Supreme Court allows admission after cut-off date in exceptional medical admission cases: S. Krishna Sradha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: December 13, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 1234
Judges: Arun Mishra J., M.R. Shah J., B.R. Gavai J.
Can a meritorious student be denied admission to a medical course due to a delay not of their own making? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question, examining whether the strict cut-off date for admissions should be relaxed in extraordinary circumstances. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which a meritorious candidate, wronged by authorities, can be granted admission even after the deadline. The bench comprised Justices Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah, and B.R. Gavai, delivering a unanimous verdict.

Case Background

The appellant, S. Krishna Sradha, applied for admission to the MBBS course under the sports and games category. Despite submitting all necessary documents, she was not given due priority. Consequently, she approached the High Court seeking admission under the sports quota. The High Court acknowledged that the appellant was entitled to priority and was more meritorious than other candidates. However, by the time the matter was heard, the academic session had already commenced on 01.09.2015, and the last date for admissions, as per the Supreme Court’s guidelines, was 30.09.2015. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Chandigarh Admn. vs. Jasmine Kaur [(2014) 10 SCC 521], the High Court denied admission but granted compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. The High Court’s decision was based on the precedent that admissions cannot be granted after the cut-off date, even if the candidate is meritorious.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court, while acknowledging the appellant’s merit and entitlement to priority, denied admission solely based on the expiration of the admission deadline. This decision was based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Chandigarh Admn. vs. Jasmine Kaur [(2014) 10 SCC 521], which emphasized the strict adherence to the cut-off date. The High Court, however, granted compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the appellant. The matter was then referred to a larger bench due to a conflict between the views in Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma UHS [(2012) 7 SCC 389], which allowed for exceptions in rare cases, and Chandigarh Admn. vs. Jasmine Kaur [(2014) 10 SCC 521].

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s previous rulings regarding the cut-off date for admissions to professional courses, particularly MBBS. The key legal principles discussed include:

• The principle of strict adherence to the merit list for admissions.
• The cut-off date of 30th September for admissions to medical courses.
• The power of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to provide remedies.
• The right to equality and fair treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution.
• The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court also considered the implications of denying admission to a meritorious candidate who was not at fault, and whether compensation alone is sufficient remedy in such cases.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court highlighted the conflict between ensuring strict adherence to admission deadlines and providing justice to meritorious candidates.

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that denying admission to a meritorious candidate who was not at fault and who pursued legal remedies expeditiously would be a grave injustice.
• It was submitted that the case falls under the exception carved out in Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma UHS [(2012) 7 SCC 389], where the court can direct admission even after the cut-off date in rare cases.
• The appellant contended that the right to equal and fair treatment is a component of Article 14 of the Constitution, and that a transparent and fair procedure is the duty of every legal authority connected with admissions.
• It was argued that denial of fair treatment violates rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
• The appellant submitted that restitution is the norm and compensation is an exception and that the citizen injured must be put back to his/her original position.
• It was submitted that compensation is not a substitute for restitutionary remedies.
• The appellant argued that the power of the courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution should not be constricted and that courts must be able to fashion appropriate remedies.

Medical Council of India (MCI) Arguments:

• The MCI supported the decision in Chandigarh Admn. vs. Jasmine Kaur [(2014) 10 SCC 521], arguing that the 30th September deadline must be strictly followed.
• The MCI argued against mid-stream admissions and the carry-forward of unfilled seats from one year to the next.
• It was submitted that the number of seats cannot be increased beyond the number fixed by the MCI, without regard to infrastructure.
• The MCI contended that only in the rarest of rare cases, can the court deviate from the normal rule.
• The MCI submitted that if the court is satisfied that monetary compensation will not be adequate to redress the injury suffered by the candidate, then the court may consider accommodating the student in the next academic year, provided the candidate has approached the Court without any delay, is higher in the merit list, and has complied with all requirements.
• The MCI proposed criteria for determining delay in approaching the court, including deadlines related to challenging the validity of notifications, eligibility criteria, and counseling rounds.
• The MCI submitted that even in cases where the court directs admission in the next academic year, not more than two seats in an institution should be filled by students from the preceding year.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. 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.
2. Whether in such a situation the relief which can be given by the Court is to grant appropriate compensation only?
3. What relief can be granted by the Court in such a situation?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered various authorities to reach its decision. These are categorized by the legal points they address:

On Exceptions to the Cut-Off Date:

• Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma UHS [(2012) 7 SCC 389] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that in rarest of rare cases, the court can direct admission even after the cut-off date if the candidate is not at fault, has pursued legal remedies expeditiously, and there is fault on the part of the authorities.

On Strict Adherence to Cut-Off Date:

• Chandigarh Admn. vs. Jasmine Kaur [(2014) 10 SCC 521] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that the schedule relating to admissions should be strictly adhered to, and mid-stream admissions should not be permitted. It also held that compensation is the only relief in cases where the cut-off date has passed.
• MCI vs. Madhu Singh [(2002) 7 SCC 258] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that unfilled seats of one year cannot be telescoped into permissible seats of the subsequent year.
• Neelu Arora vs. Union of India [(2003) 3 SCC 366] – Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated that there cannot be a carry-forward of unfilled seats from one year to the next.
• Faiza Chowdhary vs. State of J & K [(2012) 10 SCC 149] – Supreme Court of India: This case supported the position that a medical seat has life only in the year it falls and a vacancy cannot be carried forward.
• Chhavi Mehrotra vs. Director General Health Services [(1994) 2 SCC 370] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that courts should not issue directions that amount to violating the rules and regulations.

On Remedies:

• Indu Kant vs. State of U.P. [1993 Suppl (2) SCC 71] – Supreme Court of India: This case observed that a meritorious candidate can be accommodated in a subsequent year with a direction that seats be increased in the next year.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that while the cut-off date of 30th September for medical admissions is generally to be followed, exceptions can be made in rare and exceptional cases. The court emphasized that the primary remedy for a meritorious candidate denied admission due to the fault of the authorities is restitution, not merely compensation.

The Court overruled the decision in Chandigarh Admn. vs. Jasmine Kaur [(2014) 10 SCC 521] to the extent that it limited relief to compensation only. The Court affirmed the principles laid down in Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma UHS [(2012) 7 SCC 389], that in rare cases, admission can be granted even after the cut-off date.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring justice for meritorious candidates who were denied admission due to the fault of the authorities. The Court emphasized that:

• The right to equal and fair treatment under Article 14 is paramount.
• Denial of admission to a meritorious candidate for no fault of their own violates fundamental rights.
• Compensation alone is not an adequate remedy, and restitutionary measures are necessary.
• Each year is precious for a student seeking admission in a medical course.

The Court sought to strike a balance between maintaining the integrity of the admission process and ensuring that meritorious candidates are not penalized for the mistakes of others.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the need to provide a remedy that is both just and equitable. The court reasoned that denying admission to a meritorious candidate who is not at fault would be a violation of their fundamental rights. The court also considered the need to maintain the integrity of the admission process and to ensure that other meritorious candidates are not unduly affected. The court emphasized that the power of the courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution should not be read in a constricted manner so as to limit the scope of remedies.

The Court rejected the argument that compensation alone is an adequate remedy. It reasoned that in the case of medical admissions, even a restitutionary remedy of providing a seat in the subsequent year would lead to the loss of one full academic year for a meritorious candidate, which cannot be compensated in real terms.

The Court also considered the argument that the number of seats cannot be increased beyond the number fixed by the MCI. However, the Court held that in exceptional cases, the Court can direct an increase in the number of seats to accommodate a meritorious candidate who has been denied admission due to the fault of the authorities.

The Court considered the principle of strict adherence to the cut-off date. However, the Court reasoned that in rare and exceptional cases, the cut-off date can be relaxed to provide justice to a meritorious candidate who has been wronged. The Court emphasized that such a relaxation should only be granted in the rarest of rare cases and that the candidate should have pursued legal remedies expeditiously.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The right to equal and fair treatment is a component of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
• “Compensation could be an additional remedy but not a substitute for restitutionary remedies.”
• “The power of Articles 32 and 226 ought not to be read in a constricted manner so as to limit the scope of remedies.”

The Court clarified that the directions pertain to admissions in MBBS courses only and not to post-graduate medical courses.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has clarified that while the cut-off date for medical admissions is important, it is not absolute.
• In exceptional cases, meritorious candidates who have been denied admission due to the fault of authorities can be granted admission even after the cut-off date.
• Restitutionary remedies, such as admission, are primary, and compensation is an additional remedy.
• Courts have the power to direct an increase in seats in rare cases to accommodate meritorious candidates.
• The candidate must approach the court without delay and pursue legal remedies expeditiously.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• Courts should prioritize cases related to medical admissions.
• In exceptional cases, courts can direct admission in the same year by increasing seats (not more than one or two) within one month of the cut-off date (30th September), or in the next academic year.
• Courts can cancel the admission of a candidate at the bottom of the merit list to accommodate a more meritorious candidate who was wrongly denied admission.
• Compensation can be awarded as an additional remedy.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in exceptional circumstances, a meritorious candidate who has been denied admission due to the fault of the authorities can be granted admission even after the cut-off date. This judgment overrules the view that compensation is the only remedy in such cases, as held in Chandigarh Admn. vs. Jasmine Kaur [(2014) 10 SCC 521]. It affirms the position in Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma UHS [(2012) 7 SCC 389] to the extent that exceptions can be made in rare cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Krishna Sradha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh is a significant step towards ensuring justice for meritorious candidates who are wrongly denied admission to medical courses. By clarifying that the cut-off date is not absolute and that restitutionary remedies are primary, the Court has provided a framework for addressing such cases in a fair and equitable manner. This judgment balances the need for maintaining the integrity of the admission process with the imperative of protecting the fundamental rights of deserving students.