Every Endeavour Must Be Made To Dispose Of Matter Even In Rare Cases Where Orders For Keeping College Seats Vacant Are Made: SC
The Supreme Court observed that, every endeavour must be made by the Court to dispose of the matter before the counselling for admissions are over even in rare cases where Orders for keeping College seats vacant are made.
The Court observed thus in Civil Appeals filed by two Colleges to whom the Director, Medical Education issued Orders, directing them to keep one MBBS seat vacant in the Colleges with a direction that the said seat will not be included in the College Level Counselling (CLC) Round for the academic year 2023-24.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held, “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.”
AOR Harsh Parashar represented the Appellants while DAG Harmeet Singh Ruprah represented the Respondents.
The cases highlighted the complications that may arise if adequate caution and circumspection are not exercised, while passing interim orders in judicial proceedings. The Appellants were two Medical Colleges challenging the direction issued by the Director, Medical Education pursuant to the interim Order passed by the High Court in Writ Petitions preferred by the students (Respondents). In the first case, the Writ Petition was dismissed in February 2023, denying the relief to the student and in the second case, the Writ Petition was dismissed in December 2023, denying relief to the student.
The Appellants/Colleges were caught in the crossfire and their attempt to intervene failed in the High Court. They were before the Apex Court seeking a compensatory seat in the subsequent academic year. Their case was that because the seat was kept on hold, they have been deprived of the opportunity to fill that seat. Their grievance was that the consequential loss has befallen solely on them due to an act of Court.
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, noted, “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.”
The Court added that, 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.
“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”, it further said.
The Court also took note of the fact that even in the case of the second Appellant (RKDF Homeopathy Medical College), the seat could not be filled and continued to remain vacant. It added that the colleges have been prejudiced for no fault of theirs and in both cases, the Writ Petitions were disposed of after the admissions deadlines were over.
“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 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”, it emphasised.
The Court remarked that ends of justice will be served if it grants 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.
“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”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court partly allowed the Appeals and directed that the Appellant Colleges will be at liberty to make a representation to the Fee Fixation Committee/Fee Fixation Authority, pointing out their grievance.
Cause Title- Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 845)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Harsh Parashar, Advocates Piyush Parashar, and Chanakya Sharma.
Respondents: DAG Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AORs Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Sunny Choudhary, Sarad Kumar Singhania, and Advocate Rashmi Singhania.
