Date of the Judgment: 17 December 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 1018
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Can a student be penalized for resigning from a medical seat when the institution’s prospectus was amended mid-admission process, causing confusion? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue in a recent case, providing relief to a student caught in such a predicament. The court considered the confusion caused by the amended prospectus and the student’s reliance on the original terms, ultimately reducing the penalty imposed on the student. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
Case Background
The appellant, S. Gunasekaran, participated in the admission process for the academic year 2022-23 based on the prospectus available on the website of the third respondent/institution. The prospectus initially stated that a candidate who had been allotted a seat in Round 1 but did not report to the college could exit with forfeiture of their security fee. It also allowed a Round 1 candidate who was not upgraded in Round 2 to resign their seat within two days of the Round 2 result announcement.
The appellant was allotted a seat in M.D. (Endocrinology) at the fourth respondent/college in the first round of counseling. He took admission and joined the course on April 14, 2022. When the results for the second round of counseling were announced on April 26, 2022, the appellant was not upgraded. He resigned from the seat on the same day, which was received by the fourth respondent/college on April 26, 2022. However, the first to third respondents claimed they were not aware of the resignation until April 30, 2022.
Notably, the prospectus was amended on April 20, 2022, modifying the exit rules. The amended prospectus removed the provision allowing Round 1 candidates to resign within two days of the Round 2 result announcement. Following the resignation, the fourth respondent/college invoked a clause in the bond, demanding a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs and withholding the appellant’s documents.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 8, 2022 | Appellant allotted a seat in the first round of counseling. |
| April 14, 2022 | Appellant joined the M.D. (Endocrinology) course at the fourth respondent/college. |
| April 20, 2022 | Prospectus amended, modifying exit rules. |
| April 26, 2022 | Results for the second round of counseling announced; appellant was not upgraded. |
| April 26, 2022 | Appellant resigned from the seat; resignation received by the fourth respondent/college. |
| April 30, 2022 | Respondents 1 to 3 became aware of the appellant’s resignation. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant challenged the fourth respondent/college’s decision before the Madras High Court. A single judge dismissed the petition, and a subsequent appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The judgment refers to the prospectus of the admission process for the Academic Year 2022-23, specifically question No. 37 and its answer, which detailed the rules for “Exit with Forfeiture” option. The original prospectus stated:
“Q. No.37: Who are eligible for “Exit with Forfeiture” option? 2 Ans:- a) Candidate who has been allotted a seat in Round -1 but does not report at the college may exit with Forfeiture. (i.e. The refundable security fee will not be refunded in such a case). b) Candidate who has been allotted a seat in Round -2 but does not report at the college may exit with Forfeiture. (i.e. The refundable security fee will not be refunded in such a case). c) Round 1 candidate who has not been upgraded in Round II may resign his seat allotted in Round -1 within two days of Round -2 result announcement.”
The amended prospectus, notified on April 20, 2022, modified the answer to question No. 37:
“Q. No.37: Who are eligible for “Exit with Forfeiture” option? Ans:- a) Candidate who has been allotted a seat in Round -1 but does not report at the college may exit with Forfeiture. (i.e. The refundable security fee will not be refunded in such a case). b) Candidate who has been allotted a seat in Round -2 but does not report at the college may exit with Forfeiture. (i.e. The refundable security fee will not be refunded in such a case).”
The key change was the removal of clause (c) from the original prospectus, which allowed candidates to resign within two days of the Round 2 result announcement if they were not upgraded.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that he had acted based on the original prospectus, which allowed him to resign within two days of the Round 2 result if he was not upgraded.
- He contended that he had resigned on the same day as the Round 2 result, which was within the stipulated time frame as per the original prospectus.
- The appellant argued that the amendment to the prospectus during the admission process created confusion and was unfair to candidates who relied on the original terms.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The respondents argued that the amended prospectus was in effect, and the appellant’s resignation was not valid under the new rules.
- They contended that the appellant should have been more diligent and checked the latest position on the website before resigning.
- The fourth respondent/college invoked the bond clause and sought a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs for the appellant’s resignation.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submissions |
|
| Respondents’ Submissions |
|
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in that it highlighted the confusion created by the mid-process amendment of the prospectus, and the reliance of the candidate on the original terms.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:
- Whether the appellant was liable to pay the penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs for resigning from the M.D. (Endocrinology) seat, given the confusion created by the amendment to the prospectus during the admission process.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the appellant was liable to pay the penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs? | The Court held that the appellant was not liable to pay the full penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs. It reduced the penalty to the amount already deposited by the appellant (Rs. 4,06,749.60), taking into consideration the confusion caused by the amended prospectus and the appellant’s reliance on the original terms. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. The primary basis of the decision was the factual matrix of the case and the principles of fairness and equity.
| Authority | How the Authority was considered |
|---|---|
| Original Prospectus | The Court considered the original prospectus and noted that the appellant had acted based on the representation made in it. |
| Amended Prospectus | The Court acknowledged the amended prospectus but noted that it created confusion and was not fair to the appellant, who had relied on the original terms. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant acted based on the original prospectus. | The Court agreed that the appellant had acted on the representation made in the original prospectus. |
| Appellant resigned within the stipulated time frame of the original prospectus. | The Court acknowledged that the resignation was within two days of the declaration of the Round 2 result, as per the original prospectus. |
| Amendment to the prospectus created confusion. | The Court held that the amendment to the prospectus, during the admission process, created an unfortunate situation and confusion. |
| Amended prospectus was in effect. | The Court recognized the amended prospectus but found it unfair to apply it retrospectively to the appellant. |
| Appellant should have been more diligent. | The Court noted that the appellant should have been more diligent but also acknowledged that the confusion was caused by the amended prospectus. |
| Invoked bond clause for penalty. | The Court reduced the penalty to the amount already deposited, considering the circumstances. |
Authorities Viewed by the Court:
- The Court considered the original prospectus and noted that the appellant had acted based on the representation made in it.
- The Court acknowledged the amended prospectus but noted that it created confusion and was not fair to the appellant, who had relied on the original terms.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the confusion created by the amendment to the prospectus mid-admission process and the appellant’s reliance on the original terms. The court recognized the appellant’s contributory negligence but emphasized that the situation arose due to the respondents’ lack of diligence in finalizing the prospectus before the admission process began. The court also appreciated the graciousness of the fourth respondent/college in not insisting on the full penalty.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Confusion due to amended prospectus | 30% |
| Appellant’s reliance on original prospectus | 25% |
| Respondents’ lack of diligence | 20% |
| Appellant’s contributory negligence | 15% |
| Graciousness of Respondent No. 4 | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Supreme Court reasoned that the appellant’s decision was significantly influenced by the original prospectus. The court noted that while the appellant should have been more diligent, the primary cause of the issue was the confusion created by the amended prospectus. The court also emphasized that the respondents should have finalized the prospectus before the admission process began. The court stated, “We find that the present situation has arisen due to the confusion created by the two different answers given to question no.37 in the original prospectus which was initially in vogue on 8th April 2022 and the second one which was notified on 20th April, 2022.”
The court further observed, “The amendment to the prospectus when the process of admission was underway has created an unfortunate situation like the present one.” The court also noted, “The appellant has unfortunately acted on the representation made to him in the original prospectus. The later amendment to it has created confusion.”
The court considered the fact that the fourth respondent/college was not interested in making money and charged only nominal fees. The court also appreciated the graciousness shown by the fourth respondent/college. The court decided that instead of imposing the full penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs, the forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 4,06,749.60 already deposited by the appellant would serve the ends of justice.
The court clarified that the order was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and would not be treated as a precedent in any other matter. The court directed the fourth respondent/college to forfeit the amount of Rs. 2,06,749.60 deposited with it by the appellant. It also directed the second respondent to refund Rs. 2,00,000 to the fourth respondent/college as a part of the contribution of the first to third respondents towards the negligence. The court further directed the fourth respondent/college to release all the documents of the appellant within two weeks.
The court noted that the fourth respondent/college would donate the forfeited amount of Rs. 4,06,749.60 to the Missionaries of Charity, Kolkata.
Key Takeaways
- Institutions must finalize their admission prospectuses before the admission process begins to avoid confusion and disputes.
- Students should be diligent in checking for updates on official websites, but institutions also have a responsibility to ensure clarity and fairness.
- Courts may consider the specific circumstances of a case and provide relief to students who have been unfairly affected by institutional errors.
- The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the importance of transparency and fairness in the admission process for educational institutions.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the following:
- The appellant would be liable to pay a penalty of Rs. 4,06,749.60, which has already been deposited.
- The fourth respondent/college shall forfeit the amount of Rs. 2,06,749.60 deposited with it by the appellant.
- The second respondent shall refund a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 to the fourth respondent/college as a part of the contribution of the first to third respondents towards the negligence.
- The fourth respondent/college shall release all the documents of the appellant within two weeks.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases where there is a mid-process amendment to the prospectus that creates confusion and affects the rights of the students, the court can relax the penalty imposed on the student. The court emphasized the importance of finalizing the prospectus before the admission process begins and the need for transparency and fairness in the admission process. This case does not change the previous position of law but clarifies that in such situations, the court can exercise discretion to provide relief to the affected student.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Gunasekaran vs. The Under Secretary to Govt. and Others provides relief to a student who was penalized for resigning from a medical seat due to confusion created by an amended prospectus. The court reduced the penalty, emphasizing the importance of finalizing prospectuses before the admission process and ensuring fairness to students. This case serves as a reminder for institutions to be diligent and transparent in their admission processes and for students to be vigilant in checking for updates.
Category
Parent Category: Education Law
Child Category: Admission Process, Prospectus, Penalty, Medical Education
Parent Category: Contract Law
Child Category: Breach of Contract, Penalty Clause
Parent Category: Education Law
Child Category: Prospectus, Education Law
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the case?
A: The main issue was whether a student should be penalized for resigning from a medical seat when the institution amended its prospectus mid-admission process, causing confusion.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court reduced the penalty imposed on the student, considering the confusion caused by the amended prospectus and the student’s reliance on the original terms.
Q: Why did the court reduce the penalty?
A: The court reduced the penalty because it found that the amended prospectus created confusion and that the student had acted based on the original terms. The court also noted that the institution should have finalized the prospectus before the admission process began.
Q: What is the key takeaway for educational institutions?
A: Educational institutions should finalize their admission prospectuses before the admission process begins to avoid confusion and disputes.
Q: What is the key takeaway for students?
A: Students should be diligent in checking for updates on official websites, but institutions also have a responsibility to ensure clarity and fairness.
Q: Will this case be considered a precedent?
A: The Supreme Court clarified that the order was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and would not be treated as a precedent in any other matter.
Q: What were the directions given by the Supreme Court?
A: The Supreme Court directed that the appellant would be liable to pay the amount already deposited as penalty, the college would forfeit the amount deposited with it, and the second respondent would refund a sum to the college. The college was also directed to release all the documents of the appellant within two weeks.