcounselling process itself, then the candidate must haveapproached the Court immediately after the first round ofBcounselling and before the commencement of second roundof counselling;

(iv) Where the candidate is challenging the second round or mopup round of counselling process, then in that case studentmust approach the Court immediately thereafter but beforethe cut off/last date for completion of admission process.

5.6 It is further submitted by Mr. Vikas Singh, Learned Counselappearing for MCI that in case all aforesaid pre-requisites are fulfilledby candidate and the Court is of the opinion that case is made outhaving found rarest of rare case and exceptional circumstances and theCourt is of the opinion that such student can be accommodated in thenext academic year, in that case also out of the total sanctioned intake ofseats not more than two seats in an institution/college/University in agiven academic year should be considered to be filled by the students ofthe preceding academic year who have been deprived of the MBBSstudents due to the negligence and fault of the authorities.

6. Heard Learned Counsel for the respective parties at length.The short but an important question of law posed for consideration ofthis Court is what relief meritorious candidate is entitled to when it isfound that meritorious candidate is denied an admission arbitrary andillegally by the concerned authorities and the fault is not attributable tothe candidate at all and the candidate has pursued his/her legal rightsexpeditiously and without delay, whether in such situation awardingcompensation only can be said to be just and an adequate relief? Theissue which arises for consideration is whether having fulfilled theaforesaid pre-requisites, the Court can grant relief and order admissioneven after the cut-off date for admission i.e. 30[th] September is over andwhether the Court can grant admission beyond the intake either in thesame year or in the next academic year?

6.1. In the case of Asha (supra) following questions were posedfor consideration before the Court:

“(a) Is there any exception to the principle of strict adherence tothe rule of merit for preference of courses and colleges regardingadmission to such courses?

(b) Whether the cut-off date of 30[th] September of the relevantacademic year is date which admits any exception?

(c) What relief the courts can grant and to what extent they canmould it while ensuring adherence to the rule of merit, fairnessand transparency in admission in terms of rules and regulations?

(d) What issues need to be dealt with and finding returned by thecourt before passing orders which may be more equitable, but stillCin strict compliance with the framework of regulations andjudgments of this Court governing the subject?”

After considering catena of decisions of this Court on the subjectin Asha (Supra) this Court answered the aforesaid questions as under:

“38. Now, we shall proceed to answer the questions posed by usin the opening part of this judgment.

38.1 Question (a) : The rule of merit for preference of coursesand colleges admits no exception. It is an absolute rule and allstakeholders and authorities concerned are required to follow thisrule strictly and without demur.

38.2 Question (b): 30[th] September is undoubtedly the last date bywhich the admitted students should report to their respectivecolleges without fail. In the normal course, the admissions mustclose by holding of second counselling by 15[th] September of therelevant academic year (in terms of the decision of this Court inFPriya Gupta). Thereafter, only in very rare and exceptional cases

of unequivocal discrimination or arbitrariness or pressingemergency, admission may be permissible but such power maypreferably be exercised by the courts. Further, it will be in therarest of rare cases and where the ends of justice would beGsubverted or the process of law would stand frustrated that thecourts would exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction of admittingcandidates to the courses after the deadline of 30[th] September ofthe current academic year. This, however, can only be done ifthe conditions stated by this Court in Priya Gupta and this judgmentare found to be unexceptionally satisfied and the reasons thereforHare recorded by the court of competent jurisdiction.

38.3. Questions (c) & (d): Wherever the court finds that action ofthe authorities has been arbitrary, contrary to the judgments ofthis Court and violative of rules, regulations and conditions of theprospectus, causing prejudice to the rights of the students, thecourt shall award compensation to such students as well as directinitiation of disciplinary action against the erring officers/officials.The court shall also ensure that the proceedings under theContempt of Courts Act, 1971 are initiated against the erringauthorities irrespective of their stature and empowerment. Wherethe admissions given by the authorities concerned are found bythe courts to be legally unsustainable and where there is no reasonto permit the students to continue with the course, the mere factthat such students have put in year or so into the academiccourse is not by itself ground to permit them to continue with thecourse.”

This Court also cautioned the courts for giving interim orders whereadmissions are matter of dispute before the Court. This Court observedas under:

“39. With all humility, we reiterate the request that we have madeto all the High Courts in Priya Gupta case that the Courts shouldavoid giving interim orders where admissions are the matter ofdispute before the Court. Even in case where the candidates arepermitted to continue with the courses, they should normally benot permitted to take further examinations of the professionalcourses. The students who pursue the courses under the ordersof the Court would not be entitled to claim any equity at the finaldecision of the case nor should it weigh with the courts ofcompetent jurisdiction.”

6.2. However, subsequently in the case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra)a contrary view is taken by this Court, contrary to the law laid down bythis Court in the case of Asha (Supra). This Court has held that in sucha situation grant of compensation is the only relief which can be grantedand which candidate is entitled to.

7. In view of the contradictory views and decisions in the case ofAsha (Supra) and in the case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra) the questionwhich has been referred to the larger Bench is where student, ameritorious candidate, for no fault of his/her is denied admission illegallyand arbitrary and who has pursued her legal right expeditiously without

Adelay, can be denied admission as relief, because of cut-off date of30[th] September is over and in such situation the relief which can begiven by the Court is to grant appropriate compensation only? Anotherquestion which is required to be considered is what relief can be grantedby the Court in such situation?.

B7.1. The observations and the ultimate conclusion by this Court inthe case of Asha (Supra) and in the case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra) arerequired to be referred to and considered.

After considering catena of decisions of this Court on the pointthis Court in the case of Asha (Supra) ultimately concluded in para 38 asCunder:

“38. Now, we shall proceed to answer the questions posed by usin the opening part of this judgment.

38.1 Question (a) : The rule of merit for preference of coursesand colleges admits no exception. It is an absolute rule and allDstakeholders and authorities concerned are required to follow thisrule strictly and without demur.

38.2 Question (b): 30[th] September is undoubtedly the last date bywhich the admitted students should report to their respectivecolleges without fail. In the normal course, the admissions mustEclose by holding of second counselling by 15[th] September of therelevant academic year (in terms of the decision of this Court inPriya Gupta). Thereafter, only in very rare and exceptional casesof unequivocal discrimination or arbitrariness or pressingemergency, admission may be permissible but such power mayFpreferably be exercised by the courts. Further, it will be in therarest of rare cases and where the ends of justice would besubverted or the process of law would stand frustrated that thecourts would exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction of admittingcandidates to the courses after the deadline of 30[th] September ofthe current academic year. This, however, can only be done if theGconditions stated by this Court in Priya Gupta and this judgmentare found to be unexceptionally satisfied and the reasons thereforare recorded by the court of competent jurisdiction.

38.3. Questions (c) & (d): Wherever the court finds that action ofthe authorities has been arbitrary, contrary to the judgments ofHthis Court and violative of rules, regulations and conditions of the

S. KRISHNA SRADHA v. THE STATE OF

prospectus, causing prejudice to the rights of the students, thecourt shall award compensation to such students as well as directinitiation of disciplinary action against the erring officers/officials.The court shall also ensure that the proceedings under theContempt of Courts Act, 1971 are initiated against the erringauthorities irrespective of their stature and empowerment. Wherethe admissions given by the authorities concerned are found bythe courts to be legally unsustainable and where there is no reasonto permit the students to continue with the course, the mere factthat such students have put in year or so into the academiccourse is not by itself ground to permit them to continue with thecourse.”

Thereafter in paragraph 39 this Court observed and directed asunder:

“39. With all humility, we reiterate the request that we have madeto all the High Courts in Priya Gupta case that the Courts shouldavoid giving interim orders where admissions are the matter ofdispute before the Court. Even in case where the candidates arepermitted to continue with the courses, they should normally benot permitted to take further examinations of the professionalcourses. The students who pursue the courses under the ordersof the Court would not be entitled to claim any equity at the finaldecision of the case nor should it weigh with the courts ofcompetent jurisdiction.”7.2. However, in the subsequent decision in the case of JasmineKaur (Supra) after considering the decision of this Court in the case ofAsha (Supra) ultimately in paragraph 33, it is observed and held as under:

“33.1. The schedule relating to admissions to the professionalcolleges should be strictly and scrupulously adhered to and shallnot be deviated under any circumstance either by the courts orthe Board and midstream admission should not be permitted.

33.2 Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that thereis no fault attributable to the candidate i.e., the candidate haspursued his or her legal right expeditiously without any delay andthat there is fault only on the part of the authorities or there is anapparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related principlesin the process of grant of admission which would violate the right

Ato equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates andthe relief of admission can be directed within the time scheduleprescribed, it would be completely just and fair to provideexceptional reliefs to the candidate under such circumstance alone.

33.3 If candidate is not selected during particular academicByear due to the fault of the institutions/authorities and in this processif the seats are filled up and the scope for granting admission islost due to eclipse of time schedule, then under such circumstances,the candidate should not be victimised for no fault of his/her andthe Court may consider grant of appropriate compensation to offsetthe loss caused, if any.C

33.4. When candidate does not exercise or pursue his/her rightsor legal remedies against his/her non-selection expeditiously andpromptly, then the courts cannot grant any relief to the candidatein the form of securing an admission.

D33.5. If the candidate takes calculated risk/chance by subjectinghimself/herself to the selection process and after knowing his/hernon- selection, he/she cannot subsequently turn around andcontend that the process of selection was unfair.

33.6. If it is found that the candidate acquiesces or waives his/herEright to claim relief before the court promptly, then in such cases,the legal maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt,which means that equity aids only the vigilant and not the oneswho sleep over their rights, will be highly appropriate.

33.7. No relief can be granted even though the prospectus isFdeclared illegal or invalid if the same is not challenged promptly.Once the candidate is aware that he/she does not fulfil the criteriaof the prospectus he/she cannot be heard to state that, he/shechose to challenge the same only after preferring the applicationand after the same is refused on the ground of eligibility.

33.8. There cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one yearGwith permitted seats of the subsequent year i.e., carry-forward ofseats cannot be permitted how much ever meritorious candidateis and deserved admission. In such circumstances, the Courtscannot grant any relief to the candidate but it is up to the candidateto re-apply in the next academic year.

S. KRISHNA SRADHA v. THE STATE OF

33.9. There cannot be at any point of time direction given eitherby the court or the Board to increase the number of seats whichis exclusively in the realm of the Medical Council of India.

33.10. Each of these above mentioned principles should be appliedbased on the unique and distinguishable facts and circumstancesof each case and no two cases can be held to be identical.”

However, it is required to be noted that in the case before thisCourt in Jasmine Kaur (Supra) it was specifically found by this Courtthat there was delay on the part of the candidate. It was specificallyfound that the conduct of the candidate in having fixed her own timelimit in making the challenge, namely, after three months of the issuanceof the prospectus and thereafter in filing the Letters Patent Appeal whichprocess resulted in the Division Bench in deciding the Appeal only in themonth of April, 2014 by which time the substantial part of the academicyear has been crossed, disentitles the candidate any relief and the casewould not fall in any extra-ordinary circumstances.

8. However, the question is with respect to student, meritoriouscandidate for no fault of his/her has been denied admission illegally andwho has pursued his/her legal rights expeditiously without delay is entitledto any relief of admission more particularly in the courses like MBBSthe relief of compensation as held by this Court in Asha (Supra)?

The aforesaid question is required to be considered only to thecases where (i) no fault is attributable to the candidate; (ii) the candidatehas pursued her rights and legal remedies expeditiously and without delay;(iii) where there is fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breachof rules and regulations; and (iv) candidate is found to be more meritoriousthen the last candidate who has been given admission.

8.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the question iswith respect to student/candidate seeking admission in the medicalcourse more particularly in MBBS course. For student/candidateseeking admission in professional courses more particularly the medicalcourse each year is very important and precious. Similarly, gettingadmission in medical course itself is very important in the life of acandidate/student and even dream of man. In light of the above, thequestion for consideration is whether compensation for meritoriouscandidate, who has been denied the admission illegally and arbitraryhaving approached the court in time can be said to be just and equitablerelief?

A8.2. The right to equal and fair treatment is component of Article14 of the Constitution. As held by this Court Asha (Supra) that atransparent and fair procedure is the duty of every legal authorityconnected with admissions. In such cases, denial of fair treatment to thecandidate would not only violate his/her right under Article 14 but wouldseriously jeopardize his/her right under Articles 19 and 21 of theBConstitution of India. natural corollary of declaring that anadministrative act more particularly the denial of admission illegally andfor no fault of candidate/student violates principles of Article 14 is thatthe citizen injured must be put back to his/her original position. In thatsense, the primary relief is restitutionary. As observed hereinabove, forCa meritorious student seeking admission in medical course is veryimportant in the life of student/candidate and denial of admission to ameritorious candidate though no fault of his/her violates his/herfundamental rights. Compensation could be an additional remedy but nota substitute for restitutionary remedies. In case of medical admissions,even the restitutionary remedy of providing seat in the subsequentDyear would lead to loss of one full academic year to meritoriouscandidate, which cannot be compensated in real terms. Thus compensationfor loss of year could be provided, but denial of admissions to meritoriouscandidate cannot be compensated in monetary terms. Thus denial ofadmission in medical course to meritorious candidate for no fault ofEhis/her and though he/she has approached the Court in time and despitethe same not granting any just and equitable relief would be denial ofjustice. Therefore, the question is what relief the Court can grant bywhich right to equal and fair treatment to candidate are protected andat the same time neither there is injustice to other candidate/student andeven compromising with the quality education. Therefore, balance isFrequired to be struck. However, at the same time it can safely be saidthat the view taken by this Court in Jasmine Kaur (Supra) that the onlyrelief which can be granted to such candidate would be thecompensation only is not good law and cannot be accepted. Even grantinga relief to such candidate/student in the next academic year and toGaccommodate him/her in the next year and in the sanctioned intake mayeven affect the right of some other candidate/student seeking admissionin the next academic year and that too for no fault of his/her. Thereforewe are of the view that in the exceptional and in the rarest of rare casesand in case where all the conditions stipulated in paragraph 33.3 in thecase of Jasmine Kaur (Supra) are satisfied, the Court can grantH

exceptional relief to the candidate of granting admission even after thecut off date is over.

9. In light of the discussion/observations made hereinabove, ameritorious candidate/student who has been denied an admission inMBBS Course illegally or irrationally by the authorities for no fault ofhis/her and who has approached the Court in time and so as to see thatsuch meritorious candidate may not have to suffer for no fault of his/her, we answer the reference as under:

(i)That in case where candidate/student has approachedthe court at the earliest and without any delay and that thequestion is with respect to the admission in medical courseall the efforts shall be made by the concerned court todispose of the proceedings by giving priority and at theearliest.

(ii)Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds thatthere is no fault attributable to the candidate and theDcandidate has pursued his/her legal right expeditiouslywithout any delay and there is fault only on the part of theauthorities and/or there is apparent breach of rules andregulations as well as related principles in the process ofgrant of admission which would violate the right of equalityand equal treatment to the competing candidates and if theEtime schedule prescribed – 30[th] September, is over, to dothe complete justice, the Court under exceptionalcircumstances and in rarest of rare cases direct theadmission in the same year by directing to increase the seats,however, it should not be more than one or two seats andFsuch admissions can be ordered within reasonable time, i.e.,within one month from 30[th] September, i.e., cut off dateand under no circumstances, the Court shall order anyAdmission in the same year beyond 30[th] October. However,it is observed that such relief can be granted only inexceptional circumstances and in the rarest of rare cases.GIn case of such an eventuality, the Court may also pass anorder cancelling the admission given to candidate who isat the bottom of the merit list of the category who, if theadmission would have been given to more meritoriouscandidate who has been denied admission illegally, would

112SUPREME COURT REPORTS

not have got the admission, if the Court deems it fit andproper, however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to astudent whose admission is sought to be cancelled.

(iii)In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of admissioncan be granted to such candidate in the very academicByear and wherever it finds that the action of the authoritieshas been arbitrary and in breach of the rules and regulationsor the prospectus affecting the rights of the students andthat candidate is found to be meritorious and suchcandidate/student has approached the court at the earliestand without any delay, the court can mould the relief andCdirect the admission to be granted to such candidate inthe next academic year by issuing appropriate directionsby directing to increase in the number of seats as may beconsidered appropriate in the case and in case of such aneventuality and if it is found that the management was atDfault and wrongly denied the admission to the meritoriouscandidate, in that case, the Court may direct to reduce thenumber of seats in the management quota of that year,meaning thereby the student/students who was/were deniedadmission illegally to be accommodated in the next academicyear out of the seats allotted in the management quota.

(iv)Grant of the compensation could be an additional remedybut not substitute for restitutional remedies. Therefore, inan appropriate case the Court may award the compensationto such meritorious candidate who for no fault of his/herhas to lose one full academic year and who could not beFgranted any relief of admission in the same academic year.

(v)It is clarified that the aforesaid directions pertain forAdmission in MBBS Course only and we have not dealtwith Post Graduate Medical Course.

G10. In view of the above, the decision of this Court in the case ofJasmine Kaur (Supra) or any other decisions contrary to the abovestand overruled. The decision of this Court in the case of Asha (Supra)is hereby affirmed to the aforesaid extent. The reference is answeredaccordingly.

HDivya Pandey