Safiya Malik

The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaram and Justice K. Manmadha Rao held that the denial of admission to a student in the MBBS course for the academic year 2017-18 was arbitrary and illegal. The Court directed respondent No.6, Sri Siddhartha Medical College, Tumakuru, to compensate the petitioner with Rs.15,00,000/-. The Bench recorded that the petitioner had complied with all requirements, including the payment of first-year fees and submission of a bank guarantee for the balance course fees, yet admission was denied. The Court stated that such denial in favor of less meritorious candidates could not be justified under any circumstances. It concluded that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the loss suffered due to the institution's unlawful actions.

The case arose when the petitioner, having secured All India Rank 195911 in NEET-2017, participated in counseling conducted by Sri Siddhartha Medical College on 01.09.2017. The petitioner submitted original academic certificates and a demand draft of Rs.15,65,750/- towards the first-year fees. No acknowledgment or allotment letter was provided, though oral assurance of admission was given. On 05.09.2017, the college informed her of a requirement to furnish a bank guarantee for the balance course fees. The petitioner complied on 08.09.2017 by submitting a guarantee of Rs.52,50,000/-. Despite this, the college refused admission, stating that seats had been filled and the admission list sent to the Medical Council of India.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka HC Partition Decree | Refusal to Enter Witness Box Invites Adverse Inference | Oral Testimony Under Evidence Act Outweighs Revenue Records

It was contended that candidates ranked below the petitioner were admitted, ignoring her merit. Subsequently, on 11.10.2017, the Chancellor of the University issued a letter assuring the petitioner a free medical seat in the academic year 2018-19 for the entire course without fees. The petitioner then appeared for NEET-UG 2018, was allotted a seat in Basaveshwara Medical College, and paid Rs.24,22,500/- as the first-year fees. Representations were made to respondents seeking compliance with the earlier assurance, but no action was taken.

The petitioner alleged that respondent No.6 deliberately withheld admission and imposed an unreasonable condition, contrary to NEET guidelines and Supreme Court directions that merit alone should govern admissions. She claimed mental agony and financial loss, seeking damages of Rs.5,00,00,000/-.

Respondent No.6 contended that the petitioner delayed in approaching the Court and that the assurance letter was fabricated or obtained under coercion. It argued that the petitioner failed to comply with the admission requirements on time and that admissions were conducted strictly on merit. The respondent denied any irregularity.

The Bench noted: "The learned counsel for the respondents have been unable to show us any provision in the prospectus, the Act or in any other binding document providing that a Bank Guarantee in respect of the fees for the entire duration of the course must be provided to the Educational Institution concerned before admission is to be provided."

It observed: "In the instant case, there was no reason for any such apprehension. The petitioner had reported for admission and had paid the fees for the first year. On being informed on 05.09.2017, that a Bank Guarantee for the balance course fee was required, the petitioner had submitted such Bank Guarantee on 08.09.2017."

The Court held: "In the absence of any provision, in the prospectus, the admission notification, the statutes governing admissions or anywhere else that the production of the Bank Guarantee for the entire course period was required for admission, the action of respondent No.6 in having denied to the petitioner and having granted the seat to a less meritorious candidate was per se arbitrary and illegal and cannot be excused under any circumstances."

Also Read: Bombay High Court | Delay Condonation Impermissible Where Review Application Itself Not Maintainable Under Industrial Disputes Act

On the issue of delay, the Court stated: "If the said letter was obtained by force and coercion as contended by respondent No.6, no complaint of any nature has been submitted before any authorities raising any such complaint either by the Institution or the Principal." It further held that the petitioner's waiting for assurance to be honored justified her approach to the Court at a later stage.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Bench recorded: "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."

It concluded that this was a fit case for compensation.

The Court directed: "Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we fix the compensation at Rs.15,00,000/-. The said amount shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment." It further ordered that all pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Shri. Ajoy Kumar Patil, Advocate

For the Respondents: Shri. Sudev Hegde, Additional Government Advocate; Shri. Madanan Pillai, Central Government Counsel; Shri. N. Khetty, Advocate; Shri. Chandrakanth R. Goulay, Advocate; Shri. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate;

Case Title: Sanjana V Tumkur v. State of Karnataka & Others

Case Number: Writ Petition No.6014 of 2018 (EDN-MED-ADM)

Bench: Justice Anu Sivaram and Justice K. Manmadha Rao