LexS. NIHAAL AHAMED versus THE DEAN, VELAMMALMEDICALCOLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2015] 10 S.C.R. 242 S. NIHAAL AHAMED v. THE DEAN, VELAMMALMEDICALCOLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8067-8068 of 2015) SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 [M.Y. EQBALAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Education/Educational Institutions: MBBS admission - Appellants see,king admission - Opted for respondent- college as first choice- Result published whereby appellant- N was placed at rank no. 731 and appellant-G at rank no.551 in the merit fist - Respondent directed appellants to come D after 26.9.2013 - Complaints by appellants against the respondent-college to the Monitoring Committee - Respondent directed appellants to appear for counselling on 26.9.2013-Appellants received letters after 26.9.2013 and were refused seats on the ground that they did not E approach within stipulated time - Writ petitions- Single judge held that the appellants were not entitled for admission in the MBBS course due to lapse of time however they were entitled to Rs.3 /akhs each as compensation payable by respondent - On appeals, the Division Bench held that F appellants were not entitled for admission in the MBBS course and also not entitled for compensation - Held: The respondent-college drafted fetters dated 24. 9. 2013 directing the appellants to appear for counselling on 26. 9. 2013 and marked copy of the same to the Monitoring Committee - G The said letters were posted only on 29.9.2013 as evident from the post office seal affixed on the envelope produced by the appellants - The finding-of the Single Judge that the respondent-Medical College is at fault in not sending call H letters in time is based on proper appreciation of factual 242 S. NIHAALAHAMED v. THE DEAN, VELAMMAL MEDICAL 243 COLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE matrix - The appellants though placed in the merit list could A not secure admission due to the fault of the respondent- col/ege - The order of the Single Judge restored. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: The respondent-Medical College drafted B letters dated 24.9.2013 directing the appellants to appear for counselling on 26.9.2013 and marked copy of the same to the Monitoring Committee. The said letters were posted only on 29.9.2013 as evident from the post office c seal affixed on the envelope produced by the appellants. The finding of the Single Judge that the respondent- Medical College is at fault in not sending call letters in time is based on proper appreciation of factual matrix. The appellants though placed in the merit list could not o secure admission due to the faalt of the respondent- Medical College. As rightly held by the High Court they were not·entitled to the relief of admission sought for by them in the writ petition due to lapse of time. In the present case the Single Judge after elaborately E considering the facts and circumstances held that the appellants-writ petitioners were entitled to a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs each as compensation payable by the respondent-Medical College and directed to pay within a period of 8 weeks. The said direction was erroneously F reversed by the Division Bench. The order of the Single Judge has to be restored. The impugned judgment in so far as setting aside the order of the Single Judge awarding compensation to the appellants is, set aside and the order of the Single Judge awarding G compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to each of the appellants is· restored alongwith time schedule for payment. [Paras 5 to 8] [247-B-E; 248-8, F-H; 249-A] H 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. A Chandigarh Administration and another v. B Jasmine Kaur and others (2014) 10 SCC 521 - referred to. Case Law Reference (2014) 10 sec 521 referred to. Para 6 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8067-8068 of 2015 C From the Judgment and Order dated 25.09.2014 of the High Court of Madras at Madurai in WA Nos. 898 and 923 of 2014. WITH D C. A Nos. 8069-8070 of 2015 Ajmal Khan, E. Mohamad Abhas, A. Lakshminarayaman, S. C. V. Vimal Pani, J.B. JanathAhmed, (forV. Ramasubramanian), Beno Bencigar, (for Sanjay Kumar E Visen) for the Appellant. F Krishnan Venugopal, S. Ravi Shankar, Sangita Singh, Shivendra Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia for the Respondents. · The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. All these appeals have been preferred against the G common judgment dated 25.9.2014 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.