S. Nihaal Ahamed vs Velammal Medical College Hospital & Research Institute

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8067-8068 OF 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.3139-3140 of 2015]

S. Nihaal Ahamed .. Appellant

-vs-

The Dean, Velammal Medical College Hospital and Research Institute & Ors. .. Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8069-8070 OF 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.10354-10355 of 2015]

JUDGMENT

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Suman Wadhwa Date: 2015.09.30 17:13:53 IST

1. Leave granted.

Reason: 2

2. All these appeals have been preferred against the

common judgment dated 25.9.2014 passed by the Madurai

Bench of Madras High Court in Writ Appeal (MD)Nos. 794, 898,

921 and 923 of 2014.

3. The facts are briefly as follows: The appellants passed

Higher Secondary examination in March 2013 and submitted

application for admission to M.B.B.S. Course to the Consortium

of Tamil Nadu Private Professional Colleges Association,

affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University

which is one of the respondents herein, and both of them had

preferred the same Private Medical College which is also one of

the respondents herein, as their first choice. On 23.9.2013

results were published in which appellant-Nihaal Ahamed was

placed in Rank No. 731 and appellant-Gayathri in Rank No.

551 in the merit list. According to them, they went to the

respondent-Medical College on 24.9.2013 and sought admission

and they were directed to come after 26.9.2013. Both of them

made complaints against respondent-Medical College to the

Monitoring Committee which is one of the respondents herein 3

and the said Committee called for remarks from the Medical

College. Meanwhile the respondent-Medical College drafted

letters dated 24.9.2013 addressed to both the appellants which

were posted on 29.9.2013 directing them to appear for

counselling on 26.9.2013. The appellants received the said

letters on 1.10.2013 and 30.9.2013 respectively and

immediately approached the respondent-Medical College to allot

seats and same was refused on the ground that they did not

approach them within the stipulated time. Both the appellants

filed independent writ petitions on the file of the Madurai

Bench of Madras High Court seeking for issuance of writ of

mandamus to direct the respondent-Medical College to admit

them in the first year M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year

2013-14 in their college. Learned Single Judge heard both the

writ petitions and by common order held that the

appellants-writ petitioners were not entitled for admission in

the M.B.B.S. Course and on the other hand they are each

entitled to a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation payable by the

respondent-Medical College within a period of 8 weeks.

Challenging the denial of relief of admission, both the 4

appellants preferred independent writ appeals and challenging

the grant of compensation, the respondent-Medical College

preferred two writ appeals. The Division Bench affirmed the

view of the learned Single Judge that the appellants were not

entitled for the admission in the M.B.B.S Course and dismissed

the writ appeals preferred by them. It further held that the

appellants are not entitled for compensation and allowed the

writ appeals preferred by the respondent-Medical College.

Aggrieved by the same, appellants have preferred the present

appeals.

4. Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned senior counsel appearing for

the appellant-Nihaal Ahamed contended that the appellants

approached the respondent-Medical College on 24.9.2013 itself

and the college with a malafide intention directed them to come

after 26.9.2013 and on the complaint lodged by the appellants

with the Monitoring Committee, in order to wriggle out, the

respondent-Medical college drafted ante dated letters dated

24.9.2013 and posted it calling upon the appellants to appear

for counselling at a prior date and in fact the college had given 5

admission to students who had secured lesser marks than that

of the appellants and the appellants are entitled for the relief

sought for in the writ petitions. We also heard the submission

of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Gayathri.

Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for

the respondent-Medical College contended that the appellants

were orally told on 24.9.2013 to report on 26.9.2013 in the

college and the call letters dated 24.9.2013 were also sent and

since they were not present in the college on 26.9.2013, the

vacancies were filled up according to merit list and there is no

denial of admission to the appellants and they are not entitled

to any relief. We also heard learned counsel appearing for the

other respondents.

5. It is not in dispute the Consortium of Medical Colleges

issued a prospectus for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course and

as per the instruction therein, preference would be given to first

choice opted by the candidate. In the merit list published by

them on 23.9.2013 the names of the appellants found place at

Sl. Nos. 731 and 551 respectively. It is also not in dispute that 6

both the appellants had opted the respondent-Medical College

as their first choice. Both of them had in fact approached the

respondent-Medical College on 24.9.2013 for admission and

they were directed to come after 26.9.2013. Annoyed by the

reply they immediately sent complaints to the Monitoring

Committee which now in turn called for the remarks of the

respondent-Medical College. The learned Single Judge in his

order has observed that the respondent-Medical College

admitted the receipt of the communication from the Committee

on the very same day in the evening and there is also a specific

admission to that effect in the counter affidavit filed by them.

Thereafter the respondent-Medical College drafted letters dated

24.9.2013 directing the appellants to appear for counselling on

26.9.2013 and marked copy of the same to the Monitoring

Committee. The said letters have been posted only on

29.9.2013 as evident from the post office seal affixed on the

envelope produced by the appellants. The finding of the learned

Single Judge that the respondent-Medical College is at fault in

not sending call letters in time is based on proper appreciation

of factual matrix.

7

6. After having culled out the broad principles from the

previous decisions, this Court in the decision in Chandigarh

Administration and another Vs. Jasmine Kaur and others;

(2014) 10 SCC 521) held as follows:

“If a candidate is not selected during a particular academic year due to the fault of the institutions/authorities and in this process if the seats are filled up and the scope for granting admission is lost due to eclipse of time schedule, then under such circumstances, the candidate should not be victimized for no fault of his/her and the court may consider grant of appropriate compensation to offset the loss caused, if any.”

The appellants herein though placed in the merit list

could not secure admission due to the fault of the

respondent-Medical College. As rightly held by the High

Court they are not entitled to the relief of admission

sought for by them in the writ petition due to lapse of

time.

8 7. Reliance was placed by the appellants on the order of this

Court dated 2.9.2014 in Krina Ajay Shah and Ors. Vs. The

Secretary, Association of Management of Unaided Private

Medical and Dental Colleges, Maharashtra and ors. (SLP No.

31900 of 2013 etc). The said bunch of SLPs was filed in 2013

and the petitioners therein were students who appeared for the

entrance examination conducted by the Association of Private

Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges, Maharashtra and the

petitioners were heard together and this Court held that inspite

of the pendency of the SLPs for over a year, the State of

Maharashtra never thought it fit to file any affidavit explaining

its stand in the matter and the grievance of the petitioners was

fully justified but the petitioners cannot be granted admission

in view of the long lapse of time but they are entitled to public

law damages and awarded a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to each one of

the petitioners as public law damages. In the present case the

learned Single Judge after elaborately considering the facts and

circumstances held that the appellants-writ petitioners are

entitled to a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs each as compensation payable

by the respondent-Medical College and directed to pay within a 9

period of 8 weeks. The said direction has been erroneously

reversed by the Division Bench. In our view the order of the

learned Single Judge has to be restored.

8. In the result the appeals are partly allowed and the

impugned judgment in so far as setting aside the order of the

Single Judge awarding compensation to the appellants is, set

aside and the order of the Single Judge awarding compensation

of Rs. 3 lakhs to each of the appellants is restored alongwith

time schedule for payment.

………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal)

.

…………………J. (C. Nagappan)

New Delhi;

September 30, 2015.

10

ITEM NO.1C COURT NO.10 SECTION XII (for Jt.) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS C.A. Nos. 8067-8068/2015 @

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3139-3140/2015

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25/09/2014 in WA No. 898/2014,25/09/2014 in WA No. 923/2014 passed by the High Court Of Madras At Madurai)

S. NIHAAL AHAMED Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE DEAN VELAMMALMEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH C.A.Nos. 8069-8070/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 10354-10355/2015

Date : 30/09/2015 These petitions were called on for judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. M.Ajmal Khan,Sr.Adv. In SLP 3139-40/15 Mr. A.Lakshminarayanan,Adv.

Mr. S.C.V.Vimal Pani,Adv.

Mr. E.Mohamed Abbas,Adv.for Mr. V. Ramasubramanian,Adv.

In SLP 10354-55/15 Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,Adv.

For Respondent(s) in all matters Mr. Krishnan Venugopal,Sr.Adv.

Mrs. Yamunah Nachiar,Adv.

Mr. S. Ravi Shankar,Adv.

In all matters Mr. Gaurav Sharma,Adv.

11

Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Nagappan pronounced the judgment of this Court comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y.Eqbal and His Lordship.

Leave granted.

The Appeals are partly allowed in terms of the signed judgment.

(SUMAN WADHWA) (INDU POKHRIYAL) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER

Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file.