Sri. Ajay Jayakumar Nair Vs Medical Council of India

SRI. AJAY JAYAKUMAR NAIR, S/O. SRI. JAYAKUMAR CHERRAT, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/AT "SHRI JANI", 23, 24, GKS AVENUE, VADAVALLI, THONDAMUTHUR ROAD, VADAVALLI, VEERAKERALAM POST, COIMBATORE (D), TAMILNADU STATE - 641 046.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K.CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, DWARAKA - PHASE - 1, NEW DELHI-110 071, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶16

THE SRI DEVARAJ URS ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:38212-DB WP No. 24121 of 2018

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

RESEARCH DEEMED UNIVERSITY, TAMAKA, KOLAR - 563 103, KARNATAKA STATE, INDIA. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶21

THE PRINCIPAL, SRI DEVARAJ URS MEDICAL COLLEGE, P.B.NO.7, TAMAKA, KOLAR-563 101, KARNATAKA, INDIA.

¶22

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES, (MEDICAL EXAMINATION), MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI -110011.

¶23

(AMENDED CAUSE TITLE IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 22.10.2024)

¶24

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA, 4^TH 'T' BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560041. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,

¶25

(AMENDED CAUSE TITLE IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 08.09.2025)

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R2; SRI. KIRAN J., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4; SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, CGC FOR R5)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TOQUASH THE LETTER DATED 22.11.2017 VIDE NO. DMC/KLR/STS/2050/2017-18 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT HEREIN IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-R; CALL

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38212-DB WP No. 24121 of 2018

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ADMISSION OF UG MBBS STUDENTS IN THE FOURTH RESPONDENT COLLEGE UNDER NRI QUOTA AND ALSO THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO SURRENDER OF SEATS TO MCC 2017 FOR MEDICAL SEAT AND ETC.

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶34

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶37

The petitioner took admission in MBBS course under

¶38

the NRI quota in the respondent No.3-Institution, a Deemed University after undertaking NEET-2017 Entrance examination, for admission in MBBS course. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's mother who was an NRI lost her job in Saudi Arabia, and the petitioner was not in a position to pay the fee for further studies. The petitioner had paid fee of Rs.27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Only) as an NRI student for the first year of MBBS Course.

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38212-DB WP No. 24121 of 2018

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

As the petitioner was not in a position to pay further fees for second year and onwards, the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent No.3-Institution on 30.08.2017 requesting them to cancel his admission and refund the fee. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3Institution had taken admission against the vacant seat which was caused as a result of the cancellation of the admission of the petitioner in the Institution. The submission is that the respondent No.3-Institution has not suffered any loss because of cancellation of the admission by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court may direct the respondent No.3-Institution to refund the fee of

¶42

Rs.27,00,000/- paid by the petitioner along with the interest.

¶43

The learned counsel for the respondent No.3Institution however submits that the respondent No.3Institution being a Deemed University, the seats in the medical course are allotted by the Medical Council of India (MCI) under 15% of All India Quota. The last date for

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:38212-DB WP No. 24121 of 2018

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

admission as per the schedule published by the Medical

¶48

Council of India was 31.08.2017.

¶49

The respondent No.3-Institution has uploaded the names of all the students admitted in the respondent No.3-Institution on MCI website which would also include the name of the petitioner as an NRI student. The respondent No.3-Institution cannot admit the students on its own. The students were to be allotted by MCI after counselling. No student could be admitted without counselling. When all the seats in the respondent No.3Institution were filled up by admitting the students forwarded by the MCI after counselling, there was no question of taking admission against the seat which became vacant because of the cancellation of the admission of the petitioner on his request. The submission is that one seat of NRI quota in MBBS course remained vacant for 4½ years, and the respondent No.3-Institution lost the fee for 3½ years. Infact, it is the respondent No.3-Institution which should have claimed damages from

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:38212-DB WP No. 24121 of 2018

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled for any refund of the fees.

¶54

Sri K.Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel appearing

¶55

for the petitioner however, submits that when the petitioner has sought cancellation of his admission vide the letter dated 30.08.2017, and the Supreme Court extended the date of admission till 07.09.2017, nothing prevented the respondent No.3-Institution to intimate the factum of cancellation of admission of the petitioner on his request for including that seat for further round of counselling to be conducted by the MCI. He therefore, submits that the respondent No.3-Institution was responsible for not filling the seat which got vacant because of the cancellation of the petitioner's admission and for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. He therefore, submits that the respondent No.3-Institution is liable to refund the fees along with the interest.

¶56

We have considered the submissions.

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:38212-DB WP No. 24121 of 2018

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Sri K.Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel appearing

¶61

for the petitioner has not been able to show us any provision in the prospectus or the MCI Examination Admission Rules which would entitle a student to claim refund of the fees after he has taken admission and deposited the fee, and thereafter he sought cancellation of his admission.

¶62

We have taken the consistent view in two judgments of this Court in W.P.No.18859/2024 dated 31.07.2025 and in W.P.No.12699/2025 dated 28.08.2025 against such a claim. While considering the prospectus of the Karnataka Examination Authority, we have held that once a candidate has been admitted to a professional course after the counselling, and if he seeks cancellation of admission, he is not entitled for refund of the fee. In absence of any

¶63

provision for any refund of fee and when there is no evidence to suggest that the respondent No.3-Institution has admitted any of the student against the vacant seat

¶64

8 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:38212-DB WP No. 24121 of 2018

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

caused by the petitioner's cancellation of admission, we are of the view that, no such mandamus can be issued to

¶68

the respondent No.3-Institution to refund the fee.

¶69

Therefore, we do not find any substance in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby disposed of , with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Karnataka Fee Regulatory Committee for his grievance and if he does so, the said Committee should examine the case of the petitioner in accordance with law independently without being influenced by any of the observations in the order passed by us.

¶70

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶71

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶72

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Sri. Ajay Jayakumar Nair v. Medical Council of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ajay Jayakumar Nair v. Medical Council of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Danush B Praveen Vs the State of Karnataka

Susheelamma Vs Bharath R

The Income Tax Officer Vs Dr Ramdas Madhava Pai

Salman Khan Vs Syed Yakub

Shri Anand R Vs Shri Dinesha H P

Smt. Meenakshi Vs Sri. Girish. N