Holding

The Supreme Court held that although the prospectus clauses were correctly interpreted, the High Court’s order to redraw the merit list and admit the first respondent could not be granted; instead, the Court awarded Rs 10 lakhs compensation to the first respondent.

Summary

The appellant university conducted a mop‑up counselling round for MBBS seats after two earlier rounds, during which it upgraded three Himachali students from management to state quota under clause 4 of its prospectus. The first respondent, Akriti Sharma, who had a higher NEET‑UG 2021 merit, was denied a state‑quota seat and filed a writ petition seeking redrawing of the merit list. The High Court ordered the merit list to be redrawn and directed the university to admit the first respondent, but the Supreme Court noted that admissions had already been completed and the college’s sanctioned intake was 150 seats. While the Court agreed with the High Court’s interpretation of clauses 3 and 4, it held that granting admission would exceed the sanctioned intake and affect a student not before the court. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and awarded the first respondent monetary compensation of Rs 10 lakhs. The appeal was partially allowed, directing compensation instead of admission.

Issues considered

The correct interpretation of clause 3 and clause 4 of the prospectus regarding mop‑up counselling and conversion of management‑quota seats.
Whether the High Court could lawfully direct a fresh merit‑list and admission of the first respondent after the academic session had commenced and the intake limit was reached.
What appropriate relief is available to a meritorious student denied admission – admission in the same year, admission in the next year, or monetary compensation.
Whether a court may increase the sanctioned seat count of a medical college beyond the limit prescribed by the National Medical Commission.

Legislation cited

Maharishi Markandeshwar University (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2010

Subjects

NEET‑UGmedical college admissionmerit listmop‑up counsellingstate quotamanagement quotacompensationNational Medical Commissionprocedural fairness

Judgment

[2022] 13 S.C.R. 1113 1113

MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR UNIVERSITY AND A
ANOTHER
v.
AKRITI SHARMA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 6809 of 2022) B
SEPTEMBER 19, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institution : NEET UG 2021 – After
C
the completion of two rounds of counseling of NEET 2021, second
respondent, University of Himachal Pradesh, issued a schedule for
conducting the mop up round for MBBS/ BDS courses – Appellant,
a private state university in Himachal Pradesh, issued an
advertisement for conducting the mop up round of counselling from
NEET qualified candidates – Second respondent forwarded to the D
appellant a list of students who were eligible for admission under
the state quota, but were admitted in the management quota in the
first and second rounds of counseling along with the letter stating
that these students may be considered for being shifted to the state
quota if no students with more marks in NEET had applied in the
E
mop up round – Writ petition was filed by the first respondent, a
medical student, before the High Court for redrawing the merit list
for admission to the MBBS degree in the mop up round of counseling
for the general category under the state quota, which was allowed
– On appeal, held: Clause 3 of the prospectus stipulates that in a
schedule for the mop up round, eligible candidates would be entitled F
to fill up fresh choices/ preferences in respect of the course, college
and quota online – Shifting for up-gradation of a course and quota
from private dental colleges to government dental colleges and vice-
versa in order of merit-cum-choices/ preferences has to be allowed
– Clause 4 of the prospectus provides that students belonging to
G
Himachal Pradesh who were admitted under the management quota
in private medical/dental colleges will also be converted
automatically from the management quota to the state quota in the
colleges concerned against vacant/drop out seats, if any, in order
of merit – First respondent admittedly ranked higher in merit than
the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents, therefore, entitled to H
1113
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R.

A admission in terms of the provisions of clause 3 – However, the
admissions for the MBBS degree courses were concluded on 25
March 2022 –By the time the High Court decided the issue, the
admissions had already been concluded and the last prescribed
date for admission was over – The prescribed intake capacity of
the medical college of the appellants is 150 students – The
B
consequence of the direction of the High Court to redraw the merit
list and grant admission to the first respondent increases the intake
of the college to 151 seats but the one student who would be the
lowest in merit would have to give way for the admission which is
directed to the first respondent – As already 5 months of the first
C session for the MBBS course have been completed, hence, direction
of the High Court to grant admission to the first respondent cannot
be acceded – However, compensation granted to first respondent.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Clause 3 of the prospectus stipulates that after
D the completion of the first and second rounds of counselling, a
schedule for the mop up round shall be issued by the university
and the online counselling form would be made available.
Candidates who are eligible for participating in the mop up round
have to fill up fresh choices/ preferences in respect of the course,
E college and quota online. Shifting for up-gradation of a course
and quota from private dental colleges to government dental
colleges and government/ private dental colleges to MMMC
Solan and government dental colleges/ MMMC Solan to
government medical colleges in order of merit-cum-choices/
preferences has to be allowed. The provisions of clause 3 are
F abundantly clear. The first respondent admittedly ranked higher
in merit than the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents. She was
therefore clearly entitled to admission in terms of the provisions
of clause 3. Clause 4 of the prospectus provides that students
belonging to Himachal Pradesh who were admitted under the
G management quota in private medical/dental colleges will also
be converted automatically from the management quota to the
state quota in the colleges concerned against vacant/drop out
seats, if any, in order of merit. As the High Court has correctly
observed, clause 4 in its plain terms applies to vacant/drop out
seats which would necessarily refer to the position as it obtains
H
MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER v. 1115
AKRITI SHARMA

after the mop up round of counselling is completed. Hence, the A
interpretation which has been placed by the High Court on clauses
3 and 4 of the prospectus cannot be faulted. [Paras 17 and
18][1123-E-H; 1124-A-B]
2. In the instant proceedings, the High Court
understandably held that the first respondent was wrongfully B
denied admission in the medical college run by the appellants.
However, the admissions for the MBBS degree courses were
concluded on 25 March 2022 for the academic session 2021-2022.
Undoubtedly, there were no laches on the part of the first
respondent in moving the High Court since she had instituted a
writ petition on 29 March 2022. Nonetheless, by the time the C
High Court decided the issue, the admissions had already been
concluded and the last prescribed date for admission was over.
[Para 22][1126-F-G]
3. The fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents who were the
three students who were upgraded in terms of clause 4 of the D
prospectus were impleaded as parties to the proceedings. The
issue however does not rest only with these three students. The
prescribed intake capacity of the medical college of the appellants
is 150 students. The consequence of the direction of the High
Court to redraw the merit list and grant admission to the first E
respondent gives rise to certain unfeasible outcomes. The total
strength of the students admitted for the MBBS course for the
academic session 2021-2022 would stand increased to 151
students and one of the three students among the fifth, sixth and
seventh respondents would be reverted to the management
quota, but the matter would not rest there. Once the intake of F
the college increases to 151 seats after the admission of the first
respondent, one student who would be the lowest in merit would
have to give way for the admission which is directed to the first
respondent. That student would not have been impleaded as a
party to the proceedings before the High Court. Compounded G
with the above position is the fact that five months of the first
session for the MBBS degree course for the academic year 2021-
2022 have been completed and the admitted students are pursuing
their studies. In this view of the matter, it may not be possible for
this Court to accede to the direction of the High Court for the
H
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R.

A grant of admission to the first respondent. The alternative
submission which has been urged cannot also be acceded to
because it would not be appropriate for this Court to direct that
admission be granted to the first respondent against the seats
available for the ensuing academic year 2022-2023. Those seats
should be filled on a competitive basis in accordance with the
B
governing prospectus. [Para 23][1127-A-E]
4. The first respondent cannot be left without any remedy.
She has suffered though she ranked higher than the fifth, sixth
and seventh respondents in merit in the NEET-UG 2021. She
has been deprived of the admission to which she was entitled
C under clause 3 of the prospectus by an erroneous interpretation.
Although the first respondent is currently pursuing her BDS
course in a government dental college, she aspires to a seat for
the MBBS degree course. The loss of one full academic year of
the MBBS degree course can only be partially compensated in
D terms of money. However, compensation must be provided to
the first respondent and she cannot be left in the lurch having
lost a seat for admission for the MBBS degree course. [Para
24][1127-F-H]
Asha v. Pt. B. D. Sharma University of Health Sciences
E (2012) 7 SCC 389 : [2012] 6 SCR 876; S. Krishna
Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2020) 17 SCC 465
: [2019] 15 SCR 93 and National Medical Commission
v. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi 2020 SCC OnLine SC
992 – relied on.

F Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654 :
[1984] 3 SCR 942; Association of Management of
Unaided Private Medical and Dental College v. Pravesh
Niyantran Samiti (2005) 13 SCC 704 and Priya Gupta
v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433 : [2012] 5
SCR 768 – referred to.
G
Case Law Reference
[1984] 3 SCR 942 referred to Para 15
(2005) 13 SCC 704 referred to Para 15

H
MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER v. 1117
AKRITI SHARMA

[2012] 5 SCR 768 referred to Para 15 A
[2012] 6 SCR 876 relied on Para 15
[2019] 15 SCR 93 relied on Para 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6809
of 2022. B
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2022 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in C.W.P. No.1861 of 2022.
Aseem Mehrotra, Ms. Deeksha, Rajeev Singh, Advs. for the
Appellants.
C
M. C. Dhingra, Gaurav Dhingra, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
D
2. The appeal arises from a judgment dated 2 August 2022 of a
Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
3. The first appellant is a private state university in Himachal
Pradesh established under the Maharishi Markandeshwar University
(Establishment and Regulation) Act 2010. The first appellant runs the E
Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College and Hospital at Kumarhatti,
District Solan. The medical college has a prescribed intake of 150 seats
for admission to the MBBS degree course as approved by the National
Medical Commission1.
4. The first respondent is medical student currently pursuing her F
BDS course in a government dental college. The second respondent,
Atal Medical and Research University, Himachal Pradesh, issued a
prospectus for conducting centralized counselling for MBBS/ BDS
courses based on the order of merit in the National Eligibility-cum-
Entrance Test2 2021 for the undergraduate medical courses. The first
respondent appeared in NEET-UG 2021 and secured 456 out of 720 G
marks with a rank of 1,26,537. On 29 January 2022, the second
respondent issued a schedule of admission for the MBBS/ BDS courses

1
“NMC”
2
“NEET” H
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R.

A for academic session 2021-2022. The first respondent secured admission
for the BDS course in Bhojia Dental College, Nalagarh and joined the
course on 02 February 2022. In the second round of counselling, the first
respondent secured admission for the BDS course in the HP Government
Dental College and Hospital, Shimla under the state quota.
B 5. After the completion of the second round of counselling, the
medical college of the first appellant had 44 vacancies which were
open for mop up counselling for admission to the first year MBBS
degree course. Of these 44 seats, 4 were lying vacant under the state
quota out of which 3 were under the general quota and one under the
Scheduled Tribes quota. On 15 March 2022, the second respondent
C issued a schedule for conducting the mop up round for MBBS/ BDS
courses. The appellant issued an advertisement for conducting the mop
up round of counselling from NEET qualified candidates. Counselling
was to take place from 10 am on 25 March 2022. On 24 March 2022,
the second respondent forwarded to the appellants a list of students
D who were eligible for admission under the state quota, but were admitted
in the management quota in the first and second rounds of counselling.
The letter stated that these students may be considered for being shifted
to the state quota if no students with more marks in NEET had applied
in the mop up round.
E 6. The first respondent filed an application with the medical college
of the appellants together with the registration charges for admission to
the MBBS course in the state quota. According to the appellants, the
state quota seats in the general category were “automatically filled up”
by upgrading the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents from the
management quota to the state quota on 25 March 2022. The fifth, sixth,
F and seventh respondents secured 440, 441, and 442 marks respectively,
and were lower in merit to the first respondent, who secured 456 marks.
Thereafter, the management seats were also filled up. Therefore, the
first respondent could not secure an MBBS seat under state quota in the
medical college run by the appellants.
G 7. A writ petition was instituted by the first respondent before the
High Court on 29 March 2022 for redrawing the merit list for admission
to the MBBS degree course in the mop up round of counselling held on
25 March 2022 for the general category seats under the state quota.
The appellants filed replies. During the pendency of the proceedings,
H the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents, who were students originally
MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER v. 1119
AKRITI SHARMA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

admitted to the management quota but upgraded to the state quota, were A
impleaded as parties on 11 May 2022.
8. The High Court allowed the petition by the impugned judgment
and order dated 2 August 2022. It observed that the first respondent had
the first right of admission to the medical college run by the appellants
by virtue of securing higher marks than the fifth, sixth, and seventh B
respondents. The High Court further held that students admitted under
management quota can be considered for upgradation to the state quota
only if no student with more marks in NEET applied in the mop-up round.
The High Court concluded that:
“In view of the above discussion, the instant petition is allowed. C
Admission of respondents 6 to 8 in state quota general category
seats in MMMG on their upgradation from management quota by
ignoring the merit of other applicants including the petitioner in
mop-up round is held to be bad in law being against the express
conditions of prospectus. Consequently, respondents No. 1 to 3
D
are directed to redraw the merit list of admission to MBBS course
in MMMC in respect of the mop up round counselling held, on
25.03.2022 against general category seats of State quota and after
such redrawal of merit list, admit the petitioner to MBBS course
in MMMC, Kumarhatti, District Solan, H.P., commencing
academic year 2021-2022 forthwith, in case she finds place in E
merit so redrawn.”
9. The crux of the controversy turns on the interpretation of clauses
3, 4 and 9(e) of the Common/ Centralized Counselling Prospectus for
admission to MBBS and BDS courses. The relevant clauses of the
prospectus are extracted below: F
“3. After completion of 1st & 2nd round of counselling, the schedule
for Mop-up round of counselling shall be issued by the University
and the online counselling form shall be made available on the
University website www.amruhp.ac.in. Candidates who are
eligible for participating in the mop-up round on online counselling G
are required to fill up fresh choices/preferences of course, college
and quota in the online application form within stipulated period
for provisional allocation against vacant seats along with requisite
amount as prescribed for token amount of fee, as applicable. If
candidate is satisfied with his/her seat allocated during the previous H
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R.

A rounds of online counselling, he/she is not required to participate
in the subsequent round of online counselling. No inter-se-shifting
from one Government Medical College to another Medical college
shall be allowed during the mop up Round of Counselling as per
MCI/NMC guidelines. However, shifting for upgradation of course
and quota from private Dental Colleges to Govt. Dental College
B
and Govt./private dental colleges to MMMC Solan and
Government dental college/MMMC Solan to Govt. Medical
Colleges in order of merit-cum-choices/preferences of the course,
college and quota shall be allowed.
Note: (i) Candidates who had not participated / allocated seats in
C the 1st & 2nd rounds of counselling can also participate in the
mop-up rounds(s) of counselling as per their AMRU merit Rank.
(ii) Candidates are advised to remain in touch with the AMRU
websites regularly for any change in the counselling/ admission
process as well as latest updating upto the last closing date of
D admission and University shall in no way be responsible for non-
communication on this account. For any query, please contact on
Tel. No. 01905-243962, 243967, 292102.”
4. The Himachali bonafide candidates admitted under management
quota in the private Medical/Dental colleges will also be converted
E automatically from management quota to state quota in the colleges
concerned against vacant/drop-out seats, if any, in order of merit,
as the case, may be, subject to fulfillment of the eligibility criteria
as prescribed for State Quota seats.
9(e). After 2nd round of Common/Centralized Counselling, the
F private medical college (MMMCH, Solan) shall be allowed to fill-
up the left-out seats under State/ Management/ NRI Quota at
institution level by making wide publicity amongst eligible
candidates. However, AMRU, Ner Chowk, Mandi will forward
the waiting list of 2nd round of online counselling with their option
G to the Principal, MMMCH, Solan in order to fill-up the vacant
seats strictly in order of merit-cum-choice of the candidates. The
AMRU, Ner Chowk, Mandi may also upload the aforesaid waiting
list on website www.amruph.ac.in.”
10. Mr Aseem Mehrotra, counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that the mop up round of counselling was carried out
H
MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER v. 1121
AKRITI SHARMA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

strictly in accordance with clause 4 of the prospectus. According to the A
appellant, the list which was sent by the second respondent did not include
the name of the first respondent. Hence, the appellant automatically
upgraded the names of the three candidates, namely, the fifth, sixth, and
seventh respondents, from the management quota to the state general
quota seats. Moreover, the college also filled up the remaining
B
management quota/ NRI seats which were vacant. Hence, on 25 March
2022 all the state quota seats got filled up. The first respondent, it has
been submitted, instituted a writ petition thereafter on 29 March 2022
for redrawing the merit for admission, at which point of time, all the
state quota seats were filled up. Mr Mehrotra submitted that in the
absence of an interim order of the High Court, the appellants proceeded C
to grant admissions to the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents.
11. Mr Aseem Mehrotra further submitted that the first session of
the first year of the MBBS degree course has been completed and the
students have completed their studies over a period of four months.
Moreover, it has been submitted that in the event that the order of the D
High Court is allowed to stand, one student would have to be ousted
from among the admitted students who is not a party before this Court.
This, it has been submitted, would be the necessary consequence because
while one of the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents would be reverted
to the management quota, the total number of admissions in the institution
cannot exceed 150. The submission is that the grant of admission to the E
first respondent would involve the appellants crossing the prescribed
intake of 150 seats, as a consequence of which one student who is
lowest in merit would have to be ousted without the student being a
party to the proceedings.
12. In the alternative, it has been submitted that if this Court were F
to accept the correctness of the judgment of the High Court, the appellants
may be permitted to keep one seat vacant for the first respondent in the
ensuing academic year 2022-2023, subject to approval of the NMC.
13. On the other hand, it has been urged by Mr M C Dhingra,
counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent that there was G
absolutely no delay on the part of the first respondent in seeking access
to her remedies before the High Court. The submission is that the
appellants were not justified in relying upon the provisions of clause 4 of
the prospectus for the up-gradation of Himachali students admitted under
the management quota. Counsel urged that the provisions of clause 3 of H
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R.

A the prospectus had to be operated first and it is only if any seat remained
vacant as a result that clause 4 could be operated.
14. Before the High Court, the second respondent has supported
the case of the first respondent. The second respondent referred to its
letter dated 24 March 2022 where it was advised that students admitted
B under management quota in the first and second rounds of counselling
could be admitted to the state quota provided that no student with more
marks in NEET applied in the mop-up round. On 28 March 2022, the
second respondent also sent an advisory to the appellants to review the
conversion of management quota seats to the state quota in the general
category. The relevant part of the advisory is extracted below:
C
“We have received a representation regarding incorrect conversion
of management quota seats to HP quota. You are requested to
review the allocation keeping in mind the directions issued by us
vide letter No. AMRU/COE/Counselling/2021/-3083 dated 24th
March, 2022, in which it was clearly mentioned that the candidates
D admitted under management quota may be shifted to vacant HP
quota seat rank wise if no students with more ranks in NEET
applies in Mop-Up round and also refer the decision of the Hon’ble
High Court of H.P. vide CWP No. 2160/2020 decided on 10.7.2020
titled Gunjan Ahuja & Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &
E others.”
15. This Court has consistently held that merit must be the primary
consideration for admission to medical colleges.3 In Asha v. Pt. B. D.
Sharma University of Health Sciences4, a two-judge bench of this
Court held that the rule of merit for preference of courses and colleges
F should be strictly followed by all stakeholders and authorities. It further
observed that rule of merit is defeated by inefficient, inaccurate or
improper methods of admission to medical colleges:
21. … the criteria for selection has to be merit alone. In fact,
merit, fairness and transparency are the ethos of the process for
G admission to such courses. It will be a travesty of the scheme
formulated by this Court and duly notified by the States, if the

3
Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654; Association of Management of
Unaided Private Medical and Dental College v. Pravesh Niyantran Samiti (2005) 13
SCC 704; Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433
4
H (2012) 7 SCC 389
MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER v. 1123
AKRITI SHARMA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Rule of Merit is defeated by inefficiency, inaccuracy or improper A
methods of admission. There cannot be any circumstance where
the rule of merit can be compromised. … It will be useful to refer
to the view consistently taken by this Court that merit alone is the
criteria for such admissions and circumvention of merit is not only
impermissible but is also an abuse of the process of law.
B
16. The High Court in the course of the impugned judgment has
underscored the importance of merit and of a fair procedure in completing
admissions to medical courses. The High Court has held that clause 3 of
the Prospectus deals with a situation where seats are available as a
result of the mop up round which is a continuation of the admission
process, whereas clause 4 is available only in respect of vacant/ drop C
out seats which would be the position when the entire process of
counselling, including the mop up round is completed. Hence, the High
Court rejected the contention of the appellants that the up-gradation
which was granted to the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents was
justified in terms of the prospectus for admission. In giving relief to the D
first respondent, the High Court held that she had been denied admission
to the MBBS degree course by the arbitrary action of the appellants. In
other words, but for the wrong which was committed by the appellants,
the first respondent would have been entitled to admission.
17. Clause 3 of the prospectus stipulates that after the completion E
of the first and second rounds of counselling, a schedule for the mop up
round shall be issued by the university and the online counselling form
would be made available. Candidates who are eligible for participating
in the mop up round have to fill up fresh choices/ preferences in respect
of the course, college and quota online. Shifting for up-gradation of a
course and quota from private dental colleges to government dental F
colleges and government/ private dental colleges to MMMC Solan and
government dental colleges/ MMMC Solan to government medical
colleges in order of merit-cum-choices/ preferences has to be allowed.
The provisions of clause 3 are abundantly clear. The first respondent
admittedly ranked higher in merit than the fifth, sixth, and seventh G
respondents. She was therefore clearly entitled to admission in terms of
the provisions of clause 3.
18. Clause 4 of the prospectus provides that students belonging to
Himachal Pradesh who were admitted under the management quota in
private medical/dental colleges will also be converted automatically from H
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R.

A the management quota to the state quota in the colleges concerned against
vacant/drop out seats, if any, in order of merit. As the High Court has
correctly observed, clause 4 in its plain terms applies to vacant/drop out
seats which would necessarily refer to the position as it obtains after the
mop up round of counselling is completed. Hence, the interpretation which
has been placed by the High Court on clauses 3 and 4 of the prospectus
B
cannot be faulted.
19. The next question which arises for our consideration is whether
the High Court was right in directing the appellants to redraw the merit
list of admission to the MBBS course for granting admission to the first
respondent for the academic session 2021-2022.
C
20. In S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh5, a three-
judge bench of this Court considered the nature of relief that can be
granted to a meritorious student who is denied admission illegally by the
authorities. This Court observed that denial of admission to a meritorious
student for no fault of theirs would be violative of their fundamental
D rights under the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Court held that the
primary relief must be in the nature of restitution and the courts can, in
rare and exceptional circumstances, grant admission to the student in
the same academic year even after the last prescribed date for admission.
The relevant part of the decision is extracted below:
E 13. In light of the discussion/observations made hereinabove, a
meritorious candidate/student who has been denied an admission
in MBBS course illegally or irrationally by the authorities for no
fault of his/her and who has approached the Court in time and so
as to see that such a meritorious candidate may not have to suffer
F for no fault of his/her, we answer the reference as under:
13.1. That in a case where candidate/student has approached
the court at the earliest and without any delay and that the question
is with respect to the admission in medical course all the efforts
shall be made by the court concerned to dispose of the proceedings
G by giving priority and at the earliest.
13.2. Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that there
is no fault attributable to the candidate and the candidate has
pursued his/her legal right expeditiously without any delay and

5
H (2020) 17 SCC 465
MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER v. 1125
AKRITI SHARMA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

there is fault only on the part of the authorities and/or there is A
apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related principles
in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right
of equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates and
if the time schedule prescribed — 30th September, is over, to do
the complete justice, the Court under exceptional circumstances
B
and in rarest of rare cases direct the admission in the same year
by directing to increase the seats, however, it should not be more
than one or two seats and such admissions can be ordered within
reasonable time i.e. within one month from 30th September i.e.
cut-off date and under no circumstances, the Court shall order
any admission in the same year beyond 30th October. However, C
it is observed that such relief can be granted only in exceptional
circumstances and in the rarest of rare cases. In case of such an
eventuality, the Court may also pass an order cancelling the
admission given to a candidate who is at the bottom of the merit
list of the category who, if the admission would have been given D
to a more meritorious candidate who has been denied admission
illegally, would not have got the admission, if the Court deems it fit
and proper, however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to a
student whose admission is sought to be cancelled.
13.3. In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of admission E
can be granted to such a candidate in the very academic year and
wherever it finds that the action of the authorities has been arbitrary
and in breach of the rules and regulations or the prospectus
affecting the rights of the students and that a candidate is found
to be meritorious and such candidate/student has approached the
court at the earliest and without any delay, the court can mould F
the relief and direct the admission to be granted to such a candidate
in the next academic year by issuing appropriate directions by
directing to increase in the number of seats as may be considered
appropriate in the case and in case of such an eventuality and if it
is found that the management was at fault and wrongly denied G
the admission to the meritorious candidate, in that case, the Court
may direct to reduce the number of seats in the management
quota of that year, meaning thereby the student/students who was/
were denied admission illegally to be accommodated in the next
academic year out of the seats allotted in the management quota.
H
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R.

A 13.4. Grant of the compensation could be an additional remedy
but not a substitute for restitutional remedies. Therefore, in an
appropriate case the Court may award the compensation to such
a meritorious candidate who for no fault of his/her has to lose one
full academic year and who could not be granted any relief of
admission in the same academic year.
B
13.5. It is clarified that the aforesaid directions pertain to admission
in MBBS course only and we have not dealt with postgraduate
medical course.
21. Further, this Court on numerous occasions has held that courts
C
cannot issue directions to increase seats beyond the sanctioned strength
decided by the NMC. 6 In National Medical Commission v.
Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi7, a two-judge bench of this Court was
tasked with deciding the correctness of the judgment of the High Court
directing the NMC to create an additional seat and grant admission to
D the respondent student, who was illegally denied admission to a post-
graduate medical course. This Court disagreed with the decision of the
High Court by holding that courts cannot issue directions to create seats
and increase annual intake capacity beyond those sanctioned by the
NMC. Further, it referred to S. Krishna Sradha (supra) to grant
monetary compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to the respondent student for
E
loss of one academic year and also granted her admission for the next
academic year in the management quota of the concerned college.
22. In the instant proceedings, the High Court understandably held
that the first respondent was wrongfully denied admission in the medical
F college run by the appellants. However, the admissions for the MBBS
degree courses were concluded on 25 March 2022 for the academic
session 2021-2022. Undoubtedly, there were no laches on the part of the
first respondent in moving the High Court since she had instituted a writ
petition on 29 March 2022. Nonetheless, by the time the High Court
decided the issue, the admissions had already been concluded and the
G last prescribed date for admission was over.

6
Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka (1998) 6 SCC 131; Satyabrata Sahoo v.
State of Orissa (2012) 8 SCC 203; Faiza Choudhary v. State of J&K (2012) 10 SCC
149; Aneesh D Lawande v. State of Goa (2014) 1 SCC 554
7
H 2020 SCC OnLine SC 992
MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER v. 1127
AKRITI SHARMA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

23. The fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents who were the three A
students who were upgraded in terms of clause 4 of the prospectus
were impleaded as parties to the proceedings. The issue however does
not rest only with these three students. The prescribed intake capacity
of the medical college of the appellants is 150 students. The consequence
of the direction of the High Court to redraw the merit list and grant
B
admission to the first respondent gives rise to certain unfeasible outcomes.
The total strength of the students admitted for the MBBS course for the
academic session 2021-2022 would stand increased to 151 students and
one of the three students among the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents
would be reverted to the management quota, but the matter would not
rest there. Once the intake of the college increases to 151 seats after C
the admission of the first respondent, one student who would be the
lowest in merit would have to give way for the admission which is directed
to the first respondent. That student would not have been impleaded as
a party to the proceedings before the High Court. Compounded with the
above position is the fact that five months of the first session for the
D
MBBS degree course for the academic year 2021-2022 have been
completed and the admitted students are pursuing their studies. In this
view of the matter, it may not be possible for this Court to accede to the
direction of the High Court for the grant of admission to the first
respondent. The alternative submission which has been urged by Mr
Aseem Mehrotra cannot also be acceded to because it would not be E
appropriate for this Court to direct that admission be granted to the first
respondent against the seats available for the ensuing academic year
2022-2023. Those seats should be filled on a competitive basis in
accordance with the governing prospectus.
24. However, we are clearly of the view that the first respondent F
cannot be left without any remedy. She has suffered though she ranked
higher than the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents in merit in the NEET-
UG 2021. She has been deprived of the admission to which she was
entitled under clause 3 of the prospectus by an erroneous interpretation.
Although the first respondent is currently pursuing her BDS course in a
government dental college, she aspires to a seat for the MBBS degree G
course. The loss of one full academic year of the MBBS degree course
can only be partially compensated in terms of money. However, we are
clearly of the view that compensation must be provided to the first
respondent and she cannot be left in the lurch having lost a seat for
admission for the MBBS degree course. H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R.

A 25. On a considered view of the matter, we direct that the appellants
shall pay to the first respondent compensation quantified at Rs 10 lakhs
within a period of one month from the date of this order. Hence, for the
reasons which are indicated above, we are in agreement with the
interpretation which has been placed by the High Court on the interplay
between clauses 3 and 4 of the prospectus. However, for the reasons
B
set out above, we set aside the direction of the High Court for redrawing
of the merit list and to grant admission to the first respondent and substitute
it with the direction that the appellants shall pay compensation quantified
at Rs 10 lakhs to the first respondent. The compensation shall be paid
within one month.
C 26. The appeal is partially allowed in the above terms.
27. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Devika Gujral Appeal partly allowed.
(Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)
D

E

F

G

H