Supreme Court Directs Admission in Next Academic Year for Illegally Denied PG Medical Seat: National Medical Commission vs. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 7 December 2020

Citation: [Not Available in the provided text]

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a medical college deny admission to a student who was provisionally allotted a seat, and what recourse does the student have if this happens? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue in a case where a student was denied admission to a Post Graduate medical course despite being provisionally selected. The court considered whether the student could be granted admission in the next academic year and be compensated for the loss of an academic year.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi (Respondent No. 1) completed her MBBS in January 2019 and her internship on March 27, 2020. She appeared for the NEET PG exam on January 5, 2020, and secured an All India Rank of 93563. She was provisionally allotted an MS (General Surgery) seat at Kamineni Academy of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Hyderabad (Respondent No. 2) under the Management Quota on July 28, 2020. The deadline to report to the college was 4:00 PM on July 30, 2020.

According to Respondent No. 1, she visited the college on July 29 and 30, 2020, to submit her certificates and pay fees, but her admission was not completed. The college denied this, stating she only inquired about the procedure. The admission deadline was extended to August 30, 2020, by the Supreme Court. On August 11, 2020, the college admitted another student, Respondent No. 5, who had a lower rank than Respondent No. 1.

Respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana, seeking a declaration that the denial of admission was illegal and requesting a direction to the college to grant her admission.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana allowed the Writ Petition filed by Respondent No. 1. The High Court disbelieved the college’s claim that Respondent No. 1 did not approach them for admission on July 29 or 30, 2020. The High Court noted that Respondent No. 1 had paid the University Fee on July 29, 2020, and was given a checklist and a PG Student Personnel Data Form by the college.

The High Court found fault with the college for admitting Respondent No. 5, who had a lower rank than Respondent No. 1, on August 11, 2020. It concluded that Respondent No. 1 was illegally denied admission and directed the National Medical Commission to create or sanction one additional seat in MS (General Surgery) for the academic year 2020-2021, and directed the college to grant admission to Respondent No. 1. The admission of Respondent No. 5 was not disturbed.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the principles of merit-based admissions in medical courses and the powers of the Medical Council of India (now National Medical Commission) to regulate medical education. The court also considered previous judgments related to admissions and the remedies available to students who are illegally denied admission.

Arguments

Appellant (National Medical Commission):

• The Appellant argued that Respondent No. 1 did not pursue available remedies promptly after August 30, 2020, which was the extended last date for admission.
• It was contended that the High Court could not have directed admission on September 18, 2020, after the last date of admission.
• The Appellant submitted that the direction to create a seat was against the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

Respondent No. 1 (Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi):

• Respondent No. 1 argued that the denial of admission by the college, despite her being more meritorious than Respondent No. 5, caused her irreparable loss.
• It was submitted that the High Court was correct in directing the creation of a seat and granting her admission.
• Respondent No. 1 relied on the judgment in S. Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., arguing that it should apply to Post Graduate courses as well.

Respondent No. 2 (Kamineni Academy of Medical Sciences and Research Centre):

• The college argued that they followed the procedure prescribed by the Medical Council of India for PG Medical admissions.
• It was contended that Respondent No. 1 did not approach the college before the last date of admission.
• The college submitted that Respondent No. 5 was rightly given admission on August 11, 2020.
• The college had no objection to the High Court’s direction to create a seat for Respondent No. 1.

Respondent No. 3 (Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences) and Respondent No. 5: They stated that they had no objection to the judgment of the High Court.

The main point of contention was whether Respondent No. 1 had approached the college before the last date of admission and whether the High Court was correct in directing the creation of an additional seat.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was right in directing the creation of a seat for the academic year for granting admission to Respondent No.1?
2. Whether Respondent No.1 can be left without remedy despite the illegal action of Respondent No.2-College?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by the parties and how each authority was viewed by the Court.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• S. Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [CITATION]: The Court applied the principles laid down in this case to Post Graduate courses as well, holding that a student illegally denied admission should be granted admission in the next academic year and be compensated for the loss of an academic year.
• Asha v. Pt. D.B. Sharma University of Health Sciences & Ors. [CITATION]: The Court acknowledged the principle of merit-based admissions but distinguished the case on facts as the student was illegally denied admission.
• Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jasmine Kaur & Ors. [CITATION]: The Court acknowledged the principle that compensation can be provided for illegal denial of admission but held that it cannot be a substitute for restitutional remedies.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the fact that Respondent No. 1 was illegally denied admission despite being more meritorious and having followed the necessary procedures. The Court emphasized that the college acted unfairly and that Respondent No. 1 should not suffer due to the college’s actions. The Court also considered the need to maintain the integrity of the admission process and ensure that meritorious candidates are not deprived of their rightful opportunities. The court also took into account that the last date for admission was extended, and the college had sufficient time to intimate the Respondent No.1.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the illegal denial of admission, than by purely legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments regarding the creation of a seat and the remedies available to the student. It rejected the argument for creating a seat, citing previous judgments, but emphasized that the student should not be left without a remedy.

The court considered alternative interpretations of the law but ultimately decided to apply the principles of S. Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. to the Post Graduate courses as well. The court rejected the argument that the student should only be compensated and not given admission in the next academic year.

The court held that the college had acted unfairly in denying admission to Respondent No. 1 and that she should be given a remedy.

The decision was based on the following reasons:

• Respondent No. 1 was provisionally selected for the MS (General Surgery) course.
• The college acted unfairly in denying her admission despite her being more meritorious than Respondent No. 5.
• The last date for admission was extended, and the college had sufficient time to intimate Respondent No. 1.
• Respondent No. 1 should not suffer due to the college’s actions.
• The principles of S. Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. should apply to Post Graduate courses as well.

The court quoted the following from the judgment in S. Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.:

“…a meritorious candidate/student who has been denied an admission in MBBS Course illegally or irrationally by the authorities for no fault of his/her and who has approached the Court in time and so as to see that such a meritorious candidate may not have to suffer for no fault of his/her…”

“…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…”

“Grant of the compensation could be an additional remedy but not a substitute for restitutional remedies.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

The court’s reasoning was based on the principle that a student should not suffer due to the illegal actions of the college. The court also emphasized the need to maintain the integrity of the admission process.

The decision has potential implications for future cases where students are illegally denied admission to medical courses. It establishes that the principles of S. Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. can be applied to Post Graduate courses as well.

Key Takeaways

• Medical colleges cannot deny admission to students who are provisionally selected and have followed the necessary procedures.
• Students who are illegally denied admission to Post Graduate medical courses can be granted admission in the next academic year.
• Such students are also entitled to compensation for the loss of an academic year.
• The principles of merit-based admissions must be strictly followed.
• Colleges must follow the prescribed procedure for filling up seats and cannot arbitrarily admit students.

This judgment reinforces the importance of fair and transparent admission processes in medical education and provides remedies for students who are victims of illegal practices.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• Respondent No. 2-College was directed to pay Rs. 10 Lakhs as compensation to Respondent No. 1 within four weeks.
• Respondent No. 1 was entitled to admission to the MS (General Surgery) course in the next academic year 2021-22 in a seat allocated to Respondent No. 2-College.
• One seat in MS (General Surgery) course from the Management Quota of Respondent No. 2-College for the next academic year (2021-22) shall be granted to Respondent No. 1.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the principles laid down in S. Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., which were previously applicable only to MBBS courses, can be applied to Post Graduate medical courses as well. This means that students who are illegally denied admission to Post Graduate courses can be granted admission in the next academic year and be compensated for the loss of an academic year. This judgment clarifies that the remedy of compensation is not a substitute for restitutional remedies, and wherever possible, the student should be given admission.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in National Medical Commission vs. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi & Ors. provides significant relief to students who are illegally denied admission to Post Graduate medical courses. While the court did not direct the creation of an additional seat for the current academic year, it ordered that the student be admitted in the next academic year and be compensated for the loss of an academic year. This decision reinforces the importance of fair and transparent admission processes and provides a clear legal remedy for students who are victims of illegal practices by medical colleges.