Supreme Court of India
RAMKRISHNA MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTREversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 845
- Decided
- 7 November 2024
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
Holding
A vacant MBBS seat cannot be carried forward or compensated by creating an additional seat in the next academic year; restitution must be achieved through fee adjustments.
Summary
The Director of Medical Education, acting on an interim order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, directed two medical colleges to keep one MBBS seat vacant for the 2023-24 academic year. The interim order was issued to protect the interests of students challenging the amendment of the Mukhyamantri Medhavi Vidyarthi Yojana scheme, but the High Court later dismissed the students' writ petitions after the counselling deadline had passed, leaving the seats vacant. The colleges sought a compensatory seat in the next academic year, arguing financial loss and underutilisation of resources. The Supreme Court held that a vacant medical seat cannot be carried forward or created in a subsequent year, as a seat has life only in the year it falls due and such interim orders must satisfy prima facie, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss criteria, which were absent. Instead of ordering an additional seat, the Court directed the colleges to seek restitution by making a representation to the State's Fee Fixation Committee to adjust fees to compensate for the loss. The appeals were therefore partly allowed, granting the colleges liberty to approach the Fee Fixation Authority for monetary restitution.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant medical colleges have made out a case for a direction to create a compensatory MBBS seat in the ensuing academic year.
- Whether the interim order directing a vacant seat complied with the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.
- Whether a vacant medical seat can be carried forward or an additional seat created in a subsequent academic year.
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the appellant-colleges made out a case for a direction to the respondent authorities to create a compensatory seat in the ensuing academic year. Headnotes† Education/Educational institutions – Medical admission seat in the ensuing academic year – Orders by the Director, Medical Education directing appellants-medical colleges to keep one MBBS seat vacant in the appellant-colleges with a direction that the said seat would not be included in the College Level Counseling Round for the academic
Subjects
Compensatory seat in ensuing academic yearCompensatory seatVacant seat in MBBSCollege Level Counseling RoundCut-off date for admissionsCryptic orderPrima facie caseBalance of convenienceIrreparable lossInterim reliefCarried forward of vacant seatCreation of additional seatHuge financial lossNational wastage of resourcesProvisional admission seatsPrinciple of restitutionMaxim actus curiae neminem gravabitOrdering additional seat in succeeding academic yearFee Fixation CommitteeFinancial impactNeutralize the effect of interim orders
Judgment
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 700 : 2024 INSC 845
Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre
v.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 12235 of 2024)
07 November 2024
[B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as to whether the appellant-colleges made out a case for
a direction to the respondent authorities to create a compensatory
seat in the ensuing academic year.
Headnotes†
Education/Educational institutions – Medical admission –
Creation of compensatory seat in the ensuing academic
year – Orders by the Director, Medical Education directing
appellants-medical colleges to keep one MBBS seat vacant in
the appellant-colleges with a direction that the said seat would
not be included in the College Level Counseling Round for the
academic year 2023-24 – Said direction issued pursuant to the
interim order passed by the High Court in writ petitions filed by
the students – Subsequently, both the writ petitions dismissed –
Thereagainst, appellants filing SLPs before this Court seeking
compensatory seat in the subsequent academic year on the
ground that since the seat was kept on hold, they were deprived
of the opportunity to fill that seat, and faced losses:
Held: Vacant seat ordered could not be filled because by the time
the writ petitions were disposed of, the counselling had concluded
and the cut-off date for admissions were also over, and the Colleges
would have to carry that vacant seat for the entire duration of the
MBBS Course – Interim order directing one seat in the counselling to
be kept vacant is a cryptic order where neither the prima facie case
nor the balance of convenience and irreparable loss aspects were
discussed – High Court wholly ignored these principles – Medical
seat has life only in the year it falls due and that too only till the
cut-off date fixed – Seat falling vacant in a particular year cannot be
carried forward or created in the succeeding year – Keeping vacant
seats results in huge financial loss to the college apart from being
a national wastage of resources – If provisional admission seats
* Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 701
Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre
v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
are not to be given casually, the said principle should also apply for
directions to keep seats vacant – Only if there is a cast iron case
for the petitioner and the petitioner is bound to succeed in cases
where the error of the authorities is so gross as to negate any other
conclusion, interim orders keeping seats vacant could be made, with
great caution and circumspection and the petitioner be directed to
provide security, to the college-institution as a guarantee in case
the matter is dismissed – Furthermore, every endeavor must be
made by the Court to dispose of the matter before the counselling
for admissions are over – Vacant seat will deprive the college of the
fees to that extent, not just for one year but for the whole course,
which could be four, five or more years – Principle of restitution is
not excluded from its application to interim orders – Court should be
mindful to neutralize the effect of wrong interim orders which they
have been persuaded to pass – Maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit
would apply, and orders of restitution can be passed directing the
party which obtained the advantage to compensate the party which
suffered the disadvantage – On facts, it is a case of one seat in each
college – To meet ends of justice, the appellant colleges granted
liberty to make a representation to the Fee Fixation Committee/
Authority of the State pointing out their grievance, which would fix
the fees for college (for future batches) as also reckon the deficit
in fees that has resulted due to the single vacant seat and fix the
fees by adding such amount to the total fees proposed to be fixed
which would restitute the colleges monetarily – Considering that it
is a single seat and since the fee would be spread over for a period
of five years, the financial impact on whom the burden would fall
would be marginal, in proportion to the total fee payable – This is
the best possible option, to neutralize the effect of interim orders
which have operated to the prejudice of the colleges. [Paras 20-33]
Case Law Cited
Faiza Choudhary v. State of J&K & Anr. [2012] 7 SCR 528 : (2012)
10 SCC 149; S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
[2019] 15 SCR 93 : (2020) 17 SCC 465; Index Medical College,
Hospital & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
[2021] 1 SCR 647 : (2023) 11 SCC 570; Krishna Priya Ganguly
& Ors. v. University of Lucknow & Ors. [1984] 1 SCR 302 : (1984)
1 SCC 307; Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors.
[2020] 3 SCR 1 : (2020) 8 SCC 129; Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech
Ltd. [2023] 4 SCR 950 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 321; Kalabharati
Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors. [2010] 10 SCR
971 : (2010) 9 SCC 437 – referred to.
702 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Compensatory seat in ensuing academic year; Compensatory
seat; Vacant seat in MBBS; College Level Counseling Round;
Cut-off date for admissions; Cryptic order; Prima facie case;
Balance of convenience; Irreparable loss; Interim relief; Carried
forward of vacant seat; Creation of additional seat; Huge financial
loss; National wastage of resources; Provisional admission seats;
Principle of restitution; Maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit;
Ordering additional seat in succeeding academic year; Fee Fixation
Committee/Fee Fixation Authority; Financial impact; Neutralize the
effect of interim orders.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12235 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2024 of the High Court
of M.P. at Indore in WP No. 24411 of 2023
With
Civil Appeal No. 12236 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Harsh Parashar, Piyush Parashar, Chanakya Sharma, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Bharat Singh, A.A.G., Harmeet Singh Ruprah, D.A.G., Pashupathi
Nath Razdan, Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Ms. Akansha Tomar,
Argha Roy, Sunny Choudhary, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Ms. Rashmi
Singhania, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These cases highlight the complications that may arise if adequate
caution and circumspection are not exercised, while passing interim
orders in judicial proceedings. The two appellants are colleges to
whom the Director, Medical Education (hereinafter referred to as the
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 703
Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre
v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
‘Director’) issued orders dated 26.09.2023 directing them to keep one
MBBS seat vacant in the appellant-colleges with a direction that the
said seat will not be included in the College Level Counseling (CLC)
Round for the academic year 2023-24. The direction was issued
pursuant to the interim order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the High
Court in Writ Petitions filed by the respondent students.
3. In the first matter, the Writ Petition was dismissed on 04.03.2024
denying the relief to the Writ Petitioner-student (R-5 herein). In the
second matter also, the Writ Petition was dismissed on 22.12.2023
denying the relief to the student-writ petitioner (R-4 herein). The
appellant-colleges have been caught in the crossfire and their
attempt to intervene having failed in the High Court, they are before
us seeking a compensatory seat in the subsequent academic year.
Their case is that because the seat was kept on hold, they have
been deprived of the opportunity to fill that seat. Their grievance is
that the consequential loss has befallen solely on them due to an
act of court.
Facts in SLP (Civil) No. 11785 of 2024 :
4. In the year 2017, the first respondent-State Government introduced
the ‘Mukhyamantri Medhavi Vidyarthi Yojana’ as per which eligible
students who were covered under the scheme were entitled to
payment of fees for certain courses. One of the conditions was
that the income of the parent of the candidate should be less than
Rupees six lacs per annum. The respondent no. 5 (Mohammad
Eaan Shaikh) herein, who had secured 86% marks in 12th standard,
appeared for National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test, 2023 (in short
‘NEET’) and in the declaration of result of 13.06.2023, he obtained
430 marks out of 750 with an All India Rank of 163660. In the results
of the first round of counselling published on 07.08.2023, no college
was allotted to him. Equally so, in the second round, results of
which were declared on 28.08.2023, no college was allotted to him.
Pending the last round of the counselling on 18.08.2023, the State
Government notified an amendment to the Mukhyamantri Medhavi
Vidyarthi Yojana whereunder the income ceiling of the parent/guardian
was increased to Rupees eight lacs and the said amendment was
to apply for the academic year 2023-24. Even in the results of
MOP-UP Round counselling, which were declared on 15.09.2023,
R-5 was not allotted the seat.
704 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
5. Setting up a plea that because of the increase in the income ceiling,
more students have participated and his chance of getting the college
in the last round of counselling was jeopardized, the respondent no.
5 filed a Writ Petition.
6. Reliefs were sought, in the nature of a direction to not apply the
amendment notification dated 18.08.2023 to the Mukhyamantri
Medhavi Vidyarthi Yojana for the academic year 2023-24 and to set
aside the mop-up round allotment list dated 15.09.2023 and conduct
fresh mop-up round without considering the amendment notification.
Interim relief staying the mop-up round allotment was sought.
7. When the matter came up for hearing, interim order was passed
stating that one seat in the mop-up round to be held on 22.09.2023
be kept vacant (if available). This interim order passed on 22.09.2023
was continued on 12.10.2023, 07.11.2023 and 29.11.2023.
8. A reply affidavit by the State was filed clearly pleading as follows:
“5. That, in reply to the paragraphs 5.8 and 5.9, it is
submitted that it is significant to mention that as stated
by the petitioner the allotment process in second round
was closed at 454 marks whereas the petitioner secured
450 marks and therefore, he was not given the allotment
being not placed suitably in the merit. However, it is also
relevant to mention that in between from 454 marks to
450 marks (score of the petitioner), there remained as
many as 37 candidates of OBC category including sub-
categories of OBC, and more specifically in the category
of OBC - open as many as 33 candidates were over and
above the petitioner in his category i.e. OBC - open in
the second round of allotment. Copy of relevant pages
of tabulation/chart drawn for second round counselling is
annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R/3. However, so far
as availability of vacant seat in OBC – open category is
concerned then it is only 5 in number. So, in any eventually
(sic.), the petitioner would not have been allotted a seat
even in Mop-up-Round being placed below in merit. Thus,
the grievance raised by the petitioner in present petition is
misconceived and in no manner, it is affecting the merit of
the petitioner even on account of introduction of amendment
on 18.08.2023 (Annexure P/8) implemented on 10.09.2023.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 705
Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre
v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Copy of chart demonstrating vacant seats in OBC – Open
Category is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R/4.”
9. Pursuant to the interim order, on 26.09.2023, the Director, Medical
Education (R-4) issued a directive to the appellant-college to keep
on hold one MBBS seat for the academic year 2023-24.
10. The appellant college rushed to the High Court seeking intervention
and the State filed interlocutory application for vacating the interim
order.
11. The appellant pleaded the following in the intervention application:
“That in the context of the above, it is submitted that the
interests of the present-applicant institute are directly
aligned with the outcome of this instant petition. While
the institute does not contest the keeping of a seat on
hold in the interim, as per the interim order passed by
the Hon’ble High Court, it is also emphasised that any
adverse consequences in the event of the petition being
dismissed shall have a direct and adverse effect on the
applicant-college, on the ground that the 1 seat being put
on hold in the interim as per the Hon’ble Court’s order dated
22/9/2023, has been allotted to the instant applicant; and
hence in case this petition is dismissed by this Hon’ble
Court and if the cut-off date for admission elapses without
a resolution of the controversy involved, the applicant
shall be left with a vacant seat in MBBS Course, despite
being sanctioned by the regulatory authority. Thus, the
outcome of this petition shall have a bearing upon the
legitimate interests of the applicant, especially in respect
of its academic and logistical planning and resource
utilization and the foundational infrastructural investments
involved, encompassing faculty, infrastructure etc. It is
humbly submitted that a vacant seat would result in the
resources being underutilized and wastage of resources,
which shall not only cause financial hardship upon the
applicant, but also lead to loss to the meritorious and
eligible candidates as well.”
12. The High Court ultimately dismissed the Writ Petition on 04.03.2024
stating that the amendment was the policy decision and that there
706 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
were no grounds to hold it unconstitutional. Nothing was said of
the intervention application filed by the appellant. Aggrieved, the
appellant is before us seeking a compensatory seat for the subsequent
academic year.
Facts in SLP (Civil) No. 20267 of 2024:
13. The respondent no. 4-Ms. Tasmiya Khan herein filed a Writ Petition
in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore seeking a mandamus
to the official respondents therein to allot a seat to her as per the
overall marks in NEET for the MBBS for the academic year 2023-
24. Her prayer was to consider her against the unreserved category
in the 5% Government School quota. According to R-4, candidates
with lesser NEET score have been admitted under the Unreserved
Government School Quota while she, though an OBC candidate
had secured more marks than those general candidates. An interim
order was passed on 22.09.2023 modifying the earlier interim order
stating that one seat be kept vacant till the next date of hearing (if
not already filled). Based on the interim order of 22.09.2023, the
Director of Medical Education on 26.09.2023 issued a direction to
the appellant-college to keep on hold one seat in the MBBS course
and directed that the said seat will not be included for the College
Level Counselling Round.
14. The official respondents opposed the Writ Petition. The State
contended that the category of the writ petitioner was OBC-
Government School quota (OBC-GS), and in this category there
were eight OBC GS candidates above the petitioner. In simple terms,
the State did not follow the principle that reserved candidates who
qualified on merit ought to be first adjusted against the general seats.
On 25.10.2023, the appellant intervened praying that keeping seats
vacant will prejudice the college in case the cut-off date expires
before the disposal of the Writ Petition.
15. By the judgment of 22.12.2023, the High Court rejected the petition of
R-4 accepting the plea of the authorities and held that the appellant
would be entitled only for consideration against the OBC GS quota.
Coming to the intervention application of the appellant-college it
was held that no relief can be granted since timeline for admission
was complete. Aggrieved, the college has filed the present appeal
by way of Special Leave.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 707
Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre
v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
16. It should be pointed out that insofar as this matter is concerned,
R-4 herein Ms. Tasmiya Khan filed SLP(C) No. 2311 of 2024 and by
the judgment of 20.08.2024, the judgment of the High Court dated
22.12.2023 in Writ Petition No. 23998 of 2023 was set aside and a
direction was given to admit R-4 in MBBS course for the academic
year 2024-25. This Court, speaking through one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.)
held that the candidates who were meritorious and who could have
been admitted against the Unreserved-Government Schools category
could not have been denied admission on the ground that they
belonged to OBC category. This Court held that meritorious candidates
belonging to SC, ST and OBC who on their own merit are entitled
to be selected against the Unreserved Government School Quota
(UR GS) could not have been denied the seats in the open category.
Contentions:
17. We have heard the counsels for the appearing parties and perused
the record.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant-colleges contend that the seat
which was directed to be kept vacant has gone waste since the
Writ Petitions could not be disposed of before the cut-off date for
admissions. They contend that the vacant seat would result in
underutilization of resources, wastage of resources causing financial
harm to them and resulting in meritorious candidates being denied the
admission to that seat. Their prayer is that a compensatory additional
seat be ordered for the ensuing academic year. The authorities have
contended that the authorities have no role in the matter and it was
the order of the court which has been duly carried out and no liability
can be fastened on them.
Question for consideration:
19. In the above background, the question that arises for consideration
is, have the appellant-colleges made out a case for a direction to
the respondent authorities to create a compensatory seat in the
ensuing academic year?
Reasons and analysis:
20. Firstly, the interim order directing one seat in the counselling to be
kept vacant (if available) in both these matters is a cryptic order
708 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
where neither the prima facie case nor the balance of convenience
and irreparable loss aspects have been discussed. This Court had
time and again reiterated that in cases where the court is inclined
to grant interim relief, at least a brief prima-facie assessment as to
why the case warranted an interim protection needs to be discussed.
Equally, the balance of convenience and the irreparable harm aspects
are also to be briefly discussed in the order. These are well settled
principles for adjudication of interim reliefs. The High Court, in both
the matters before us, has wholly ignored these principles.
21. Secondly, this Court has repeatedly held that a medical seat has life
only in the year it falls due and that too only till the cut-off date fixed.
Even here, there are stringent regulations of the National Medical
Commission providing that admission can only be made by the
medical colleges within the sanctioned capacity for which permission/
recognition has been granted. A seat falling vacant in a particular
year cannot be carried forward or created in the succeeding year
(See Faiza Choudhary v. State of J&K & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 149).
No doubt, in rare and exceptional circumstances, courts can direct
increase in seats for the same academic year not exceeding one
or two seats, if it finds that for no fault attributable to the candidate
and for the fault on the part of the authorities, the candidate has
suffered. This Court has also held that if in the same year, the
candidate cannot be accommodated, the Court can mould the relief
and direct the admission to be granted in the next academic year.
In S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2020)
17 SCC 465, it was held as under:-
“13.2. 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
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 709
Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre
v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
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.
However, it is observed that such relief can be granted
only in exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of
rare cases. In case of such an eventuality, the Court
may also pass an order cancelling the admission given
to a candidate who is at the bottom of the merit list of the
category who, if the admission would have been given
to a more meritorious candidate who has been denied
admission illegally, would not have got the admission, if
the Court deems it fit and proper, however, after giving
an opportunity of hearing to a student whose admission
is sought to be cancelled.
13.3. In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of
admission can be granted to such a candidate in the very
academic year and wherever it finds that the action of the
authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of the rules
and regulations or the prospectus affecting the rights of the
students and that a candidate is found to be meritorious
and such candidate/student has approached the court at
the earliest and without any delay, the court can mould
the relief and direct the admission to be granted to such a
candidate in the next academic year by issuing appropriate
directions by directing to increase in the number of seats as
may be considered appropriate in the case and in case of
such an eventuality and if it is found that the management
was at fault and wrongly denied the admission to the
meritorious candidate, in that case, the Court may direct
to reduce the number of seats in the management quota
of that year, meaning thereby the student/students who
was/were denied admission illegally to be accommodated
in the next academic year out of the seats allotted in the
management quota.”
22. However, this is vastly different from directing the creation of an
additional seat at the behest of a college.
710 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
23. Thirdly, this Court has held repeatedly that keeping vacant seats
results in huge financial loss to the college apart from being a national
wastage of resources (See Index Medical College, Hospital &
Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2023) 11
SCC 570).
24. Fourthly, this Court has also frowned upon the grant of provisional
admission unless the court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has a
cast iron case which is bound to succeed or the error is so gross or
apparent that no other conclusion is possible. Even there, the court
has opined that a short notice to the respondent ought to be given
and after hearing the other side, in an exceptional case fulfilling the
criteria prescribed necessary orders can be made (See Krishna
Priya Ganguly & Ors. v. University of Lucknow & Ors. (1984) 1
SCC 307).
25. If provisional admission seats are not to be given casually, the said
principle should also apply for directions to keep seats vacant. Only if
there is a cast iron case for the petitioner and the petitioner is bound
to succeed in cases where the error of the respondent authorities is
so gross as to negate any other conclusion, interim orders keeping
seats vacant could be made. Though courts have power to make
orders directing seats to be kept vacant in such cases, great caution
and circumspection should be shown in exercising the power. In
appropriate cases, even where the said exceptional criterion as set
out above is met, the court will be justified in directing the petitioner
to provide security, to the concerned college-institution where the
seat is ultimately directed to be kept vacant or on whom ultimately
the liability of the vacant seat would fall. The security is to guarantee
that in the event of the Writ Petition/Appeal being dismissed and the
seat going unfilled for the academic year the Petitioner/Appellant
would make good the loss which the college may incur financially.
Even in rare and exceptional cases where orders for keeping seats
vacant are made, every endeavor must be made by the Court to
dispose of the matter before the counselling for admissions are over.
26. Additionally, even if the Writ Petition/Appeal succeeds, but if the
matter could not be disposed off before the deadline the seat may
still go vacant. It should not be forgotten that while the recurring
and non-recurring expenditure for a college remains the same, a
vacant seat will deprive the college of the fees to that extent, not
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 711
Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre
v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
just for one year but for the whole course, which could be four, five
or more years.
27. Lastly, these safeguards are essential to restitute the colleges which
may have suffered for no fault of theirs. It is well settled that if on
account of an act of a party persuading the court to pass an order,
which at the end has been held not sustainable and if in the process
one party has gained an advantage which it would not have otherwise
earned or the other party had suffered an impoverishment, restitution
can be made. This Court had held that the principle of restitution is
not excluded from its application to interim orders.
28. This court has also held that the court should be mindful to neutralize
the effect of wrong interim orders which they have been persuaded
to pass. (See Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 and Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd. 2023
SCC OnLine SC 321).
29. This Court has also held that the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit
will apply in such a scenario, and orders of restitution can be passed
directing the party which obtained the advantage to compensate the
party which suffered the disadvantage (See Kalabharati Advertising
v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 437).
30. Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, we find
the following. The vacant seat ordered could not be filled because
by the time the Writ Petitions were disposed of, the counselling had
concluded and the cut-off date for admissions were also over. The
colleges will have to carry that vacant seat for the entire duration of
the MBBS Course. In the first case, the Writ Petition was dismissed.
Though, in the second case also, the Writ Petition was dismissed
ultimately at the student’s behest, the High Court order was set aside
and the student was accommodated for the succeeding academic
year. The fact remains that even in the case of the second appellant
herein (RKDF Homeopathy Medical College), the seat could not
be filled and continued to remain vacant. The colleges have been
prejudiced for no fault of theirs. In both cases, the Writ Petitions were
disposed of after the admissions deadlines were over.
31. Ordering an additional seat in the succeeding academic year is not
an option, in view of the pronouncement of this Court referred to
hereinabove. Even in the S. Krishna Sradha (supra), the exception
712 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
carved out was to create an additional seat where the student was
prejudiced. In this case, it is the college which has been prejudiced.
The prejudice is because, with the seat remaining vacant for the
entire duration of the course, to that extent they will be deprived of
the fees, while their expenditure will remain same.
32. In the special facts of the case and considering that it is a case of
one seat in each college, we feel that ends of justice will be served
if we grant liberty to the appellant colleges to make a representation
to the Fee Fixation Committee/Fee Fixation Authority of the State
highlighting the vacancy caused due to the interim order of the High
Court. If such a representation is made, the Fee Fixation Committee/
Fee Fixation Authority shall, while fixing the fees for college (for
future batches) reckon the deficit in fees that has resulted due to
the single vacant seat and fix the fees by adding such amount to
the total fees proposed to be fixed which will restitute the colleges
monetarily. Considering that it is a single seat and since the fee
will be spread over for a period of five years, the financial impact
on whom the burden will fall will be marginal, in proportion to the
total fee payable. On the current facts, we find that this is the best
possible option, to neutralize the effect of the interim orders which
have operated to the prejudice of the colleges.
33. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, we partly allow
the appeals and direct that the appellant colleges will be at liberty to
make a representation to the Fee Fixation Committee/Fee Fixation
Authority pointing out their grievance, as set out above, and the Fee
Fixation Committee/Fee Fixation Authority shall pass appropriate
orders in terms of the holding rendered in this judgment.
34. The appeals are partly allowed in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
Result of the case: Appeals partly allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Compensatory seat in ensuing academic year"Sign in to search