S. Gunasekaran vs The Under Secretary To Govt

2024 INSC 1018 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11835 of 2023)

S. GUNASEKARAN …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVT. AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of peculiar facts and

circumstances.

3. In the admission process for the Academic Year 2022-

23, the appellant herein had participated on the basis of the

prospectus that was available on the website of Respondent

No.3/Institution. Question No.37 and answer thereto reads

thus:

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

“Q. No.37: Who are eligible for “Exit with Forfeiture” NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2024.12.20 10:40:10 IST Reason:

option?

1 Ans:- a) Candidate who has been allotted a seat in

Round-1 but does not report at the college may exit

with Forfeiture. (i.e. The refundable security fee will

not be refunded in such a case).

b) Candidate who has been allotted a seat in

Round-2 but does not report at the college may exit

with Forfeiture. (i.e. The refundable security fee will

not be refunded in such a case).

c) Round 1 candidate who has not been upgraded

in Round II may resign his seat allotted in Round-1

within two days of Round-2 result announcement.”

4. In the first round of counselling, the appellant herein

was allotted a seat in the M.D. (Endocrinology) in Respondent

No.4/College. Accordingly, the appellant took admission in

the Respondent No.4/College and joined the course on 14th

April, 2022.

5. For the second round of counselling, the result was

notified on 26th April 2022, in which the appellant did not get

any upgradation. Therefore, he resigned from the said seat

immediately on the said date. Indisputably, the

communication addressed by the appellant is received by

2 Respondent No.4/College on 26th April 2022 i.e. on the same

day. However, insofar as the communication to Respondent

Nos.1 to 3 is concerned, though the appellant has placed on

record E-Mail dated 26th April 2022, it is the contention of

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 that they were not aware about the

resignation of the appellant till 30th April 2022.

6. It is to be noted that in the meantime, the prospectus

was amended on 20th April 2022 and question No.37 and the

answer thereto were modified as under:

“Q. No.37: Who are eligible for “Exit with Forfeiture”

option?

Ans:- a) Candidate who has been allotted a seat in

Round-1 but does not report at the college may exit

with Forfeiture. (i.e. The refundable security fee will

not be refunded in such a case).

b) Candidate who has been allotted a seat in

Round-2 but does not report at the college may exit

with Forfeiture. (i.e. The refundable security fee will

not be refunded in such a case).”

3

7. On resignation, the respondent No.4/College invoked a

clause in the bond and asked the appellant to pay a penalty

of Rs.30 Lacs and also directed that till the said amount is

paid, his documents would not be released.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the learned

Single Judge of the Madras High Court challenging the

decision of Respondent No.4/college, however, the petition

was dismissed. An appeal carried thereagainst also came to

be dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Being

aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

9. Heard Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellant, Smt. Aishwarya Bhati, learned

Additional Solicitor General, appearing for Respondent Nos.1

to 3 and Shri Krishna Srinivasan, learned Senior Counsel

and Shri E.R. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for

Respondent No.4.

10. As already stated hereinabove, the present appeal arises

out of peculiar facts and circumstances, wherein the

appellant was allotted a seat on 8th April 2022 and joined the

course on 14th April 2022. In view of answer (c) to question

No.37 in the original prospectus, if the appellant was not

4 upgraded in round 2, he could have resigned from the seat

allotted in round 1, if such resignation was sent within two

days of the announcement of the result of round 1.

Indisputably, the appellant’s resignation is within two days

from the date of declaration of result of round 2.

11. We, therefore, find that the present situation has arisen

due to the confusion created by the two different answers

given to question no.37 in the original prospectus which was

initially in vogue on 8th April 2022 and the second one which

was notified on 20th April, 2022. No doubt that the appellant

also ought to have been more diligent. When he was

resigning from a prestigious seat of M.D. (Endocrinology)

from a highly reputed institution like the Respondent No.4,

he should have checked the latest position on the website of

Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

12. However, we find that the appellant needs to be given an

allowance in the present matter, inasmuch as his decision

was largely affected on account of answer no. (c) to question

No.37, in the original prospectus.

13. We find that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 ought to have

been more diligent in notifying a final prospectus before the

5 commencement of the admission process. The amendment

to the prospectus when the process of admission was

underway has created an unfortunate situation like the

present one.

14. It is clear from the communications placed on record

that the respondents/Authorities were at least aware about

the appellant’s resignation on 30th April 2022. It is not in

dispute that even after that date in the peculiar facts and

circumstances on account of covid situation, Respondent

Nos.1 to 3 had filled in unfilled posts in the mop-up round.

Had the respondent Nos.1 to 3 acted diligently, the seat

which lapsed could have been filled by a meritorious student.

We find that on account of the casual approach of

Respondent Nos.1 to 3, one precious seat in one of the most

reputed colleges in the country, i.e. Respondent No.4/College

has gone waste.

15. In any case, we find that the present case is not the one

wherein the entire blame would be on the appellant. The

appellant has unfortunately acted on the representation

made to him in the original prospectus. The later amendment

to it has created confusion.

6

16. Shri Krishna Srinivasan, learned Senior Counsel, fairly

stated that Respondent No.4/College is not an institution,

which is interested in money. He submits that the institute

charges nominal fees from its students.

17. We place on record our appreciation for the grace shown

by Respondent No.4/College.

18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we could

have saddled the responsibilities on Respondent Nos.1 to 3

and directed them to pay the penalty to respondent No.4.

However, since Shri Krishna Srinivasan, learned Senior

Counsel, has shown graciousness, we refrain from doing so.

19. At the same time, we find that the appellant is also

guilty of contributory negligence. However, taking into

consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we

find that instead of paying additional penalty of Rs.30 Lacs,

the forfeiture of the amount of Rs.4,06,749.60 already

deposited by the appellant (Rs.2,06,749.60 with Respondent

No.4/College and Rs.2,00,000/- by Respondent No.4/College

with Respondent No.2/Director General of Health Service for

the admission of the appellant) shall subserve the ends of

7 justice.

20. We clarify that the order is passed in the peculiar facts

and circumstances of the case and will not be treated as a

precedent in any other matter.

21. We therefore modify the order passed by the learned

Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. We

direct that the appellant would be liable to pay a penalty of

Rs.4,06,749.60, which has already been deposited, as above.

22. The Respondent No.4/College shall forfeit the amount of

Rs.2,06,749.60 deposited with it by the appellant.

Respondent No.2 shall refund a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, within

a period of two weeks, deposited by Respondent No.4/College

with it back to Respondent No.4/College as a part of

contribution of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 towards the

negligence.

23. Needless to state that the Respondent No.4/College

shall release all the documents of the appellant within a

period of two weeks from today.

24. Shri Krishna Srinivasan, learned Senior Counsel,

further states that Respondent No.4/College is not interested

8 in keeping the penalty and the College will donate the said

amount of Rs.4,06,749.60 to the Missionaries of Charity,

Kolkata. We again place on record the kind gesture and

graciousness shown by Respondent No.4/College through the

learned senior counsel appearing for it.

25. With the above observations and directions, the appeal

is disposed of.

26. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..............................J. (B.R. GAVAI)

..............................J. (K.V. VISWANATHAN)

NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 17, 2024.

9