S KIRUTHIKA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is a classic example of how a Private Medical College like the fourth Respondent, Sri Muthukumaran Medical College herein, deprived a genuine candidate in getting admission for unlawful gain.

(2.) The Appellant, a girl, belonging to a backward community, secured 1137 marks out of 1200 marks in the Plus Two (+2) examination conducted in March, 2010. Initially, she was selected for BDS Course in the 5th Respondent-Ragas Dental College, where she joined. However, on extension of second counseling, the Appellant appeared on the date fixed i.e., 26.9.2010, and she was re-allotted a seat of MBBS course in the 4th Respondent college namely, Sri Muthukumaran Medical College at Mangadu. Immediately, on 27.9.2010, the Appellant went to the 5th Respondent college to collect her original certificates and transfer certificate, which were given to her on the same day. The Appellant's case is that on 28.9.2010, she along with her father approached the 4th Respondent-college for admission to MBBS course and they were asked to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 2.19 lakhs towards fee and other charges. In order to arrange for money, the Appellant and her father went to their native place at Tanjore and arranged to get a bank draft for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs dated 29.9.2010 drawn in favor of the 4th Respondent-college from Indian Bank, Easwari Nagar Branch, and Tanjore. On the same night i.e., 29.9.2010, the Appellant's father left Tanjore and reached Chennai on the morning of 30.9.2010. He reached the College on the same day i.e., 30.9.2010 at about 10.00 a.m. along with the draft of Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 2.19 lakhs towards admission fee and other charges. The Appellant could not accompany her father, as she was unwell due to tension and continuous traveling. Hence, she started in the early morning of 30.9.2010 in order to reach the College for admission by 5.00 p.m. on the same day. Although, she started from Tanjore, but she could not reach in time because the car in which she was travelling met with an accident and for that some time was consumed in the process of lodging First Information Report with the Police Station. From the certificate issued by the D-6, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, it is seen that the accident took place on 30.9.2010 at 4.45 p.m. opposite S.R.M. University, Potheri. However, she managed to reach the College at 5.45 p.m. and requested the authorities to receive the fees and complete the admission process. But she was denied admission on the ground that she could not reach the College within 5.00 p.m. The Appellant, therefore, when not succeeded in impressing the authority of the college, immediately moved this Court by filing a writ petition for a mandamus directing the Respondents to admit her as per the re-allotment order dated 26.9.2010 issued by the second Respondent namely, the Selection Committee, rep. by its Secretary to Medical Education, Chennai. It appears that the writ petition was filed on 3.10.2010 and it is stated that despite opportunity being granted, the fourth Respondent college did not file counter affidavit, but contested the matter through their counsel. In the affidavit filed in the writ petition, the Appellant's father has averred that he was present in the college from 11.00 am onwards with a demand draft for Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 2.50 lakhs in hand, along with the original certificates of his daughter, but the college refused admission since the Appellant reached the college only by 5.45 p.m.

(3.) The 4th Respondent-college opposed the prayer of the Appellant in the writ petition on the ground that as per re-allotment order, the college had to wait only till 5.00 p.m. on 30.9.2010. Since the Appellant had not reach the College within the time prescribed, as per the re-allotment order, the College, instead of allowing the seat to get lapsed, filled the seat by admitting another candidate. The learned single Judge, relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Medical Council of India v. Naina Verma, 2005 12 SCC 626 and Mridul Dhar and Anr. v. Union of India, 2005 2 SCC 65took a view that since the Appellant had gone to College on 30.9.2010 only after 5.00 p.m. no direction can be issued to the College for admitting the Appellant, although the court is very sympathetic to the Appellant. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with an observation that the fifth Respondent-College may consider the feasibility to accommodate the Appellant in BDS course in which she had already joined.