LexCHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ANOTHER versus JASMINE KAUR & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 9 S.C.R. 1122 CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ANOTHER v. JASMINE KAUR & OTHERS (Civil Appeal Nos.8377-8378 of 2014) SEPTEMBER 01, 2014 [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] Education - MBBS course - Admission - Eligibility - C NRI Category quota - Prospectus issued by appellants challenged by respondent on ground that she being a Canadian Citizen was an NRI, that, therefore, she was entitled to seek admission to the MBBS course in the NRI category quota but yet the definition of NRI as specified in the D prospectus would denude her of such status and, therefdre, it was liable to be struck down - Entitlement to relief - Held: There was total lack of diligence on the part of respondent in her decision to work out her remedies in the Court of law - In such of those cases where the Court or Board is not in a E position to grant relief within the time schedule due to fault attributable to the candidate concerned, like the case on hand, there should be no hesitation to deny the relief as was done by the Single Judge of High Court - Ultimate direction of the Division Bench of the High Court in having directed the F appellants to provide admission to respondent without her participation in the admission process and thereby causing prejudice to the rightful claims of the candidates who validly made their applications cannot be countenanced as that would amount to setting up a bad precedent in all future cases - If G the direction of Division Bench is allowed to operate, it would amount to paying a premium for respondent's inexplicable delay in working out her remedies. Equity - Entitlement to equitable relief - Conduct of the H 1122 CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. JASMINE KAUR 1123 party - Inexplicable delay in working out remedies - Effect A of. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD:1.1. The contesting Respondent knew full well when the prospectus was issued in April 2013 that she did not fulfill the criteria for making an application under the first category of NRI quota as prescribed in paragraph 2 of the prospectus. But yet there was no immediate challenge to the said provision before the High Court. There was total lack of diligence on the part of the contesting Respondent in her decision to work out her remedies in the Court of law. [Para 33] [1149-D-E] B c 1.2. The prospectus which was issued in April, 2013 and the offending clause in the prospectus was not D challenged promptly while knowing full well that under the said clause the candidate was not eligible, but yet for reason best known to the respondent, an application was filed and that too three days prior to the last date notified for submission of such application. There was no reason, much less justifiable reason, for not challenging the relevant clause before the filing of the application. There was no reason for the contesting Respondent to wait for any reply from the Chandigarh Administration. After the order of the Single Judge also, the contesting Respondent took her own time to approach the Division Bench for preferring the Letters Patent Appeal. A cumulative effect of the conduct of the contesting Respondent has only resulted in disentitling her to claim any equitable relief prejudicial to the interest of other eligible candidates of the year 2014-15 and whose rights G came to be crystallized based on the process of selection made for the academic year 2014-15. If the direction of the Division Bench in the above stated background is allowed to operate, it would amount to paying a premium E F for the contesting Respondent's inexplicable delay in H 1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 9 S.C.R. A working out her remedies. Such a recalcitrant attitude displayed by the contesting Respondent should not be encouraged at the cost of the rights of the other candidates for the year 2014-15 against whom the contesting Respondent had no axe to grind. [Paras 39, B 40] [1154-D-H; 1115-A-B] 1.3. Unless claims of exceptional nature are brought before the Court within the time schedule fixed by this Court, Court or Board should not pass orders for granting admission into any particular course out of time. In such C of those cases where the Court or Board is not in a position to grant the relief within the time schedule due to the fault attributable to the candidate concerned, like the case on hand, there.should be no hesitation to deny the relief as w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.