S. KRISHNA SRADHA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & Ors.

granted to a candidate in the very academic year, the court can mould the relief and direct the admission to be granted in the next academic year by directing to increase the number of seats as considered appropriate in the case– In such eventuality, if the management was found at fault, the Court may direct to reduce the number of seats in the management quota of that year– Grant of compensation could be additional remedy but not substitute for restitutional remedies – Decision in Jasmine Kaur case or any other decisions contrary to the above stand overruled while, that in the case of Asha is affirmed to the aforesaid extent – Constitution of India – Arts.14, 19, 21. Constitution of India – Arts.14, 19, 21 – Violation of, in case of illegal denial of admission – Discussed. Answering the reference, the Court HELD:

The right to equal and fair treatment is a component of Article 14 of the Constitution. As held by Supreme Court Asha that a transparent and fair procedure is the duty of every legal authority connected with admissions. In such cases, denial of fair treatment to the candidate would not only violate his/her right under Article 14 but would seriously jeopardize his/ her right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A natural corollary of declaring that an administrative act more particularly the denial of admission illegally and for no fault of a candidate/student violates principles of Article 14 is that the citizen injured must be put back to his/her original position. In that sense, the primary relief is restitutionary. For a meritorious student seeking admission in medical course is very important in the life of student/candidate and denial of admission to a meritorious candidate though no fault of his/her violates his/her fundamental rights. In case of medical admissions, even the restitutionary remedy of providing a seat in the subsequent year would lead to loss of one full academic year to a meritorious candidate, which cannot be compensated in real terms. Thus denial of admission in medical course to a meritorious candidate for no fault of his/her and though he/she has approached the Court in time and despite the same not granting any just and equitable relief would be denial of justice. The view taken by this Court in S. KRISHNA SRADHA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. Jasmine Kaur that the only relief which can be granted to such a candidate would be the compensation only is not good law and cannot be accepted. Even granting a relief to such a candidate/ student in the next academic year and to accommodate him/her in the next year and in the sanctioned intake may even affect the right of some other candidate/student seeking admission in the next academic year and that too for no fault of his/her. Therefore, in the exceptional and in the rarest of rare cases and in case where all the conditions stipulated in paragraph 33.3 in the case of Jasmine Kaur are satisfied, the Court can grant exceptional relief to the candidate of granting admission even after the cut off date is over. [Para 8.2][110-A-H; 111-A]

The reference is answered as under: (i) That in a case where candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and without any delay and that the question is with respect to the admission in medical course all the efforts shall be made by the concerned court to dispose of the proceedings by giving priority and at the earliest. (ii) 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.

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

2. Having noticed the conflict between the pronouncement of this Court in Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma UHS1 and Chandigarh Admn. vs. Jasmine Kaur2, the aforesaid issue is referred to a larger Bench.

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 of the appellant for reservation in the sports and game category for admission into MBBS Course, she was denied due priority in admission into MBBS Course. Therefore, the appellant immediately approached the High Court seeking admission in the reserved quota of sports and games category. However, it was found that at the time the petition was heard, the Academic Session for the year in question already commenced from 01.09.2015 and as per the decision of this Court the last date for admission would be 30.09.2015, the High Court considering the decision of this Court in the case Jasmine Kaur (Supra) observed that no direction can be issued to the appellant for grant of admission for the Academic Session 2015-16. However, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra), the High Court granted compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. It is required to be noted that the High Court came to a categorical and unequivocal conclusion that the appellant was entitled to get priority. It was also found that the appellant was more meritorious than others on the basis of the marks obtained. However, the High Court denied the admission solely on the ground that time limit has expired. The High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra). In the case of Asha (Supra) this Court held that in rarest of rare cases, when the Court returns the finding that (i) no fault is attributable to the candidate; (ii) the candidate has