The High Court held that administrative lapses by the Selection Committee and the College denied the petitioner admission. While direct admission was not possible due to lack of seats, the Court moulded relief by directing compensation.
Respondents directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 to the petitioner within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.27687 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
A.Jayaranjani. ... Petitioner
Vs.
directing the respondents to admit her in BDS Course, pursuant to the Order of Allotment of Admission Card issued by the 3rd respondent in AR.No.7923 dated 30.09.2014 at the 4th respondent's College, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Honourable Court. .
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Veeramani For Respondent 1 : Mrs.Shubharanjani Ananth For Respondents 2 & 3 : No appearance For Respondent 4 : Abhishek Jenasenan For Respondent 5 : S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi
O R D E R
The relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to admit the petitioner in BDS Course, pursuant to the Order of allotment of Admission Card issued by the 3rd respondent in AR.No.7923 dated 30.09.2014 at the 4th respondent College, within a time frame.
submission that the petitioner is from poor family and provided with an order of allotment to study BDS course in the 4th respondent college. She has not committed any fault or delay in reporting to the college. He would further contend that as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court order, the last date for completing the admission was 30.09.014 and the 3rd respondent Selection Committee issued the allotment order to the petitioner only at 4 p.m., on 30.09.2014 and the petitioner immediately rushed to the college on the very next day i.e, 01.10.2014 and reported at 9 a.m. Inspite of that, the admission was denied to the petitioner and she was deprived of her opportunity to study BDS Course.
Thus, the petitioner reported on 01.10.2014 at 9 a.m. Therefore, the petitioner has not committed any fault or delay in reporting before the 4th respondent college. It was the mistake committed by the Selection Committee in not conducting the counselling in advance or providing information to the college on 30.09.2014, directing them to admit the petitioner. The Selection Committee ought to have informed the 4th respondent not to admit any other students on 30.09.2014, in view of the fact that an allotment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 30.09.2014, itself.
“18. Moreover, unfortunately for the writ petitioner, the fourth respondent claims that all vacancies are already filled up. Today, it is not within the competence of this Court to create one additional seat in the fourth Respondent College, so as to give admission to the petitioner. I cannot also
cancel the admission given by the 4 respondent to a wrong candidate, for the purpose of accommodating the writ petitioner. That candidate is not before me. Therefore, though the petitioner has suffered on account of the blunder committed by the Selection Committee, I cannot grant her the relief of admission to the B.D.S. Course.
19.Though the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of admission to the Course, in view of non availability of vacancies, she cannot be left without a remedy, especially after I have found that she was not at fault and that the Selection Committee was at fault. The petitioner is a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste. Her dreams of a great future, was lit up for a short while, by the order of allotment issued on 30.09.2014, but it was blown off within a few hours. The conduct of a counselling on 30.09.2014 and the issue of an allotment order on the same day at 3.30 p.m., at Chennai directing the petitioner to report at Madurai on the same day, are clearly in violation of the orders of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Selection Committee is obliged to compensate the petitioner in monetary terms.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
shr/kan
To
| 3. The Secretary, |
|---|
| The Selection committee for admission of MBBS/BDS - 214-15 Session |
| Directorate of Medical Education Chennai-600010. |
| 4. The Dean K.S.R.Dental College |
| K.S.R Kalvi Nagar Thokkavadi Post |
| Tiruchengode |
| Namakkal District |
| 5. The Secretary, The Dental Council of India, Aiwan-E-Galib Marg, |
| Kolta Road, Temple Lane, New Delhi – 110002. |
| +1cc to Mr.Veeramani, Advocate, S.R.No.63401 |
| +1cc to M/s.Shubharanjani, Advocate, S.R.No.63603 |
| +2ccs to Mr.Jenasenan, Advocate, S.R.No.63928 |
| W.P.No.27687 of 2014 |
| and M.P.No.1 of 2014 |
| MG(CO) |
| SU(28/12/2021) |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for loss of admission opportunity due to administrative errors by the Selection Committee and the College.
Whether the Writ Petition is a fit case to mould relief for the grant of compensation.
Whether respondents 2, 3 and 4 are responsible for the denial of admission to the petitioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ms.A.E.Durga Vs. The Directorate of Medical Education and othersReferred¶29
2014 SCC Online Mad 10695 · Who else cites this
A. Jayaranjani
The Medical Council of India
The State of Tamilnadu
The Selection committee
K.S.R.Dental College
The Dental Council of India
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
