Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

2024 INSC 845 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. _________ of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11785 of 2024)

RAMKRISHNA MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No. _________ of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20267 of 2024)

RKDF HOMEOPATHY MEDICAL COLLEGE APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(s)

JUDGMENT

Signature Not Verified K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2024.11.07 13:22:24 IST Reason:

1. Leave granted.

1

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

2 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

3 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

4 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 to mention that in between from 454 marks to 450 marks (score of the petitioner), there remained as many as 37 candidates of OBC category including sub-categories of OBC, and more specifically in the category of OBC - open as many as 33 candidates were over and above the petitioner in his category i.e. OBC - open in the second round of allotment. Copy of relevant pages of tabulation/chart drawn for second round counselling is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R/3. However, so far as availability of vacant seat in OBC – open category is concerned then it is only 5 in number. So, in any eventually

5 (sic.), the petitioner would not have been allotted a seat even in Mop-up-Round being placed below in merit. Thus, the grievance raised by the petitioner in present petition is misconceived and in no manner, it is affecting the merit of the petitioner even on account of introduction of amendment on 18.08.2023 (Annexure P/8) implemented on 10.09.2023.

Copy of chart demonstrating vacant seats in OBC – Open Category is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R/4.”

9. Pursuant to the interim order, on 26.09.2023, the Director,

Medical Education (R-4) issued a directive to the appellant-college

to keep on hold one MBBS seat for the academic year 2023-24.

10. The appellant college rushed to the High Court seeking

intervention and the State filed interlocutory application for

vacating the interim order.

11. The appellant pleaded the following in the intervention

application:

“That in the context of the above, it is submitted that the interests of the present-applicant institute are directly aligned with the outcome of this instant petition. While the institute does not contest the keeping of a seat on hold in the interim, as per the interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, it is also emphasised that any adverse consequences in the event of the petition being dismissed shall have a direct and adverse effect on the applicant-college, on the ground that the 1 seat being put on hold in the interim as per the Hon'ble Court's

6 order dated 22/9/2023, has been allotted to the instant applicant; and hence in case this petition is dismissed by this Hon'ble Court and if the cut-off date for admission elapses without a resolution of the controversy involved, the applicant shall be left with a vacant seat in MBBS Course, despite being sanctioned by the regulatory authority. Thus, the outcome of this petition shall have a bearing upon the legitimate interests of the applicant, especially in respect of its academic and logistical planning and resource utilization and the foundational infrastructural investments involved, encompassing faculty, infrastructure etc. It is humbly submitted that a vacant seat would result in the resources being underutilized and wastage of resources, which shall not only cause financial hardship upon the applicant, but also lead to loss to the meritorious and eligible candidates as well.”

12. The High Court ultimately dismissed the Writ Petition on

04.03.2024 stating that the amendment was the policy decision and

that there were no grounds to hold it unconstitutional. Nothing was

said of the intervention application filed by the appellant.

Aggrieved, the appellant is before us seeking a compensatory seat

for the subsequent academic year.

Facts in SLP (Civil) No. 20267 of 2024 :

13. The respondent no. 4-Ms. Tasmiya Khan herein filed a Writ

Petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore seeking a

7 mandamus to the official respondents therein to allot a seat to her

as per the overall marks in NEET for the MBBS for the academic

year 2023-24. Her prayer was to consider her against the

unreserved category in the 5% Government School quota.

According to R-4, candidates with lesser NEET score have been

admitted under the Unreserved Government School Quota while

she, though an OBC candidate had secured more marks than those

general candidates. An interim order was passed on 22.09.2023

modifying the earlier interim order stating that one seat be kept

vacant till the next date of hearing (if not already filled). Based on

the interim order of 22.09.2023, the Director of Medical Education

on 26.09.2023 issued a direction to the appellant-college to keep

on hold one seat in the MBBS course and directed that the said seat

will not be included for the College Level Counselling Round.

14. The official respondents opposed the Writ Petition. The State

contended that the category of the writ petitioner was OBC-

Government School quota (OBC-GS), and in this category there

were eight OBC GS candidates above the petitioner. In simple

8 terms, the State did not follow the principle that reserved

candidates who qualified on merit ought to be first adjusted against

the general seats. On 25.10.2023, the appellant intervened praying

that keeping seats vacant will prejudice the college in case the cut-

off date expires before the disposal of the Writ Petition.

15. By the judgment of 22.12.2023, the High Court rejected the

petition of R-4 accepting the plea of the authorities and held that

the appellant would be entitled only for consideration against the

OBC GS quota. Coming to the intervention application of the

appellant-college it was held that no relief can be granted since

timeline for admission was complete. Aggrieved, the college has

filed the present appeal by way of Special Leave.

16. It should be pointed out that insofar as this matter is

concerned, R-4 herein Ms. Tasmiya Khan filed SLP(C) No. 2311

of 2024 and by the judgment of 20.08.2024, the judgment of the

High Court dated 22.12.2023 in Writ Petition No. 23998 of 2023

was set aside and a direction was given to admit R-4 in MBBS

course for the academic year 2024-25. This Court, speaking

9 through one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) held that the candidates who

were meritorious and who could have been admitted against the

Unreserved-Government Schools category could not have been

denied admission on the ground that they belonged to OBC

category. This Court held that meritorious candidates belonging to

SC, ST and OBC who on their own merit are entitled to be selected

against the Unreserved Government School Quota (UR GS) could

not have been denied the seats in the open category.

Contentions:

17. We have heard the counsels for the appearing parties and

perused the record.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant-colleges contend that the

seat which was directed to be kept vacant has gone waste since the

Writ Petitions could not be disposed of before the cut-off date for

admissions. They contend that the vacant seat would result in

underutilization of resources, wastage of resources causing

financial harm to them and resulting in meritorious candidates

10 being denied the admission to that seat. Their prayer is that a

compensatory additional seat be ordered for the ensuing academic

year. The authorities have contended that the authorities have no

role in the matter and it was the order of the court which has been

duly carried out and no liability can be fastened on them.

Question for consideration:

19. In the above background, the question that arises for

consideration is, have the appellant-colleges made out a case for a

direction to the respondent authorities to create a compensatory

seat in the ensuing academic year?

Reasons and analysis:

20. Firstly, the interim order directing one seat in the counselling

to be kept vacant (if available) in both these matters is a cryptic

order where neither the prima facie case nor the balance of

convenience and irreparable loss aspects have been discussed. This

Court had time and again reiterated that in cases where the court is

inclined to grant interim relief, at least a brief prima-facie

11 assessment as to why the case warranted an interim protection

needs to be discussed. Equally, the balance of convenience and the

irreparable harm aspects are also to be briefly discussed in the

order. These are well settled principles for adjudication of interim

reliefs. The High Court, in both the matters before us, has wholly

ignored these principles.

21. Secondly, this Court has repeatedly held that a medical seat

has life only in the year it falls due and that too only till the cut-off

date fixed. Even here, there are stringent regulations of the

National Medical Commission providing that admission can only

be made by the medical colleges within the sanctioned capacity for

which permission/recognition has been granted. A seat falling

vacant in a particular year cannot be carried forward or created in

the succeeding year (See Faiza Choudhary v. State of J&K &

Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 149). No doubt, in rare and exceptional

circumstances, courts can direct increase in seats for the same

academic year not exceeding one or two seats, if it finds that for no

fault attributable to the candidate and for the fault on the part of the

12 authorities, the candidate has suffered. This Court has also held that

if in the same year, the candidate cannot be accommodated, the

Court can mould the relief and direct the admission to be granted

in the next academic year. In S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra

Pradesh & Ors., (2020) 17 SCC 465, it was held as under:-

“13.2. Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate and the candidate has pursued his/her legal right expeditiously without any delay and there is fault only on the part of the authorities and/or there is apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right of equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates and if the time schedule prescribed — 30th September, is over, to do the complete justice, the Court under exceptional circumstances and in rarest of rare cases direct the admission in the same year by directing to increase the seats, however, it should not be more than one or two seats and such admissions can be ordered within reasonable time i.e. within one month from 30th September i.e. cut-off date and under no circumstances, the Court shall order any admission in the same year beyond 30th October. However, it is observed that such relief can be granted only in exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of rare cases. In case of such an eventuality, the Court may also pass an order cancelling the admission given to a candidate who is at the bottom of the merit list of the category who, if the admission would have been given to a more meritorious candidate who has been denied admission illegally, would not have got the admission, if the Court deems it fit and proper,

13 however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to a student whose admission is sought to be cancelled.

13.3. In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of admission can be granted to such a candidate in the very academic year and wherever it finds that the action of the authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of the rules and regulations or the prospectus affecting the rights of the students and that a candidate is found to be meritorious and such candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and without any delay, the court can mould the relief and direct the admission to be granted to such a candidate in the next academic year by issuing appropriate directions by directing to increase in the number of seats as may be considered appropriate in the case and in case of such an eventuality and if it is found that the management was at fault and wrongly denied the admission to the meritorious candidate, in that case, the Court may direct to reduce the number of seats in the management quota of that year, meaning thereby the student/students who was/were denied admission illegally to be accommodated in the next academic year out of the seats allotted in the management quota.”

22. However, this is vastly different from directing the creation

of an additional seat at the behest of a college.

23. Thirdly, this Court has held repeatedly that keeping vacant

seats results in huge financial loss to the college apart from being

a national wastage of resources (See Index Medical College,

14 Hospital & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.,

(2023) 11 SCC 570).

24. Fourthly, this Court has also frowned upon the grant of

provisional admission unless the court is fully satisfied that the

petitioner has a cast iron case which is bound to succeed or the

error is so gross or apparent that no other conclusion is possible.

Even there, the court has opined that a short notice to the

respondent ought to be given and after hearing the other side, in an

exceptional case fulfilling the criteria prescribed necessary orders

can be made (See Krishna Priya Ganguly & Ors. v. University of

Lucknow & Ors., (1984) 1 SCC 307).

25. If provisional admission seats are not to be given casually, the

said principle should also apply for directions to keep seats vacant.

Only if there is a cast iron case for the petitioner and the petitioner

is bound to succeed in cases where the error of the respondent

authorities is so gross as to negate any other conclusion, interim

orders keeping seats vacant could be made. Though courts have

power to make orders directing seats to be kept vacant in such

15 cases, great caution and circumspection should be shown in

exercising the power. In appropriate cases, even where the said

exceptional criterion as set out above is met, the court will be

justified in directing the petitioner to provide security, to the

concerned college-institution where the seat is ultimately directed

to be kept vacant or on whom ultimately the liability of the vacant

seat would fall. The security is to guarantee that in the event of the

Writ Petition/Appeal being dismissed and the seat going unfilled

for the academic year the Petitioner/Appellant would make good

the loss which the college may incur financially. Even in rare and

exceptional cases where orders for keeping seats vacant are made,

every endeavor must be made by the Court to dispose of the matter

before the counselling for admissions are over.

26. Additionally, even if the Writ Petition/Appeal succeeds, but

if the matter could not be disposed off before the deadline the seat

may still go vacant. It should not be forgotten that while the

recurring and non-recurring expenditure for a college remains the

same, a vacant seat will deprive the college of the fees to that

16 extent, not just for one year but for the whole course, which could

be four, five or more years.

27. Lastly, these safeguards are essential to restitute the colleges

which may have suffered for no fault of theirs. It is well settled that

if on account of an act of a party persuading the court to pass an

order, which at the end has been held not sustainable and if in the

process one party has gained an advantage which it would not have

otherwise earned or the other party had suffered an

impoverishment, restitution can be made. This Court had held that

the principle of restitution is not excluded from its application to

interim orders.

28. This court has also held that the court should be mindful to

neutralize the effect of wrong interim orders which they have been

persuaded to pass. (See Indore Development Authority v.

Manoharlal & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 and Bhupinder Singh v.

Unitech Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 321).

17

29. This Court has also held that the maxim actus curiae

neminem gravabit will apply in such a scenario, and orders of

restitution can be passed directing the party which obtained the

advantage to compensate the party which suffered the

disadvantage (See Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath

Narichania & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 437).

30. Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, we

find the following. The vacant seat ordered could not be filled

because by the time the Writ Petitions were disposed of, the

counselling had concluded and the cut-off date for admissions were

also over. The colleges will have to carry that vacant seat for the

entire duration of the MBBS Course. In the first case, the Writ

Petition was dismissed. Though, in the second case also, the Writ

Petition was dismissed ultimately at the student’s behest, the High

Court order was set aside and the student was accommodated for

the succeeding academic year. The fact remains that even in the

case of the second appellant herein (RKDF Homeopathy Medical

College), the seat could not be filled and continued to remain

18 vacant. The colleges have been prejudiced for no fault of theirs. In

both cases, the Writ Petitions were disposed of after the admissions

deadlines were over.

31. Ordering an additional seat in the succeeding academic year

is not an option, in view of the pronouncement of this Court

referred to hereinabove. Even in the S. Krishna Sradha (supra),

the exception carved out was to create an additional seat where the

student was prejudiced. In this case, it is the college which has been

prejudiced. The prejudice is because, with the seat remaining

vacant for the entire duration of the course, to that extent they will

be deprived of the fees, while their expenditure will remain same.

32. In the special facts of the case and considering that it is a case

of one seat in each college, we feel that ends of justice will be

served if we grant liberty to the appellant colleges to make a

representation to the Fee Fixation Committee/Fee Fixation

Authority of the State highlighting the vacancy caused due to the

interim order of the High Court. If such a representation is made,

the Fee Fixation Committee/Fee Fixation Authority shall, while

19 fixing the fees for college (for future batches) reckon the deficit in

fees that has resulted due to the single vacant seat and fix the fees

by adding such amount to the total fees proposed to be fixed which

will restitute the colleges monetarily. Considering that it is a single

seat and since the fee will be spread over for a period of five years,

the financial impact on whom the burden will fall will be marginal,

in proportion to the total fee payable. On the current facts, we find

that this is the best possible option, to neutralize the effect of the

interim orders which have operated to the prejudice of the colleges.

33. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, we partly

allow the appeals and direct that the appellant colleges will be at

liberty to make a representation to the Fee Fixation Committee/Fee

Fixation Authority pointing out their grievance, as set out above,

and the Fee Fixation Committee/Fee Fixation Authority shall pass

appropriate orders in terms of the holding rendered in this

judgment.

20

34. The appeals are partly allowed in the above terms. No order

as to costs.

………........................J. [B.R. GAVAI]

……….........................J. [K. V. VISWANATHAN]

New Delhi;

7th November, 2024.

21