Non-Reportable  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5168 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.6232 of 2006)

And

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5169 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.6234 of 2006)

Christian Medical College … Appellant

Vs.

State of Punjab & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. In  Mridul  Dhar  v.  Union  of  India [2005  (2)  SCC 64],  this  Court  

approved the following time-schedule for admission to medical courses (first  

MBBS course) :  

1

Schedule for admission Seats  filled  up  by  State  Governments/institutions   

Conduct of entrance Examination Month of May

Declaration  of  result  of  qualifying  exam/entrance exam

By 15th June

First round of counseling/admission To be over by 17th July

Last  date  for  joining  the  allotted  college and course

29th July

Second  round  of  counseling  for  allotment of seats from waiting list

25th to 28th August

Last  date  for  joining  for  candidates  allotted  seats  in  second  round  of  counseling from the waiting list

30th August

Commencement of academic Session 1st of August to 31st August

Last  date  up  to  which  students  can  be  admitted against vacancies arising due to  any reason

30th September

3. The  appellant  (Christian  Medical  College,  Ludhiana)  is  a  minority  

institution running a medical college with an intake capacity of 50. As per  

the order dated 1.6.2005 of this Court in W.P. [C] No.357/2004, 75% of the  

seats were to be filled according to the choice of the Appellant college from  

the members of the minority community and balance 25% seats to be filled  

by the candidates allotted by the State on the basis of the merit list prepared  

2

by it. Thus it is not in dispute that for the academic year 2005-06, out of the  

50 seats, 38 seats were to be filled by the college with minority students and  

12 seats were to be filled by the candidates allotted by the State.

4. On the ground that the State did not allot any candidate till 30.8.2005  

which was the last date as per the schedule approved by this Court in Mridul   

Dhar, the appellant college claims to have filled those seats by candidates  

from its merit list namely respondents 6 and 17 (respondents 8 to 19 in the  

second matter).

5. The  State/University  allotted  candidates  towards  their  quota  after  

belated  counseling  with  reference  to  merit  list  prepared  on  the  basis  of  

second  Punjab  Medical  Entrance  Test  (PMET)  during  the  middle  of  

September, 2005. The appellant denied to those candidates admission on the  

ground that the last date for allotment being over, those seats were filled by  

candidates from its own merit list. Aggrieved by their non-admission, six of  

the State quota allottees, namely respondents 4 and 5 in the first matter and  

respondents  4 to 7 in the second matter,  approached the High Court and  

sought a direction for admission.

3

6. Several  contentions  were  urged  by  the  appellant  resisting  the  said  

petitions. Ultimately the High Court by a common judgment dated 4.1.2006  

allowed the two writ petitions with the following directions :  

“1) The  admission  of  the  private  respondents*  to  the  MBBS  course  at  the   CMC  for  the  academic  year  2005-2006  is  protected.

2) The  petitioners  cannot  be  granted  admission  in  MBBS  classes in the current academic year after 30.9.2005, as their  admission would be a midstream admission which has been  prohibited by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

3) The petitioners will be admitted to the MBBS course at  the  CMC  for  the  academic  session  2006-2007  against  the  management quota seats in terms of the directive contained in  para 35(11) of Mridul Dhar’s judgment, as it has exceeded its  quota during the academic year 2005-2006.    

4) The CMC would compensate each of the petitioners with   an amount of Rs.2 lacs each for the loss of one year, for the   mental tension and for economic loss caused to them.

5) The CMC is burdened with the costs of Rs.2 lacs to be   deposited, with the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,   Faridkot,  within  3  months  from  today,  for  being  utilized   towards students welfare fund.”

(*Note: ‘Private respondents’ refers to the 12 candidates admitted by  the appellant college against the State quota seats.)

        (Emphasis supplied)

7. The said judgment is  challenged in these appeals  by special  leave.  

Though several grounds were urged in the special leave petitions at the time  

of  hearing,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  college  submitted  that  in  

4

compliance with the judgment of the High Court, the appellant has admitted  

the  six  writ  petitioners  (respondents  4  and  5  in  the  first  matter  and  

respondents 4 to 7 in the second matter) for the academic session 2006-07  

against the management quota, and they have been  prosecuting their studies  

without  hindrance  and they  will  not  be  disturbed  by the  appellant.  As a  

consequence, there is no need to examine the several contentions urged in  

the appeals on merits challenging the judgment of the High Court.  

8. What remains for consideration is the correctness of the two directions  

that the college should compensate the six writ petitioners by paying Rs.2  

lakhs each for the loss of one year and for mental tension and economic loss,  

and the  direction to pay costs  of  Rs.2 lakhs to Baba Farid University  of  

Health Sciences.  

9. Three of the six writ petitioners (respondent No.5 in the first matter  

and respondents 4 and 5 in the second matter) have entered appearance and  

they submitted that they do not press for payment of the compensation of Rs.  

Two  lakhs  awarded  to  each  of  them.  The  other  three  writ  petitioners  

(respondent  4  in  the  first  matter  and respondents  6  and 7 in  the  second  

matter) have not appeared and contested the matter.  

5

10. Learned counsel for the University submitted that the High Court had  

examined the matter in detail and costs were awarded in view of the failure  

of the appellant college to admit the candidates allotted by the State and  

admission  of  candidates  of  its  own  choice  to  the  State  quota  seats.  He  

submitted that the order of the High Court regarding costs did not call for  

interference.

11. In  view  of  the  above,  the  question  is  whether  the  direction  for  

payment of compensation of Rs. Two Lakhs each to respondent 4 in the first  

matter and respondents 6 and 7 in the second matter, and the award of costs  

of Rs.2 lakhs to the University, require interference. The fact that the time  

schedule laid down in  Mridul Dhar was not followed by the State and the  

University  is  not  in  dispute.  In  fact  the  High  Court  has  recorded  the  

following findings in regard to the delays on the part of the State/University:  

“The reasons for not being able to abide by the time schedule laid down in  Mridul Dhar’s case (supra) are known to every one concerned with the  matter.  The 1st PMET 2005 was  held  on  5th June  2005.  As  there  was  leakage of question papers, therefore, the said entrance test was cancelled  as a whole on 7.6.2005. The 2nd PMET was held on 30.6.2005 and the  result thereof, was declared on 2.7.2005. Because of wrong key answers,  the merit list prepared on the basis of the 2nd PMET held on 30.6.2005 was  challenged in this Court through CWP No.10272 of 2005 (Saumil Garg  and others vs. State of Punjab and others) and a large bunch of similar writ  petitions. This Court directed the preparation of correct key answer vide  its judgment dated 8.8.2005. Guru Nanak Dev University which was one  

6

of the respondents in that case, filed a petition for Special Leave to Appeal  (Civil) No. 16952 of 2005. The said petition/appeal was decided by the  Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 24.8.2005. The answer sheets  of  candidates  who  had  taken  the  2nd PMET,  were  required  to  be  re- evaluated on the basis of correct key answers in respect of 8 questions.  The result of the 2nd PMET was to be declared within two days,  and a  further period of 72 hours was granted to the candidates to file objection  (as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court). Admittedly, the result  of 2nd PMET-2005 was declared on 29.8.2005.  

The  narration  of  the  facts  stated  above  clearly  revels,  that  the  time  schedule as laid down in the regulation dated 25.2.2004 issued by the MCI  and  as  approved  by  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  in  Mridul  Dhar’s  judgment  (supra),  could  not  be  observed  for  admission  to  the  MBBS  courses, in so far as the State quota is concerned, as the dates for holding  of entrance test (in May) declaration of the result  of entrance test  (15th  June), the date of first round of counseling/admission (17th July) and the  date of second round the counseling or allotment of seats from waiting list  (25th to 28th August) had already expired, before the result was declared on  29.8.2005,  and  therefore,  the  observance  of  these  dates  was  not  at  all  possible by any stretch of imagination.”     

Therefore, even assuming that the appellant had read the judgment in Mridul   

Dhar selectively to achieve its object, as held by the High Court, we are of  

the view that the award of compensation of Rs. Two lakhs on each of the six  

writ petitioners may not be warranted, as there was also a clear violation of  

the  time  schedule  by  the  State.  The  writ  petitioners  have  been  

accommodated  and  they  no  longer  have  any  grievance.  As  the  

State/University  were  responsible  for  the  delay  in  conforming  to  the  

schedule for counseling and allotment of candidates under the State quota,  

on account of leakage of question papers and preparation of wrong key-

7

answers, which resulted in the non-admission of the six writ petitioners, the  

award of costs in favour of the University was not warranted.

12. We accordingly allow these appeals in part and set aside directions (4)  

and  (5)  in  the  impugned  order  of  the  High  Court  for  payment  of  

compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to each of the six writ petitioners and the levy of  

costs of Rs.2 lakhs in favour of the University. We make it clear that we  

have not expressed any opinion regarding directions (1) to (3) as they have  

been accepted and acted upon by the appellant college.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in regard to the 12  

students admitted by the appellant against the vacant State quota seats, that  

is respondents 6 to 17 (who are respondents 8 to 19 in the second matter),  

the marks sheets have not been released by the University on the ground of  

non-payment  of  costs  of  Rs.  Two lakhs  and  pendency  of  these  appeals.  

Insofar as those 12 students are concerned, the High Court had protected  

their  admission and held that  their  admission need not  be disturbed.  We  

extract below the relevant observations of the High Court :  

“So far as quashing of the admission granted to the private respondents in  the CMC against the Government quota seats is concerned, undoubtedly,  their admission is on provisional basis, but nothing has been placed on the  file  to  show  if  these  candidates  had  played  any  condemnable  role  in  seeking admission, or that they had connived with the CMC for getting  admission  to  the  course  under  reference.  It  seems  that  the  private  

8

respondents have been given admission by the CMC out of its own merit  list prepared on the basis of the entrance test conducted by it. In our view,  therefore,  it  is  only  the  CMC,  which  is  responsible  for  admitting  the  private respondents against the seats of Government quota. Therefore, the  career of the private respondents, who have been admitted in the CMC  against  the  State  quota  seats  should  not  be  cut  down  for  the  fault  of  CMC.”  

In  the  circumstances  the  University  will  have  to  deal  with  the  said  12  

students  as  having  been regularly  admitted  and if  their  results  or  marks  

sheets  or  other  documents  have  been withheld,  release  the  same without  

delay.

…………………………J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; ………………………….J. July 8, 2010. (H L Gokhale)                 

9