S. KRISHNA SRADHAversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

                        [2019] 15 S.C.R. 93                              93


                      S. KRISHNA SRADHA                                  A
                                  v.
          THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 1081 of 2017)
                       DECEMBER 13, 2019                                 B
    [ARUN MISHRA, M. R. SHAH AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
        Education/Educational Reservation – Admission into MBBS
Course – Claiming reservation in the sports and game category for
admission into MBBS Course, the appellant submitted necessary            C
material – Denied due priority in admission – Immediately
approached the High Court – High Court in view of the decision of
Supreme Court in Jasmine Kaur case observed that no direction can
be issued to the appellant for grant of admission for the Academic
Session 2015-16 however, granted compensation of Rs.5 lakhs –
Issue as to whether a student/meritorious candidate, for no fault of     D
his/her and who pursued his/her legal right expeditiously without
delay, can be denied admission as relief, because the cut-off date
of 30 th September has passed – If compensation is the only relief
which can be given by the Court – Conflict between the decision of
Supreme Court in Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma UHS and Chandigarh              E
Admn. v. Jasmine Kaur – Issue referred to larger Bench – Held:
Under exceptional circumstances, if the court inter alia finds that
there is no fault attributable to the candidate and the candidate
pursued his/her legal right expeditiously without any delay, the fault
is only on the part of the authorities and, if the time schedule
                                                                         F
prescribed- 30th September, is over, to do complete justice, the Court
under exceptional circumstances 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 30 th September, i.e. cut off date – Under no                 G
circumstances, the Court shall order admission in the same year
beyond 30th October – In such an eventuality, the Court may also
pass an order cancelling the admission given to the candidate at
the bottom of the merit list of the category however, after giving an
opportunity of hearing – In case no relief of admission can be           H
                                  93
94            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A    granted to a candidate in the very academic year, the court can
     mould the relief and direct the admission to be granted in the next
     academic year by directing to increase the number of seats as
     considered appropriate in the case– In such eventuality, if the
     management was found at fault, the Court may direct to reduce the
B    number of seats in the management quota of that year– Grant of
     compensation could be additional remedy but not substitute for
     restitutional remedies – Decision in Jasmine Kaur case or any other
     decisions contrary to the above stand overruled while, that in the
     case of Asha is affirmed to the aforesaid extent – Constitution of
     India – Arts.14, 19, 21.
C
            Constitution of India – Arts.14, 19, 21 – Violation of, in case
     of illegal denial of admission – Discussed.
           Answering the reference, the Court
            HELD: 1. The right to equal and fair treatment is a
D    component of Article 14 of the Constitution. As held by Supreme
     Court Asha that a transparent and fair procedure is the duty of
     every legal authority connected with admissions. In such cases,
     denial of fair treatment to the candidate would not only violate
     his/her right under Article 14 but would seriously jeopardize his/
E    her right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A
     natural corollary of declaring that an administrative act more
     particularly the denial of admission illegally and for no fault of a
     candidate/student violates principles of Article 14 is that the
     citizen injured must be put back to his/her original position. In
     that sense, the primary relief is restitutionary. For a meritorious
F    student seeking admission in medical course is very important
     in the life of student/candidate and denial of admission to a
     meritorious candidate though no fault of his/her violates his/her
     fundamental rights. In case of medical admissions, even the
     restitutionary remedy of providing a seat in the subsequent year
G    would lead to loss of one full academic year to a meritorious
     candidate, which cannot be compensated in real terms. Thus denial
     of admission in medical course to a meritorious candidate for no
     fault of his/her and though he/she has approached the Court in
     time and despite the same not granting any just and equitable
     relief would be denial of justice. The view taken by this Court in
H
            S. KRISHNA SRADHA v. THE STATE OF                           95
                 ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Jasmine Kaur that the only relief which can be granted to such a        A
candidate would be the compensation only is not good law and
cannot be accepted. Even granting a relief to such a candidate/
student in the next academic year and to accommodate him/her
in the next year and in the sanctioned intake may even affect the
right of some other candidate/student seeking admission in the          B
next academic year and that too for no fault of his/her. Therefore,
in the exceptional and in the rarest of rare cases and in case
where all the conditions stipulated in paragraph 33.3 in the case
of Jasmine Kaur are satisfied, the Court can grant exceptional
relief to the candidate of granting admission even after the cut
off date is over. [Para 8.2][110-A-H; 111-A]                            C

      2. The reference is answered as under: (i) 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
                                                                        D
concerned court to dispose of the proceedings by giving priority
and at the earliest. (ii) 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 there is fault only on the part of the authorities and/
or there is apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as         E
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 and in rarest of rare cases direct the admission in       F
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            G
October. However, 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      H
96            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A    been given 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.
     (iii) In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of admission
B    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
C
     court can mould 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
D    fault and wrongly denied 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
E    allotted in the management quota. (iv) 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
F    not be granted any relief of admission in the same academic year.
     (v) The aforesaid directions pertain for Admission in MBBS
     Course only and we have not dealt with Post Graduate Medical
     Course. The decision of this Court in the case of Jasmine Kaur
     or any other decisions contrary to the above stand overruled.
G    The decision of this Court in the case of Asha is affirmed to the
     aforesaid extent. [Paras 9, 10][111-B-H; 112-A-F][112-G]

           Chandigarh Admn. vs. Jasmine Kaur (2014) 10 SCC
           521 : [2014] 9 SCR 1122 – overruled.

H
            S. KRISHNA SRADHA v. THE STATE OF                            97
                 ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

      Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma UHS (2012) 7 SCC 389 :                    A
      [2012] 6 SCR 876 – affirmed.

      Indu Kant v. State of U.P (1993) Suppl. 2 SCC 71; MCI
      v. Madhu Singh (2002) 7 SCC 258 : [2002] 2 Suppl.
      SCR 228; Neelu Arora vs. Union of India (2003) 3 SCC
                                                                         B
      366 : [2003] 1 SCR 562; Faiza Chowdhary vs. State
      of J & K (2012) 10 SCC 149 : [2012] 7 SCR 528;
      Chhavi Mehrotra v. Director General Health Services
      (1994) 2 SCC 370 – referred to.

                       Case Law Reference                                C

(1993) Suppl. 2 SCC 71          referred to        Para 4.2

[2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 228         referred to        Para 5.1

[2003] 1 SCR 562                referred to        Para 5.1              D

[2012] 7 SCR 528                referred to        Para 5.1

(1994) 2 SCC 370                referred to        Para 5.2

[2014] 9 SCR 1122               overruled          Para 10               E

[2012] 6 SCR 876                affirmed           Para 2

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1081
of 2017.
                                                                         F
      From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of
Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 32710 of 2015.

      K. Parameshwar and M. V. Mukunda, Advs. for the Appellant.         G
     Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Sharma, Dhawal Mohan, Prassana
Mohan, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Ms. Sourjya Das, G. N. Reddy, T. Vijaya
Bhaskar Reddy, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Guntur Prabhakar and Gaurav
Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
                                                                         H
98               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

              M. R. SHAH, J.

             1. The issue arises for consideration is whether a student, a
     meritorious candidate, for no fault of his/her and who has pursued his/
B    her legal right expeditiously without delay, can be denied admission as a
     relief, because the cut-off date of 30th September has passed. In such a
     situation the relief which can be given by the Court is to grant appropriate
     compensation only?
           2. Having noticed the conflict between the pronouncement of this
C
     Court in Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma UHS1 and Chandigarh Admn. vs.
     Jasmine Kaur2, the aforesaid issue is referred to a larger Bench.
            3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case,
     in spite of submitting the necessary material in support of the claim of
     the appellant for reservation in the sports and game category for admission
D
     into MBBS Course, she was denied due priority in admission into MBBS
     Course. Therefore, the appellant immediately approached the High Court
     seeking admission in the reserved quota of sports and games category.
     However, it was found that at the time the petition was heard, the
     Academic Session for the year in question already commenced from
E    01.09.2015 and as per the decision of this Court the last date for
     admission would be 30.09.2015, the High Court considering the decision
     of this Court in the case Jasmine Kaur (Supra) observed that no
     direction can be issued to the appellant for grant of admission for the
     Academic Session 2015-16. However, relying upon the decision of this
     Court in the case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra), the High Court granted
F    compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. It is required to be noted that the High
     Court came to a categorical and unequivocal conclusion that the appellant
     was entitled to get priority. It was also found that the appellant was
     more meritorious than others on the basis of the marks obtained. However,
     the High Court denied the admission solely on the ground that time limit
G    has expired. The High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in
     the case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra). In the case of Asha (Supra) this
     Court held that in rarest of rare cases, when the Court returns the finding
     that (i) no fault is attributable to the candidate; (ii) the candidate has
     1   (2012) 7 SCC 389
H
     2   (2014) 10 SCC 521
               S. KRISHNA SRADHA v. THE STATE OF                                 99
             ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

pursued her rights and legal remedies expeditiously and without delay;           A
(iii) where there is fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach
of rules and regulations, an exception may be made to 30th September
cut-off date and in an exceptional case the Court can direct for admission
even in a case where cut-off date as directed by this Court had expired.
As observed hereinabove, the contrary view is taken subsequently in
                                                                                 B
the case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra) and therefore, the matter is referred
to a larger Bench to consider the aforesaid issue.
        4. Learned Counsel Mr. K. Parameshwar appearing on behalf of
the appellant, has vehemently submitted that the present case refers
only to cases where (i) no fault is attributable to the candidate; (ii) the
candidate has pursued his/her rights and legal remedies expeditiously            C
and without delay; (iii) where there is fault on the part of the authorities
and apparent breach of rules and regulations. It is submitted that the
relief of admission is being denied because the case has been pending in
the relevant Court and the time for admission has expired. It is vehemently
submitted by Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that           D
even in a case where a candidate is meritorious and though entitled to
admission, but denied by the authorities illegally and irrationally and though
no fault is attributable to the candidate and the candidate has pursued
his/her rights and legal remedies expeditiously and without delay and
when there is fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach of
rules and regulations, to deny the admission would be injustice to such a        E
meritorious candidate and punishing him/her for no fault of him/her. It is
submitted that it is therefore rightly observed in the case of Asha (Supra)
that in rarest of rare cases, the Court can, while exercising powers under
Article 226 and/or under Article 32 of the Constitution of India can direct
to grant admission despite the fact that the time for admission has expired.     F
       4.1. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that
earlier this Court has considered different remedies in cases of medical
admissions where candidates were denied medical seats.
       4.2. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant that in the case of Indu Kant vs. State of U.P.3, this Court has       G
observed therein that in case where the candidate is found to be
meritorious, she can be accommodated in a subsequent year with a
direction that seats be increased in the next year.

3   1993 Suppl (2) SCC 71                                                        H
100             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A            4.3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that when
      the candidate is found to be meritorious and denied the admission more
      particularly in the courses like MBBS and has approached the Court
      expeditiously, to grant relief only of compensation cannot be said to be
      just and equitable relief.
B             4.4 It is submitted that right to equal and fair treatment is a
      component of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted that a
      transparent and fair procedure is the duty of every legal authority
      connected with admissions. It is submitted that in such cases, denial of
      fair treatment to the candidate would not only violate his/her right under
      Article 14 but would seriously jeopardize his/her right under Articles 19
C     and 21. It is submitted that in the case of violation of constitutional rights,
      restitution is the norm and compensation, an exception. It is submitted
      that the citizen injured must be put back to his/her original position. It is
      submitted that in that sense, the primary relief is restitutionary.
              4.5. It is further submitted that compensation could be an additional
D     remedy but not a substitute for restitutionary remedies. It is submitted
      that in case of medical admissions, even the restitutionary remedy of
      providing a seat in a subsequent year would lead to the loss of one full
      academic year of a meritorious candidate, which cannot be compensated
      in real terms. It is submitted that compensation for loss of year could be
E     provided but denial of admissions to meritorious candidate, even after
      the cut-off date in exceptional circumstances, set out in para 32 in Asha
      (Supra) cannot be compensated in monetary terms. It is further submitted
      that the value and the enforcement of a fundamental right depends upon
      the nature of remedies that a court of justice can fashion. It is submitted
      that the power of Articles 32 and 226 ought not to be read in a constricted
F     manner so as to limit the scope of remedies. If the courts do not have
      the power to fashion remedies, appropriate and adequate remedies, the
      enforcement of fundamental rights would be rendered meaningless. This
      is not just a principle of constitutional remedies but also a rule of equity.
              4.6. It is further submitted by Learned Counsel appearing for the
G     appellant that the compensation and constitutional torts are cases where
      restitution is impossible in real terms. It is submitted that the compensation
      cannot be the only remedy as observed by this Court in the case of
      Jasmine Kaur (Supra).
             5. Mr. Vikas Singh, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of MCI
H     has as such supported the decision of this Court in the case of Jasmine
            S. KRISHNA SRADHA v. THE STATE OF                                  101
          ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Kaur (Supra). It is submitted that the time fixed for the admission by         A
this Court, namely, 30th September has to be scrupulously followed so
that they are not to be allowed to be derailed, under no circumstances.
It is submitted that as per catena of decisions of this Court the time
schedule relating to admissions to the professional courses should be
strictly adhered to and shall not be restricted under any circumstances
                                                                               B
either by this Court or the Board and admissions should not be permitted.
It is submitted that this Court had consistently held that no admission
should be given in technical courses in mid-stream after the course has
commenced, even if there are unfilled seats in the same year.
       5.1. It is further submitted by Mr. Vikas Singh, Learned Counsel
for the MCI that as held by this Court in MCI vs. Madhu Singh4, and            C
Neelu Arora vs. Union of India5, even unfilled seats of one year cannot
be telescoped into permissible seats of the subsequent year. It is submitted
that the Court has held that there cannot be a carry forward of unfilled
seats from one year to next year. This is because, it would in effect,
increase the number of seats in the next year. It is submitted that in the     D
aforesaid decision, this Court has opined a medical seat has life only in
the year it falls and a vacancy cannot be carry forward in the next year.
In support, he has heavily relied upon the decisions of this Court in Faiza
Chowdhary vs. State of J & K6.
       5.2 It is further submitted that this Court has consistently taken a    E
stand that even in cases where the candidate before the Court is found
meritorious; she cannot be accommodated in a subsequent year with a
direction that seats be increased in the next year. It is submitted that
number of seats cannot be over and above the number fixed by the MCI
as per the regulations, and cannot be increased indiscriminately without
regard to infrastructure. It is submitted that as held by this Court in the    F
case of Chhavi Mehrotra vs. Director General Health Services7, the
Courts cannot be generous in issuing directions which in effect amount
to directing authorities to violate their own rules and regulations.
       5.3. It is further submitted that however, with a view to see that a
meritorious student is not made to suffer because of no fault of him/her       G
and in rarest of rare cases or exceptional circumstances, while exercising
4 (2002) 7 SCC 258
5 (2003) 3 SCC 366
6 (2012) 10 SCC 149

7 (1994) 2 SCC 370
                                                                               H
102               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     the powers under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution of India,
      the Court alone can grant the reliefs and may deviate from the normal
      rule.
             5.4. It is further submitted by Mr. Vikas Singh, Learned Counsel
      appearing for MCI that however, it is in rarest of rare cases and in
B     exceptional circumstances when it is found that for no fault on the part
      of the candidate and due to the gross negligence or inaction on the part
      of the concerned authority or for some unforeseeable reasons a
      meritorious candidate has been deprived of admission in medical course
      then in such circumstances only the Court may consider granting relief
      to the candidate, either by way of compensation or by directing that the
C     candidate may be accommodated in the quota of sanctioned seats
      available for the next academic session. It is submitted that however
      only in cases where the Court is satisfied that monetary compensation
      will not be adequate to redress the injury suffered by the candidate, then
      and then only this direction to accommodate student in the next academic
D     year may be passed. It is submitted that however while granting such a
      relief in the rarest of rare cases and in exceptional circumstances, a
      candidate must have approached the Court without any delay; candidate
      must be higher in the merit list than the last student admitted in the
      college and the candidate has complied with all the requirements and
      submitted each and every document on time as prescribed by the
E     counselling authority and there is no delay attributable on the part of the
      student in this regard.
              5.5. It is submitted to ascertain whether the candidate has
      approached the Court on time and to avoid mischievous persons from
      filing frivolous petitions the Court may consider the following criteria for
F     determining the delay:
            (i)    Where the candidate is challenging the validity of any
                   provision in notification/Information Bulletin/Prospectus
                   issued by the concerned authority pertaining to admission in
                   medicine course, then the candidate must have approached
G                  the Court before the commencement of the counselling
                   process;
            (ii) Where the candidate is challenging any eligibility criteria laid
                 down in the notification/Information Bulletin/Prospectus for
                 Common Counselling issued by the concerned authority, then
H
            S. KRISHNA SRADHA v. THE STATE OF                                 103
          ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

           the candidate must have approached the Court before the            A
           commencement of the counselling process i.e. first round of
           counselling;
      (iii) Where the candidate is challenging the first round of
            counselling process itself, then the candidate must have
            approached the Court immediately after the first round of         B
            counselling and before the commencement of second round
            of counselling;
      (iv) Where the candidate is challenging the second round or mop
           up round of counselling process, then in that case student
           must approach the Court immediately thereafter but before          C
           the cut off/last date for completion of admission process.
       5.6 It is further submitted by Mr. Vikas Singh, Learned Counsel
appearing for MCI that in case all aforesaid pre-requisites are fulfilled
by candidate and the Court is of the opinion that a case is made out
having found rarest of rare case and exceptional circumstances and the        D
Court is of the opinion that such a student can be accommodated in the
next academic year, in that case also out of the total sanctioned intake of
seats not more than two seats in an institution/college/University in a
given academic year should be considered to be filled by the students of
the preceding academic year who have been deprived of the MBBS
students due to the negligence and fault of the authorities.                  E

       6. Heard Learned Counsel for the respective parties at length.
The short but an important question of law posed for consideration of
this Court is what relief a meritorious candidate is entitled to when it is
found that a meritorious candidate is denied an admission arbitrary and
illegally by the concerned authorities and the fault is not attributable to   F
the candidate at all and the candidate has pursued his/her legal rights
expeditiously and without delay, whether in such a situation awarding
compensation only can be said to be just and an adequate relief? The
issue which arises for consideration is whether having fulfilled the
aforesaid pre-requisites, the Court can grant relief and order admission      G
even after the cut-off date for admission i.e. 30th September is over and
whether the Court can grant admission beyond the intake either in the
same year or in the next academic year?
      6.1. In the case of Asha (supra) following questions were posed
for consideration before the Court:
                                                                              H
104            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A           “(a) Is there any exception to the principle of strict adherence to
            the rule of merit for preference of courses and colleges regarding
            admission to such courses?
            (b) Whether the cut-off date of 30th September of the relevant
            academic year is a date which admits any exception?
B           (c) What relief the courts can grant and to what extent they can
            mould it while ensuring adherence to the rule of merit, fairness
            and transparency in admission in terms of rules and regulations?
            (d) What issues need to be dealt with and finding returned by the
            court before passing orders which may be more equitable, but still
C           in strict compliance with the framework of regulations and
            judgments of this Court governing the subject?”
            After considering catena of decisions of this Court on the subject
      in Asha (Supra) this Court answered the aforesaid questions as under:

D           “38. Now, we shall proceed to answer the questions posed by us
            in the opening part of this judgment.
            38.1 Question (a) : The rule of merit for preference of courses
            and colleges admits no exception. It is an absolute rule and all
            stakeholders and authorities concerned are required to follow this
            rule strictly and without demur.
E
            38.2 Question (b): 30th September is undoubtedly the last date by
            which the admitted students should report to their respective
            colleges without fail. In the normal course, the admissions must
            close by holding of second counselling by 15th September of the
            relevant academic year (in terms of the decision of this Court in
F
            Priya Gupta). Thereafter, only in very rare and exceptional cases
            of unequivocal discrimination or arbitrariness or pressing
            emergency, admission may be permissible but such power may
            preferably be exercised by the courts. Further, it will be in the
            rarest of rare cases and where the ends of justice would be
G           subverted or the process of law would stand frustrated that the
            courts would exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction of admitting
            candidates to the courses after the deadline of 30th September of
            the current academic year. This, however, can only be done if
            the conditions stated by this Court in Priya Gupta and this judgment
            are found to be unexceptionally satisfied and the reasons therefor
H           are recorded by the court of competent jurisdiction.
            S. KRISHNA SRADHA v. THE STATE OF                                    105
          ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      38.3. Questions (c) & (d): Wherever the court finds that action of         A
      the authorities has been arbitrary, contrary to the judgments of
      this Court and violative of rules, regulations and conditions of the
      prospectus, causing prejudice to the rights of the students, the
      court shall award compensation to such students as well as direct
      initiation of disciplinary action against the erring officers/officials.
                                                                                 B
      The court shall also ensure that the proceedings under the
      Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are initiated against the erring
      authorities irrespective of their stature and empowerment. Where
      the admissions given by the authorities concerned are found by
      the courts to be legally unsustainable and where there is no reason
      to permit the students to continue with the course, the mere fact          C
      that such students have put in a year or so into the academic
      course is not by itself a ground to permit them to continue with the
      course.”
      This Court also cautioned the courts for giving interim orders where
admissions are matter of dispute before the Court. This Court observed           D
as under:
      “39. With all humility, we reiterate the request that we have made
      to all the High Courts in Priya Gupta case that the Courts should
      avoid giving interim orders where admissions are the matter of
      dispute before the Court. Even in case where the candidates are            E
      permitted to continue with the courses, they should normally be
      not permitted to take further examinations of the professional
      courses. The students who pursue the courses under the orders
      of the Court would not be entitled to claim any equity at the final
      decision of the case nor should it weigh with the courts of
      competent jurisdiction.”                                                   F

       6.2. However, subsequently in the case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra)
a contrary view is taken by this Court, contrary to the law laid down by
this Court in the case of Asha (Supra). This Court has held that in such
a situation grant of compensation is the only relief which can be granted
and which a candidate is entitled to.                                            G
      7. In view of the contradictory views and decisions in the case of
Asha (Supra) and in the case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra) the question
which has been referred to the larger Bench is where a student, a
meritorious candidate, for no fault of his/her is denied admission illegally
and arbitrary and who has pursued her legal right expeditiously without          H
106            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     delay, can be denied admission as a relief, because of cut-off date of
      30th September is over and in such a situation the relief which can be
      given by the Court is to grant appropriate compensation only? Another
      question which is required to be considered is what relief can be granted
      by the Court in such a situation?.
B           7.1. The observations and the ultimate conclusion by this Court in
      the case of Asha (Supra) and in the case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra) are
      required to be referred to and considered.
             After considering catena of decisions of this Court on the point
      this Court in the case of Asha (Supra) ultimately concluded in para 38 as
C     under:
            “38. Now, we shall proceed to answer the questions posed by us
            in the opening part of this judgment.
            38.1 Question (a) : The rule of merit for preference of courses
            and colleges admits no exception. It is an absolute rule and all
D           stakeholders and authorities concerned are required to follow this
            rule strictly and without demur.
            38.2 Question (b): 30th September is undoubtedly the last date by
            which the admitted students should report to their respective
            colleges without fail. In the normal course, the admissions must
E           close by holding of second counselling by 15th September of the
            relevant academic year (in terms of the decision of this Court in
            Priya Gupta). Thereafter, only in very rare and exceptional cases
            of unequivocal discrimination or arbitrariness or pressing
            emergency, admission may be permissible but such power may
F           preferably be exercised by the courts. Further, it will be in the
            rarest of rare cases and where the ends of justice would be
            subverted or the process of law would stand frustrated that the
            courts would exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction of admitting
            candidates to the courses after the deadline of 30th September of
            the current academic year. This, however, can only be done if the
G           conditions stated by this Court in Priya Gupta and this judgment
            are found to be unexceptionally satisfied and the reasons therefor
            are recorded by the court of competent jurisdiction.
            38.3. Questions (c) & (d): Wherever the court finds that action of
            the authorities has been arbitrary, contrary to the judgments of
H           this Court and violative of rules, regulations and conditions of the
              S. KRISHNA SRADHA v. THE STATE OF                                     107
            ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

         prospectus, causing prejudice to the rights of the students, the           A
         court shall award compensation to such students as well as direct
         initiation of disciplinary action against the erring officers/officials.
         The court shall also ensure that the proceedings under the
         Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are initiated against the erring
         authorities irrespective of their stature and empowerment. Where
                                                                                    B
         the admissions given by the authorities concerned are found by
         the courts to be legally unsustainable and where there is no reason
         to permit the students to continue with the course, the mere fact
         that such students have put in a year or so into the academic
         course is not by itself a ground to permit them to continue with the
         course.”                                                                   C
         Thereafter in paragraph 39 this Court observed and directed as
under:
         “39. With all humility, we reiterate the request that we have made
         to all the High Courts in Priya Gupta case that the Courts should
         avoid giving interim orders where admissions are the matter of             D
         dispute before the Court. Even in case where the candidates are
         permitted to continue with the courses, they should normally be
         not permitted to take further examinations of the professional
         courses. The students who pursue the courses under the orders
         of the Court would not be entitled to claim any equity at the final        E
         decision of the case nor should it weigh with the courts of
         competent jurisdiction.”
      7.2. However, in the subsequent decision in the case of Jasmine
Kaur (Supra) after considering the decision of this Court in the case of
Asha (Supra) ultimately in paragraph 33, it is observed and held as under:          F
         “33.1. The schedule relating to admissions to the professional
         colleges should be strictly and scrupulously adhered to and shall
         not be deviated under any circumstance either by the courts or
         the Board and midstream admission should not be permitted.
         33.2 Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that there        G
         is no fault attributable to the candidate i.e., the candidate has
         pursued his or her legal right expeditiously without any delay and
         that there is fault only on the part of the authorities or there is an
         apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related principles
         in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right
                                                                                    H
108      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     to equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates and
      the relief of admission can be directed within the time schedule
      prescribed, it would be completely just and fair to provide
      exceptional reliefs to the candidate under such circumstance alone.
      33.3 If a candidate is not selected during a particular academic
B     year due to the fault of the institutions/authorities and in this process
      if the seats are filled up and the scope for granting admission is
      lost due to eclipse of time schedule, then under such circumstances,
      the candidate should not be victimised for no fault of his/her and
      the Court may consider grant of appropriate compensation to offset
      the loss caused, if any.
C
      33.4. When a candidate does not exercise or pursue his/her rights
      or legal remedies against his/her non-selection expeditiously and
      promptly, then the courts cannot grant any relief to the candidate
      in the form of securing an admission.
D     33.5. If the candidate takes a calculated risk/chance by subjecting
      himself/herself to the selection process and after knowing his/her
      non- selection, he/she cannot subsequently turn around and
      contend that the process of selection was unfair.
      33.6. If it is found that the candidate acquiesces or waives his/her
E     right to claim relief before the court promptly, then in such cases,
      the legal maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt,
      which means that equity aids only the vigilant and not the ones
      who sleep over their rights, will be highly appropriate.
      33.7. No relief can be granted even though the prospectus is
F     declared illegal or invalid if the same is not challenged promptly.
      Once the candidate is aware that he/she does not fulfil the criteria
      of the prospectus he/she cannot be heard to state that, he/she
      chose to challenge the same only after preferring the application
      and after the same is refused on the ground of eligibility.
      33.8. There cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year
G
      with permitted seats of the subsequent year i.e., carry-forward of
      seats cannot be permitted how much ever meritorious a candidate
      is and deserved admission. In such circumstances, the Courts
      cannot grant any relief to the candidate but it is up to the candidate
      to re-apply in the next academic year.
H
            S. KRISHNA SRADHA v. THE STATE OF                                   109
          ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      33.9. There cannot be at any point of time a direction given either       A
      by the court or the Board to increase the number of seats which
      is exclusively in the realm of the Medical Council of India.
      33.10. Each of these above mentioned principles should be applied
      based on the unique and distinguishable facts and circumstances
      of each case and no two cases can be held to be identical.”               B
       However, it is required to be noted that in the case before this
Court in Jasmine Kaur (Supra) it was specifically found by this Court
that there was a delay on the part of the candidate. It was specifically
found that the conduct of the candidate in having fixed her own time
limit in making the challenge, namely, after three months of the issuance       C
of the prospectus and thereafter in filing the Letters Patent Appeal which
process resulted in the Division Bench in deciding the Appeal only in the
month of April, 2014 by which time the substantial part of the academic
year has been crossed, disentitles the candidate any relief and the case
would not fall in any extra-ordinary circumstances.
       8. However, the question is with respect to a student, a meritorious     D
candidate for no fault of his/her has been denied admission illegally and
who has pursued his/her legal rights expeditiously without delay is entitled
to any relief of admission more particularly in the courses like MBBS
the relief of compensation as held by this Court in Asha (Supra)?
       The aforesaid question is required to be considered only to the          E
cases where (i) no fault is attributable to the candidate; (ii) the candidate
has pursued her rights and legal remedies expeditiously and without delay;
(iii) where there is fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach
of rules and regulations; and (iv) candidate is found to be more meritorious
then the last candidate who has been given admission.
                                                                                F
        8.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the question is
with respect to a student/candidate seeking admission in the medical
course more particularly in MBBS course. For a student/candidate
seeking admission in professional courses more particularly the medical
course each year is very important and precious. Similarly, getting
admission in medical course itself is very important in the life of a           G
candidate/student and even a dream of man. In light of the above, the
question for consideration is whether compensation for a meritorious
candidate, who has been denied the admission illegally and arbitrary
having approached the court in time can be said to be just and equitable
relief?                                                                         H
110             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A             8.2. The right to equal and fair treatment is a component of Article
      14 of the Constitution. As held by this Court Asha (Supra) that a
      transparent and fair procedure is the duty of every legal authority
      connected with admissions. In such cases, denial of fair treatment to the
      candidate would not only violate his/her right under Article 14 but would
      seriously jeopardize his/her right under Articles 19 and 21 of the
B
      Constitution of India. A natural corollary of declaring that an
      administrative act more particularly the denial of admission illegally and
      for no fault of a candidate/student violates principles of Article 14 is that
      the citizen injured must be put back to his/her original position. In that
      sense, the primary relief is restitutionary. As observed hereinabove, for
C     a meritorious student seeking admission in medical course is very
      important in the life of student/candidate and denial of admission to a
      meritorious candidate though no fault of his/her violates his/her
      fundamental rights. Compensation could be an additional remedy but not
      a substitute for restitutionary remedies. In case of medical admissions,
      even the restitutionary remedy of providing a seat in the subsequent
D
      year would lead to loss of one full academic year to a meritorious
      candidate, which cannot be compensated in real terms. Thus compensation
      for loss of year could be provided, but denial of admissions to a meritorious
      candidate cannot be compensated in monetary terms. Thus denial of
      admission in medical course to a meritorious candidate for no fault of
E     his/her and though he/she has approached the Court in time and despite
      the same not granting any just and equitable relief would be denial of
      justice. Therefore, the question is what relief the Court can grant by
      which right to equal and fair treatment to a candidate are protected and
      at the same time neither there is injustice to other candidate/student and
      even compromising with the quality education. Therefore, a balance is
F
      required to be struck. However, at the same time it can safely be said
      that the view taken by this Court in Jasmine Kaur (Supra) that the only
      relief which can be granted to such a candidate would be the
      compensation only is not good law and cannot be accepted. Even granting
      a relief to such a candidate/student in the next academic year and to
G     accommodate him/her in the next year and in the sanctioned intake may
      even affect the right of some other candidate/student seeking admission
      in the next academic year and that too for no fault of his/her. Therefore
      we are of the view that in the exceptional and in the rarest of rare cases
      and in case where all the conditions stipulated in paragraph 33.3 in the
      case of Jasmine Kaur (Supra) are satisfied, the Court can grant
H
               S. KRISHNA SRADHA v. THE STATE OF                                111
             ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

exceptional relief to the candidate of granting admission even after the        A
cut off date is over.
      9. 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          B
such a meritorious candidate may not have to suffer for no fault of his/
her, we answer the reference as under:
      (i)      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      C
               all the efforts shall be made by the concerned court to
               dispose of the proceedings by giving priority and at the
               earliest.
      (ii)     Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that
               there is no fault attributable to the candidate and the          D
               candidate has pursued his/her legal right expeditiously
               without any delay and there is fault only on the part of the
               authorities and/or there is 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       E
               time schedule prescribed – 30th September, is over, to do
               the complete justice, the Court under exceptional
               circumstances 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         F
               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,
               it is observed that such relief can be granted only in
               exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of rare cases.       G
               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 to a more meritorious
               candidate who has been denied admission illegally, would         H
112               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A                    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.
            (iii)    In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of admission
                     can be granted to such a candidate in the very academic
B                    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 the relief and
C                    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
D                    fault and wrongly denied 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.
E
            (iv)     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
F                    granted any relief of admission in the same academic year.
            (v)      It is clarified that the aforesaid directions pertain for
                     Admission in MBBS Course only and we have not dealt
                     with Post Graduate Medical Course.

G            10. In view of the above, the decision of this Court in the case of
      Jasmine Kaur (Supra) or any other decisions contrary to the above
      stand overruled. The decision of this Court in the case of Asha (Supra)
      is hereby affirmed to the aforesaid extent. The reference is answered
      accordingly.

H
      Divya Pandey                                                Reference answered.