MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER versus AKRITI SHARMA AND OTHERS on 19 September 2022

MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR UNIVERSITY ANDANOTHER

v.

AKRITI SHARMA AND OTHERS

(Civil Appeal No. 6809 of 2022)

SEPTEMBER 19, 2022

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDHIMA KOHLI, JJ.]

Education/Educational Institution : NEET UG 2021 – Afterthe completion of two rounds of counseling of NEET 2021, secondrespondent, University of Himachal Pradesh, issued a schedule forconducting the mop up round for MBBS/ BDS courses – Appellant,a private state university in Himachal Pradesh, issued anadvertisement for conducting the mop up round of counselling fromNEET qualified candidates – Second respondent forwarded to theappellant a list of students who were eligible for admission underthe state quota, but were admitted in the management quota in thefirst and second rounds of counseling along with the letter statingthat these students may be considered for being shifted to the statequota if no students with more marks in NEET had applied in themop up round – Writ petition was filed by the first respondent, amedical student, before the High Court for redrawing the merit listfor admission to the MBBS degree in the mop up round of counselingfor the general category under the state quota, which was allowed– On appeal, held: Clause 3 of the prospectus stipulates that in aschedule for the mop up round, eligible candidates would be entitledto fill up fresh choices/ preferences in respect of the course, collegeand quota online – Shifting for up-gradation of a course and quotafrom private dental colleges to government dental colleges and vice-versa in order of merit-cum-choices/ preferences has to be allowed– Clause 4 of the prospectus provides that students belonging toHimachal Pradesh who were admitted under the management quotain private medical/dental colleges will also be convertedautomatically from the management quota to the state quota in thecolleges concerned against vacant/drop out seats, if any, in orderof merit – First respondent admittedly ranked higher in merit thanthe fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents, therefore, entitled to

A

B

CDEF

GH

Aadmission in terms of the provisions of clause 3 – However, theadmissions for the MBBS degree courses were concluded on 25March 2022 –By the time the High Court decided the issue, theadmissions had already been concluded and the last prescribeddate for admission was over – The prescribed intake capacity ofthe medical college of the appellants is 150 students – TheBconsequence of the direction of the High Court to redraw the meritlist and grant admission to the first respondent increases the intakeof the college to 151 seats but the one student who would be thelowest in merit would have to give way for the admission which isdirected to the first respondent – As already 5 months of the firstCsession for the MBBS course have been completed, hence, directionof the High Court to grant admission to the first respondent cannotbe acceded – However, compensation granted to first respondent.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

Conclusion

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Clause 3 of the prospectus stipulates that afterDthe completion of the first and second rounds of counselling, aschedule for the mop up round shall be issued by the universityand the online counselling form would be made available.Candidates who are eligible for participating in the mop up roundhave to fill up fresh choices/ preferences in respect of the course,Ecollege and quota online. Shifting for up-gradation of a courseand quota from private dental colleges to government dentalcolleges and government/ private dental colleges to MMMCSolan and government dental colleges/ MMMC Solan togovernment medical colleges in order of merit-cum-choices/preferences has to be allowed. The provisions of clause 3 areFabundantly clear. The first respondent admittedly ranked higherin merit than the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents. She wastherefore clearly entitled to admission in terms of the provisionsof clause 3. Clause 4 of the prospectus provides that studentsbelonging to Himachal Pradesh who were admitted under theGmanagement quota in private medical/dental colleges will alsobe converted automatically from the management quota to thestate quota in the colleges concerned against vacant/drop outseats, if any, in order of merit. As the High Court has correctlyobserved, clause 4 in its plain terms applies to vacant/drop outseats which would necessarily refer to the position as it obtainsH

after the mop up round of counselling is completed. Hence, theinterpretation which has been placed by the High Court on clauses3 and 4 of the prospectus cannot be faulted. [Paras 17 and18][1123-E-H; 1124-A-B]

2. In the instant proceedings, the High Courtunderstandably held that the first respondent was wrongfullydenied admission in the medical college run by the appellants.However, the admissions for the MBBS degree courses wereconcluded on 25 March 2022 for the academic session 2021-2022.Undoubtedly, there were no laches on the part of the firstrespondent in moving the High Court since she had instituted awrit petition on 29 March 2022. Nonetheless, by the time theHigh Court decided the issue, the admissions had already beenconcluded and the last prescribed date for admission was over.[Para 22][1126-F-G]

3. The fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents who were thethree students who were upgraded in terms of clause 4 of theprospectus were impleaded as parties to the proceedings. Theissue however does not rest only with these three students. Theprescribed intake capacity of the medical college of the appellantsis 150 students. The consequence of the direction of the HighCourt to redraw the merit list and grant admission to the firstrespondent gives rise to certain unfeasible outcomes. The totalstrength of the students admitted for the MBBS course for theacademic session 2021-2022 would stand increased to 151students and one of the three students among the fifth, sixth andseventh respondents would be reverted to the managementquota, but the matter would not rest there. Once the intake ofthe college increases to 151 seats after the admission of the firstrespondent, one student who would be the lowest in merit wouldhave to give way for the admission which is directed to the firstrespondent. That student would not have been impleaded as aparty to the proceedings before the High Court. Compoundedwith the above position is the fact that five months of the firstsession for the MBBS degree course for the academic year 2021-2022 have been completed and the admitted students are pursuingtheir studies. In this view of the matter, it may not be possible forthis Court to accede to the direction of the High Court for the A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Agrant of admission to the first respondent. The alternativesubmission which has been urged cannot also be acceded tobecause it would not be appropriate for this Court to direct thatadmission be granted to the first respondent against the seatsavailable for the ensuing academic year 2022-2023. Those seatsshould be filled on a competitive basis in accordance with theBgoverning prospectus. [Para 23][1127-A-E]

4. The first respondent cannot be left without any remedy.She has suffered though she ranked higher than the fifth, sixthand seventh respondents in merit in the NEET-UG 2021. Shehas been deprived of the admission to which she was entitledCunder clause 3 of the prospectus by an erroneous interpretation.Although the first respondent is currently pursuing her BDScourse in a government dental college, she aspires to a seat forthe MBBS degree course. The loss of one full academic year ofthe MBBS degree course can only be partially compensated inDterms of money. However, compensation must be provided tothe first respondent and she cannot be left in the lurch havinglost a seat for admission for the MBBS degree course. [Para24][1127-F-H]

Asha v. Pt. B. D. Sharma University of Health SciencesE(2012) 7 SCC 389 : [2012] 6 SCR 876; S. KrishnaSradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2020) 17 SCC 465: [2019] 15 SCR 93 and National Medical Commissionv. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi 2020 SCC OnLine SC992 – relied on.

FPradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654 :[1984] 3 SCR 942; Association of Management ofUnaided Private Medical and Dental College v. PraveshNiyantran Samiti (2005) 13 SCC 704 and Priya Guptav. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433 : [2012] 5SCR 768 – referred to.

G

Case Law Reference

[1984] 3 SCR 942referred toPara 15(2005) 13 SCC 704referred toPara 15

H

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6809of 2022.

B

From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2022 of the High Courtof Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in C.W.P. No.1861 of 2022.

Aseem Mehrotra, Ms. Deeksha, Rajeev Singh, Advs. for theAppellants.

C

M. C. Dhingra, Gaurav Dhingra, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. Leave granted.

D

2. The appeal arises from a judgment dated 2 August 2022 of aDivision Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.

3. The first appellant is a private state university in HimachalPradesh established under the Maharishi Markandeshwar University(Establishment and Regulation) Act 2010. The first appellant runs theMaharishi Markandeshwar Medical College and Hospital at Kumarhatti,District Solan. The medical college has a prescribed intake of 150 seatsfor admission to the MBBS degree course as approved by the NationalMedical Commission[1].

E

4. The first respondent is medical student currently pursuing herBDS course in a government dental college. The second respondent,Atal Medical and Research University, Himachal Pradesh, issued aprospectus for conducting centralized counselling for MBBS/ BDScourses based on the order of merit in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test[2] 2021 for the undergraduate medical courses. The firstrespondent appeared in NEET-UG 2021 and secured 456 out of 720marks with a rank of 1,26,537. On 29 January 2022, the secondrespondent issued a schedule of admission for the MBBS/ BDS courses F

G

1 “NMC”

2 “NEET”

H

Afor academic session 2021-2022. The first respondent secured admissionfor the BDS course in Bhojia Dental College, Nalagarh and joined thecourse on 02 February 2022. In the second round of counselling, the firstrespondent secured admission for the BDS course in the HP GovernmentDental College and Hospital, Shimla under the state quota.

B5. After the completion of the second round of counselling, themedical college of the first appellant had 44 vacancies which wereopen for mop up counselling for admission to the first year MBBSdegree course. Of these 44 seats, 4 were lying vacant under the statequota out of which 3 were under the general quota and one under theScheduled Tribes quota. On 15 March 2022, the second respondentCissued a schedule for conducting the mop up round for MBBS/ BDScourses. The appellant issued an advertisement for conducting the mopup round of counselling from NEET qualified candidates. Counsellingwas to take place from 10 am on 25 March 2022. On 24 March 2022,the second respondent forwarded to the appellants a list of studentsDwho were eligible for admission under the state quota, but were admittedin the management quota in the first and second rounds of counselling.The letter stated that these students may be considered for being shiftedto the state quota if no students with more marks in NEET had appliedin the mop up round.E6. The first respondent filed an application with the medical collegeof the appellants together with the registration charges for admission tothe MBBS course in the state quota. According to the appellants, thestate quota seats in the general category were “automatically filled up”by upgrading the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents from themanagement quota to the state quota on 25 March 2022. The fifth, sixth,Fand seventh respondents secured 440, 441, and 442 marks respectively,and were lower in merit to the first respondent, who secured 456 marks.Thereafter, the management seats were also filled up. Therefore, thefirst respondent could not secure an MBBS seat under state quota in themedical college run by the appellants.G

7. A writ petition was instituted by the first respondent before theHigh Court on 29 March 2022 for redrawing the merit list for admissionto the MBBS degree course in the mop up round of counselling held on25 March 2022 for the general category seats under the state quota.The appellants filed replies. During the pendency of the proceedings,Hthe fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents, who were students originally admitted to the management quota but upgraded to the state quota, wereimpleaded as parties on 11 May 2022.

8. The High Court allowed the petition by the impugned judgmentand order dated 2 August 2022. It observed that the first respondent hadthe first right of admission to the medical college run by the appellantsby virtue of securing higher marks than the fifth, sixth, and seventhrespondents. The High Court further held that students admitted undermanagement quota can be considered for upgradation to the state quotaonly if no student with more marks in NEET applied in the mop-up round.The High Court concluded that:

“In view of the above discussion, the instant petition is allowed.Admission of respondents 6 to 8 in state quota general categoryseats in MMMG on their upgradation from management quota byignoring the merit of other applicants including the petitioner inmop-up round is held to be bad in law being against the expressconditions of prospectus. Consequently, respondents No. 1 to 3are directed to redraw the merit list of admission to MBBS coursein MMMC in respect of the mop up round counselling held, on25.03.2022 against general category seats of State quota and aftersuch redrawal of merit list, admit the petitioner to MBBS coursein MMMC, Kumarhatti, District Solan, H.P., commencingacademic year 2021-2022 forthwith, in case she finds place inmerit so redrawn.”

9. The crux of the controversy turns on the interpretation of clauses3, 4 and 9(e) of the Common/ Centralized Counselling Prospectus foradmission to MBBS and BDS courses. The relevant clauses of theprospectus are extracted below:

“3. After completion of 1st & 2nd round of counselling, the schedulefor Mop-up round of counselling shall be issued by the Universityand the online counselling form shall be made available on theUniversity website www.amruhp.ac.in. Candidates who areeligible for participating in the mop-up round on online counsellingare required to fill up fresh choices/preferences of course, collegeand quota in the online application form within stipulated periodfor provisional allocation against vacant seats along with requisiteamount as prescribed for token amount of fee, as applicable. Ifcandidate is satisfied with his/her seat allocated during the previous A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Arounds of online counselling, he/she is not required to participatein the subsequent round of online counselling. No inter-se-shiftingfrom one Government Medical College to another Medical collegeshall be allowed during the mop up Round of Counselling as perMCI/NMC guidelines. However, shifting for upgradation of courseand quota from private Dental Colleges to Govt. Dental CollegeBand Govt./private dental colleges to MMMC Solan andGovernment dental college/MMMC Solan to Govt. MedicalColleges in order of merit-cum-choices/preferences of the course,college and quota shall be allowed.

A

Note: (i) Candidates who had not participated / allocated seats inCthe 1st & 2nd rounds of counselling can also participate in themop-up rounds(s) of counselling as per their AMRU merit Rank.

(ii) Candidates are advised to remain in touch with the AMRUwebsites regularly for any change in the counselling/ admissionprocess as well as latest updating upto the last closing date ofDadmission and University shall in no way be responsible for non-communication on this account. For any query, please contact onTel. No. 01905-243962, 243967, 292102.”

4. The Himachali bonafide candidates admitted under managementquota in the private Medical/Dental colleges will also be convertedEautomatically from management quota to state quota in the collegesconcerned against vacant/drop-out seats, if any, in order of merit,as the case, may be, subject to fulfillment of the eligibility criteriaas prescribed for State Quota seats.

9(e). After 2nd round of Common/Centralized Counselling, theFprivate medical college (MMMCH, Solan) shall be allowed to fill-up the left-out seats under State/ Management/ NRI Quota atinstitution level by making wide publicity amongst eligiblecandidates. However, AMRU, Ner Chowk, Mandi will forwardthe waiting list of 2nd round of online counselling with their optionGto the Principal, MMMCH, Solan in order to fill-up the vacantseats strictly in order of merit-cum-choice of the candidates. TheAMRU, Ner Chowk, Mandi may also upload the aforesaid waitinglist on website www.amruph.ac.in.”

10. Mr Aseem Mehrotra, counsel appearing on behalf of theappellants submits that the mop up round of counselling was carried outH

strictly in accordance with clause 4 of the prospectus. According to theappellant, the list which was sent by the second respondent did not includethe name of the first respondent. Hence, the appellant automaticallyupgraded the names of the three candidates, namely, the fifth, sixth, andseventh respondents, from the management quota to the state generalquota seats. Moreover, the college also filled up the remainingmanagement quota/ NRI seats which were vacant. Hence, on 25 March2022 all the state quota seats got filled up. The first respondent, it hasbeen submitted, instituted a writ petition thereafter on 29 March 2022for redrawing the merit for admission, at which point of time, all thestate quota seats were filled up. Mr Mehrotra submitted that in theabsence of an interim order of the High Court, the appellants proceededto grant admissions to the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents.

11. Mr Aseem Mehrotra further submitted that the first session ofthe first year of the MBBS degree course has been completed and thestudents have completed their studies over a period of four months.Moreover, it has been submitted that in the event that the order of theHigh Court is allowed to stand, one student would have to be oustedfrom among the admitted students who is not a party before this Court.This, it has been submitted, would be the necessary consequence becausewhile one of the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents would be revertedto the management quota, the total number of admissions in the institutioncannot exceed 150. The submission is that the grant of admission to thefirst respondent would involve the appellants crossing the prescribedintake of 150 seats, as a consequence of which one student who islowest in merit would have to be ousted without the student being aparty to the proceedings.

12. In the alternative, it has been submitted that if this Court wereto accept the correctness of the judgment of the High Court, the appellantsmay be permitted to keep one seat vacant for the first respondent in theensuing academic year 2022-2023, subject to approval of the NMC.

13. On the other hand, it has been urged by Mr M C Dhingra,counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent that there wasabsolutely no delay on the part of the first respondent in seeking accessto her remedies before the High Court. The submission is that theappellants were not justified in relying upon the provisions of clause 4 ofthe prospectus for the up-gradation of Himachali students admitted underthe management quota. Counsel urged that the provisions of clause 3 of A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe prospectus had to be operated first and it is only if any seat remainedvacant as a result that clause 4 could be operated.

14. Before the High Court, the second respondent has supportedthe case of the first respondent. The second respondent referred to itsletter dated 24 March 2022 where it was advised that students admittedBunder management quota in the first and second rounds of counsellingcould be admitted to the state quota provided that no student with moremarks in NEET applied in the mop-up round. On 28 March 2022, thesecond respondent also sent an advisory to the appellants to review theconversion of management quota seats to the state quota in the generalcategory. The relevant part of the advisory is extracted below:C

“We have received a representation regarding incorrect conversionof management quota seats to HP quota. You are requested toreview the allocation keeping in mind the directions issued by usvide letter No. AMRU/COE/Counselling/2021/-3083 dated 24[th]March, 2022, in which it was clearly mentioned that the candidatesDadmitted under management quota may be shifted to vacant HPquota seat rank wise if no students with more ranks in NEETapplies in Mop-Up round and also refer the decision of the Hon’bleHigh Court of H.P. vide CWP No. 2160/2020 decided on 10.7.2020titled Gunjan Ahuja & Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &Eothers.”

15. This Court has consistently held that merit must be the primaryconsideration for admission to medical colleges.[3] In Asha v. Pt. B. D.Sharma University of Health Sciences[4], a two-judge bench of thisCourt held that the rule of merit for preference of courses and collegesFshould be strictly followed by all stakeholders and authorities. It furtherobserved that rule of merit is defeated by inefficient, inaccurate orimproper methods of admission to medical colleges:

21. … the criteria for selection has to be merit alone. In fact,merit, fairness and transparency are the ethos of the process forGadmission to such courses. It will be a travesty of the schemeformulated by this Court and duly notified by the States, if the 3 Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654; Association of Management ofUnaided Private Medical and Dental College v. Pravesh Niyantran Samiti (2005) 13SCC 704; Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433H4 (2012) 7 SCC 389

Rule of Merit is defeated by inefficiency, inaccuracy or impropermethods of admission. There cannot be any circumstance wherethe rule of merit can be compromised. … It will be useful to referto the view consistently taken by this Court that merit alone is thecriteria for such admissions and circumvention of merit is not onlyimpermissible but is also an abuse of the process of law.

16. The High Court in the course of the impugned judgment hasunderscored the importance of merit and of a fair procedure in completingadmissions to medical courses. The High Court has held that clause 3 ofthe Prospectus deals with a situation where seats are available as aresult of the mop up round which is a continuation of the admissionprocess, whereas clause 4 is available only in respect of vacant/ dropout seats which would be the position when the entire process ofcounselling, including the mop up round is completed. Hence, the HighCourt rejected the contention of the appellants that the up-gradationwhich was granted to the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents wasjustified in terms of the prospectus for admission. In giving relief to thefirst respondent, the High Court held that she had been denied admissionto the MBBS degree course by the arbitrary action of the appellants. Inother words, but for the wrong which was committed by the appellants,the first respondent would have been entitled to admission.

17. Clause 3 of the prospectus stipulates that after the completionof the first and second rounds of counselling, a schedule for the mop upround shall be issued by the university and the online counselling formwould be made available. Candidates who are eligible for participatingin the mop up round have to fill up fresh choices/ preferences in respectof the course, college and quota online. Shifting for up-gradation of acourse and quota from private dental colleges to government dentalcolleges and government/ private dental colleges to MMMC Solan andgovernment dental colleges/ MMMC Solan to government medicalcolleges in order of merit-cum-choices/ preferences has to be allowed.The provisions of clause 3 are abundantly clear. The first respondentadmittedly ranked higher in merit than the fifth, sixth, and seventhrespondents. She was therefore clearly entitled to admission in terms ofthe provisions of clause 3.

18. Clause 4 of the prospectus provides that students belonging toHimachal Pradesh who were admitted under the management quota inprivate medical/dental colleges will also be converted automatically from AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Athe management quota to the state quota in the colleges concerned againstvacant/drop out seats, if any, in order of merit. As the High Court hascorrectly observed, clause 4 in its plain terms applies to vacant/drop outseats which would necessarily refer to the position as it obtains after themop up round of counselling is completed. Hence, the interpretation whichhas been placed by the High Court on clauses 3 and 4 of the prospectusBcannot be faulted.

19. The next question which arises for our consideration is whetherthe High Court was right in directing the appellants to redraw the meritlist of admission to the MBBS course for granting admission to the firstrespondent for the academic session 2021-2022.C

20. In S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh[5], a three-judge bench of this Court considered the nature of relief that can begranted to a meritorious student who is denied admission illegally by theauthorities. This Court observed that denial of admission to a meritoriousstudent for no fault of theirs would be violative of their fundamentalDrights under the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Court held that theprimary relief must be in the nature of restitution and the courts can, inrare and exceptional circumstances, grant admission to the student inthe same academic year even after the last prescribed date for admission.The relevant part of the decision is extracted below:E13.

13. In light of the discussion/observations made hereinabove, ameritorious candidate/student who has been denied an admissionin MBBS course illegally or irrationally by the authorities for nofault of his/her and who has approached the Court in time and soas to see that such a meritorious candidate may not have to sufferFfor no fault of his/her, we answer the reference as under:

13.1. That in a case where candidate/student has approachedthe court at the earliest and without any delay and that the questionis with respect to the admission in medical course all the effortsshall be made by the court concerned to dispose of the proceedingsGby giving priority and at the earliest.

13.2. Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that thereis no fault attributable to the candidate and the candidate haspursued his/her legal right expeditiously without any delay and H5 (2020) 17 SCC 465

there is fault only on the part of the authorities and/or there isapparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related principlesin the process of grant of admission which would violate the rightof equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates andif the time schedule prescribed — 30th September, is over, to dothe complete justice, the Court under exceptional circumstancesand in rarest of rare cases direct the admission in the same yearby directing to increase the seats, however, it should not be morethan one or two seats and such admissions can be ordered withinreasonable time i.e. within one month from 30th September i.e.cut-off date and under no circumstances, the Court shall orderany admission in the same year beyond 30th October. However,it is observed that such relief can be granted only in exceptionalcircumstances and in the rarest of rare cases. In case of such aneventuality, the Court may also pass an order cancelling theadmission given to a candidate who is at the bottom of the meritlist of the category who, if the admission would have been givento a more meritorious candidate who has been denied admissionillegally, would not have got the admission, if the Court deems it fitand proper, however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to astudent whose admission is sought to be cancelled.

13.3. In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of admissioncan be granted to such a candidate in the very academic year andwherever it finds that the action of the authorities has been arbitraryand in breach of the rules and regulations or the prospectusaffecting the rights of the students and that a candidate is foundto be meritorious and such candidate/student has approached thecourt at the earliest and without any delay, the court can mouldthe relief and direct the admission to be granted to such a candidatein the next academic year by issuing appropriate directions bydirecting to increase in the number of seats as may be consideredappropriate in the case and in case of such an eventuality and if itis found that the management was at fault and wrongly deniedthe admission to the meritorious candidate, in that case, the Courtmay direct to reduce the number of seats in the managementquota of that year, meaning thereby the student/students who was/were denied admission illegally to be accommodated in the nextacademic year out of the seats allotted in the management quota.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A13.4. Grant of the compensation could be an additional remedybut not a substitute for restitutional remedies. Therefore, in anappropriate case the Court may award the compensation to sucha meritorious candidate who for no fault of his/her has to lose onefull academic year and who could not be granted any relief ofadmission in the same academic year.B13.5. It is clarified that the aforesaid directions pertain to admissionin MBBS course only and we have not dealt with postgraduatemedical course.

21. Further, this Court on numerous occasions has held that courtsCcannot issue directions to increase seats beyond the sanctioned strengthdecided by the NMC.[6] In National Medical Commission v.Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi[7], a two-judge bench of this Court wastasked with deciding the correctness of the judgment of the High Courtdirecting the NMC to create an additional seat and grant admission toDthe respondent student, who was illegally denied admission to a post-graduate medical course. This Court disagreed with the decision of theHigh Court by holding that courts cannot issue directions to create seatsand increase annual intake capacity beyond those sanctioned by theNMC. Further, it referred to S. Krishna Sradha (supra) to grantmonetary compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to the respondent student forEloss of one academic year and also granted her admission for the nextacademic year in the management quota of the concerned college.

22. In the instant proceedings, the High Court understandably heldthat the first respondent was wrongfully denied admission in the medicalFcollege run by the appellants. However, the admissions for the MBBSdegree courses were concluded on 25 March 2022 for the academicsession 2021-2022. Undoubtedly, there were no laches on the part of thefirst respondent in moving the High Court since she had instituted a writpetition on 29 March 2022. Nonetheless, by the time the High Courtdecided the issue, the admissions had already been concluded and theGlast prescribed date for admission was over.

6 Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka (1998) 6 SCC 131; Satyabrata Sahoo v.State of Orissa (2012) 8 SCC 203; Faiza Choudhary v. State of J&K (2012) 10 SCC149; Aneesh D Lawande v. State of Goa (2014) 1 SCC 554H7 2020 SCC OnLine SC 992

23. The fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents who were the threestudents who were upgraded in terms of clause 4 of the prospectuswere impleaded as parties to the proceedings. The issue however doesnot rest only with these three students. The prescribed intake capacityof the medical college of the appellants is 150 students. The consequenceof the direction of the High Court to redraw the merit list and grantadmission to the first respondent gives rise to certain unfeasible outcomes.The total strength of the students admitted for the MBBS course for theacademic session 2021-2022 would stand increased to 151 students andone of the three students among the fifth, sixth and seventh respondentswould be reverted to the management quota, but the matter would notrest there. Once the intake of the college increases to 151 seats afterthe admission of the first respondent, one student who would be thelowest in merit would have to give way for the admission which is directedto the first respondent. That student would not have been impleaded asa party to the proceedings before the High Court. Compounded with theabove position is the fact that five months of the first session for theMBBS degree course for the academic year 2021-2022 have beencompleted and the admitted students are pursuing their studies. In thisview of the matter, it may not be possible for this Court to accede to thedirection of the High Court for the grant of admission to the firstrespondent. The alternative submission which has been urged by MrAseem Mehrotra cannot also be acceded to because it would not beappropriate for this Court to direct that admission be granted to the firstrespondent against the seats available for the ensuing academic year2022-2023. Those seats should be filled on a competitive basis inaccordance with the governing prospectus.

24. However, we are clearly of the view that the first respondentcannot be left without any remedy. She has suffered though she rankedhigher than the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents in merit in the NEET-UG 2021. She has been deprived of the admission to which she wasentitled under clause 3 of the prospectus by an erroneous interpretation.Although the first respondent is currently pursuing her BDS course in agovernment dental college, she aspires to a seat for the MBBS degreecourse. The loss of one full academic year of the MBBS degree coursecan only be partially compensated in terms of money. However, we areclearly of the view that compensation must be provided to the firstrespondent and she cannot be left in the lurch having lost a seat foradmission for the MBBS degree course.

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

A25. On a considered view of the matter, we direct that the appellantsshall pay to the first respondent compensation quantified at Rs 10 lakhswithin a period of one month from the date of this order. Hence, for thereasons which are indicated above, we are in agreement with theinterpretation which has been placed by the High Court on the interplaybetween clauses 3 and 4 of the prospectus. However, for the reasonsBset out above, we set aside the direction of the High Court for redrawingof the merit list and to grant admission to the first respondent and substituteit with the direction that the appellants shall pay compensation quantifiedat Rs 10 lakhs to the first respondent. The compensation shall be paidwithin one month.C26. The appeal is partially allowed in the above terms.

27. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

D

Devika Gujral(Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)

Appeal partly allowed.

E

F

G

H