Education/Educational institutions – Medical admission – Creation of compensatory seat in the ensuing academic year – Orders by the Director, Medical Education directing appellants-medical colleges to keep one MBBS seat vacant in the appellant-colleges with a direction that the said seat would not be included in the College Level Counseling Round for the academic year 2023-24 – Said direction issued pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court in writ petitions filed by the students – Subsequently, both the writ petitions dismissed – Thereagainst, appellants filing SLPs before this Court seeking compensatory seat in the subsequent academic year on the ground that since the seat was kept on hold, they were deprived of the opportunity to fill that seat, and faced losses: Held: 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, and the Colleges would have to carry that vacant seat for the entire duration of the MBBS Course – Interim order directing one seat in the counselling to be kept vacant is a cryptic order where neither the prima facie case nor the balance of convenience and irreparable loss aspects were discussed – High Court wholly ignored these principles – Medical seat has life only in the year it falls due and that too only till the cut-off date fixed – Seat falling vacant in a particular year cannot be carried forward or created in the succeeding year – Keeping vacant seats results in huge financial loss to the college apart from being a national wastage of resources – 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 authorities is so gross as to negate any other conclusion, interim orders keeping seats vacant could be made, with great caution and circumspection and the petitioner be directed to provide security, to the college-institution as a guarantee in case the matter is dismissed – Furthermore, every endeavor must be made by the Court to dispose of the matter before the counselling for admissions are over – Vacant seat will deprive the college of the fees to that extent, not just for one year but for the whole course, which could be four, five or more years – Principle of restitution is not excluded from its application to interim orders – Court should be mindful to neutralize the effect of wrong interim orders which they have been persuaded to pass – Maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit would apply, and orders of restitution can be passed directing the party which obtained the advantage to compensate the party which suffered the disadvantage – On facts, it is a case of one seat in each college – To meet ends of justice, the appellant colleges granted liberty to make a representation to the Fee Fixation Committee/Authority of the State pointing out their grievance, which would fix the fees for college (for future batches) as also reckon the deficit in fees that has resulted due to the single vacant seat and fix the fees by adding such amount to the total fees proposed to be fixed which would restitute the colleges monetarily – Considering that it is a single seat and since the fee would be spread over for a period of five years, the financial impact on whom the burden would fall would be marginal, in proportion to the total fee payable – This is the best possible option, to neutralize the effect of interim orders which have operated to the prejudice of the colleges. [Paras 20-33]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.