RIYA GEORGE v. KANNUR MEDICAL COLLEGE & Ors.

the claim is that she has lost one year of education as a result of the legal proceedings emanating from the cancellation of the admissions granted by the first respondent. Petitioner submitted that the first respondent was guilty of violating the regulations governing the process of admissions. As a result, students have had to suffer, the petitioner being one among them. Hence, present Writ Petition. Disposing of the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1. It would be inappropriate for this Court to quantify the damages in the present proceedings as the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee has issued a notice to the petitioner on 28 November 2018, fixing a hearing for the purpose of deciding upon her claim, amongst the claims of other students. The Committee, in its review order dated 29 May 2018 has already adverted to this aspect. [Paras 25, 26][16-A, B]

2. Earlier, another two Judge Bench of this Court issued directions by consent on 29 August 2018 requiring the first respondent to deposit “double the amount” of “the fees deposited by each one of 150 students” with the college. This batch of 150 students includes the petitioner. Technically, it is true that the petitioner was not a party to the earlier proceedings and that the order dated 29 August 2018 is a consent order. However, any determination by this Court in the present proceedings of the quantum of damages payable to the petitioner would be contrary to the underlying purpose and object of the order passed by the coordinate Bench. In the order dated 29 August 2018, the two Judge Bench laid down the principle – refund of double the amount of the fee – but left the exact quantification of the amount in each case to be determined by the Committee. Quantification of damages in monetary terms in the present writ petition will have a bearing on the pending proceedings before the Committee. That proceeding covers the entire batch of 150 students. Moreover, in pursuance of the order, the petitioner has received a notice from the Committee to appear in support of her claim. [Para 26][16-C-E]

3. There can be no manner of doubt that the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the loss of a valuable year which 5 A B C D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 4 S.C.R. was occasioned by the misdemeanors of the first respondent. A student who has been deprived of a valuable year in pursuing her studies, cannot be left in the lurch. It is in this background, that the explanation that the complaints made by the father of the petitioner were withdrawn only because there was an urgent need to obtain a refund of the fee, to enable the petitioner to secure admission to the Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences must be understood. The Committee has in fact recorded a finding of fact that the withdrawal was not voluntary and was occasioned by the serious impediment in receiving a refund of fees. Hence, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the principle which was formulated in the orders of this Court dated 29 August 2018 and 4 October 2018. Since the issue has been remitted back to the Committee by a coordinate bench, following the norm of judicial discipline, this Court inclined to follow the same course of action. [Para 27][16-F-H; 17-A, B] Sankalp Charitable Trust v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 487; Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353; MCI v. State of Kerala (2018) SCC Online SC 1467; The Principal, Kannur Medical College v. Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges in Kerala (Special Leave Petition (C) No 23225 of 2018) – referred to. Case Law Reference (2016) 7 SCC 487 referred to (2016) 7 SCC 353 referred to Para 2 Para 2 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1247 of 2018. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Liz Mathew, M.P. Philip, Navneet R., R. R. Kumar, Ms. Manjula Gupta, G. Prakash, Jishnu M. L., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, K. V. Mohan, Mrs. Tessy Varghese, N. M. Varghese, Advs. for the appearing parties. 6 A B C D E F G H RIYA GEORGE v. KANNUR MEDICAL COLLEGE The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The petitioner, who is a student of Medicine, has instituted these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the first respondent to compensate her for the loss of an academic year.

2. In Sankalp Charitable Trust v Union of India1, this Court issued a direction on 28 April 2016 to the effect that admissions to MBBS/ BDS courses shall be conducted through the National Eligibility-cum- Entrance Test2. On 9 August 2016, the Union government directed all States and Union Territories to conduct combined/centralised counselling for the 2016-17 MBBS admissions, consistent with the judgment of this Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State of Madhya Pradesh3.

3. The petitioner secured 97.16 percent marks in her 12th standard Board examinations. In 2016, she qualified for NEET 2016-17 with a percentile score of 94.36.

4. On 20 August 2016, the Government of Kerala directed all medical colleges to admit only students who were selected by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations4 through common counselling. A Writ Petition5 was instituted in the Kerala High Court by medical colleges for challenging this direction.

5. On 26 August 2016, the High Court issued interim directions to the effect that MBBS admissions for 2016-17 shall be conducted on the basis of NEET 2016 and that all applications shall be made online to facilitate transparency with regard to merit and the identities of student applicants. On 3 September 2016 the Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges in Kerala6 issued directions to medical colleges in the state, stating that admissions in contravention of those directions will not be registered by the Kerala University of Health Sciences.

6. On 15 September 2016, ASC cancelled all the admissions made by the first respondent (Kannur Medical College) after conducting an enquiry, on the ground that it had neither called for online applications