LexBONNIE ANNA GEORGE versus MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA &ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 13 S.C.R.1215 BONN IE ANNA GEORGE v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA &ANR. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 986 of 2013) SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ] A B Constitution of India, 1950 -.Art. 32 - Writ petition by c Medical student - Sought writ of Mandamus to direct the Medical College and Medical Council of India to permit her to change her PG course from MD Pathology to MD General Medicine in the available vacant seat under NRI quota within the College - Held: On facts, the petitioner was deprived of 0 the opportunity to opt for the availabfe NRI seat in MD General Medicine during the third counseling, thus was wholly unjustified - However, in view that the admission schedule fixed by Medical Council of India and this Court is being scrupulously followed, there is no situation to violate the said E schedule fixed by this Court and give direction as prayed for by the petitioner- However, in view of grave injustice caused to the petitioner for which the entire responsibility lies on the Medical College, direction issued to the Medical College to · pay Rs. 5 lakhs and refund Rs. 13,000, the amount paid by F the petitioner for her re-admission to the PG course of MD pathology - Education/Educational Institutions - Medical education. Partly allowing the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1.1 The course adopted by the second G Respondent ultimately deprived the Petitioner of the valuable right to opt for a course of her choice, which was very much available and the inept conduct of the second Respondent was extremely irresponsible and unconscionable. Deep anguished is expressed· while H 1215 1216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R. A noting such deplorable conduct of the second Respondent in having dealt with the right of the Petitioner in such a casual manner by which she was disabled from making a choice to a course for which she was very passionately waiting and the course which was very B much available for her option. [Para 25, 26][1234-B-D] 1.2 For an N.R.I. seat the prescribed fee is US$ 1,25,000 which is equivalent to approximately Rs.75 lakhs as against the annual fee of Rs.3,98,000/- for 'A' category candidates. As per the refund rules, when C somebody vacates the seat on the last date of admission, he/she is entitled for refund of the full fee except administrative fee and any other expenses incurred by the institution towards the candidate. However, such refund of full fee need not be made if the seat vacated by D the candidate could !)Ot be filled up by the institution. Therefore, when the N.R.I. seat of M.D. General Medicine was vacated and if the seat was filled up by a candidate of' A' category then second Respondent would be bound to refund the entire fee paid by the N.R.I. candidate except E the administrative expenses and other expenses towards the candidate. Since, the second Respondent was ultimately successful in not filling up the seat and thereby applying the refund rules, the concerned N.R.I. candidate need not be refunded with the full fee on the F ground that the seat vacated by him could not be filled by the second respondent. There is much to be doubted as regards the conduct of the second respondent in depriving the petitioner to exercise her right for opting the available N.R.I. category seat, while in law, she had · G every right to seek for such an option. Further, the conduct of the second respondent in having made an application in this Court for holding fourth counselling on 07.08.2013 which was rejected by this Court also suggests that there was total lack of bona fide in the H BONNIEANNA GEORGE v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA 1217 stand of the second respondent. [Para 27)(1234-E-H; A 1235-A-E] 1.3 The second respondent was apparently creating a false hope not only to itself but also to the candidates as though there were every bona fide effort taken by it in the interest of the candidates. Therefore, B the course adopted by the second respondent severely lacked in bonafides in its approach. [Para 28)(1235-G-H] 1.4 Having regard to the conclusions, depriving the petitioner of the opportunity to opt for the available N.R.I. c seat in M.D. General Medicine during the third counselling was wholly unjustified. The petitioner sought for Mandamus to direct the second respondent to permit her to shift her P.G. Course from M.D. Pathology to M.D. General Medicine in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.