S. KRISHNA SRADHA versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 15 S.C.R. 93 · Decided: 13-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, M.R. SHAH, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
93
S. KRISHNA SRADHA
v.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1081 of 2017)
DECEMBER 13, 2019
[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
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
his/her and who pursued his/her legal right expeditiously without
delay, can be denied admission as relief, because the cut-off date
of 30th 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
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
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 30th September, i.e. cut off date – Under no
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
 [2019] 15 S.C.R. 93
93
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
94
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
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
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.
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
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/
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
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
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
A
B
C

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