LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

RAMKRISHNA MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 11 S.C.R. 700 · Decided: 07-11-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 700 : 2024 INSC 845
Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre 
v. 
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 12235 of 2024)
07 November 2024
[B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as to whether the appellant-colleges made out a case for 
a direction to the respondent authorities to create a compensatory 
seat in the ensuing academic year.
Headnotes†
Education/Educational institutions – Medical admission – 
Creation of compensatory seat in the ensuing academic 
year – Orders by the Director, Medical Education directing 
appellants-medical colleges to keep one MBBS seat vacant in 
the appellant-colleges with a direction that the said seat would 
not be included in the College Level Counseling Round for the 
academic year 2023-24 – Said direction issued pursuant to the 
interim order passed by the High Court in writ petitions filed by 
the students – Subsequently, both the writ petitions dismissed – 
Thereagainst, appellants filing SLPs before this Court seeking 
compensatory seat in the subsequent academic year on the 
ground that since the seat was kept on hold, they were deprived 
of the opportunity to fill that seat, and faced losses:
Held: Vacant seat ordered could not be filled because by the time 
the writ petitions were disposed of, the counselling had concluded 
and the cut-off date for admissions were also over, and the Colleges 
would have to carry that vacant seat for the entire duration of the 
MBBS Course – Interim order directing one seat in the counselling to 
be kept vacant is a cryptic order where neither the prima facie case 
nor the balance of convenience and irreparable loss aspects were 
discussed – High Court wholly ignored these principles – Medical 
seat has life only in the year it falls due and that too only till the 
cut-off date fixed – Seat falling vacant in a particular year cannot be 
carried forward or created in the succeeding year – Keeping vacant 
seats results in huge financial loss to the college apart from being 
a national wastage of resources – If provisional admission seats 
* Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
701
Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre 
v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
are not to be given casually, the said principle should also apply for 
directions to keep seats vacant – Only if there is a cast iron case 
for the petitioner and the petitioner is bound to succeed in cases 
where the error of the authorities is so gross as to negate any other 
conclusion, interim orders keeping seats vacant could be made, with 
great caution and circumspection and the petitioner be directed to 
provide security, to the college-institution as a guarantee in case 
the matter is dismissed – Furthermore, every endeavor must be 
made by the Court to dispose of the matter before the counselling 
for admissions are over – Vacant seat will deprive the college of the 
fees to that extent, not just for one year but for the whole course, 
which could be four, five or more years – Principle of restitution is 
not excluded from its application to interim orders – Court should be 
mindful to neutralize the effect of wrong interim orders which they 
have been persuaded to pass – Maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit 
would apply, and orders of restitution can be passed directing the 
party which obtained the advantage to compensate the party which 
suffered the disadvantage – On facts, it is a case of one seat in each 
college – To meet ends of justice, the appellant colleges granted 
liberty to make a representation to the Fee Fixation Committee/
Authority of the State pointing out their grievance, which would fix 
the fees for college (for future batches) as also reckon the deficit 
in fees that has resulted due to the single vacant seat and fix the 
fees by adding such amount to the total fees proposed to be fixed 
which would restitute the colleges monetarily – Considering that it 
is a single seat and since the fee would be spread over for a period 
of five years, the financial impact on whom the burden would fall 
would be marginal, in proportion to the total fee payable – This is 
the best possible option, to neutralize the effect of interim orders 
which have operated to the prejudice of the colleges. [Paras 20-33]
Case Law Cited
Faiza Choudhary v. State of J&K & Anr. [2012] 7 SCR 528 : (2012) 
10 SCC 149; S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 
[2019] 15 SCR 93 : (2020) 17 SCC 465; Index Medica

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.