1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on 14.11.2014 and delivered on 17 -11-2014
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Writ Petition Nos. 26789, 26880, 27034, 28045, 28080 and
29873 to 29875 of 2014 and all connected pending MPs

Minor K.S.Naveen Priya ...

Petitioner in W.P.No.26789/2014

M.Yashitha

...

Petitioner in W.P.No.26880/2014

1. Rasi Rangaraj
2. M.Monika Priya
3. Shenaz Fathima (Minor)
rep. by Father Legal Guardian,
M.Akbar Ali.
4. R.Swathika
5. J.Shapna
6. D.T.Jothimani (Minor)
rep. by Father and Legal Guardian
Mr.Thulasiraman
7. Geethanjali (Minor)
rep.by father and legal guardian
G.Muthu
8. D.Solomon Sandeep Kumar (minor)
rep.by father and legal guardian
Divyanathan
9. A.Hemasri (Minor)
rep.by father and legal guardian
Mr.Anbuselvan
10.H.Saliha Nooraen
1. V.Naveen Kumar
2. M.Balamurugan
3. A.Alagumalai

...Petitioners in
WP.No.27034/2014

2
4. R.Aravinth
5. S.Ajithkumar
6. S.Vigneshwaran
7. S.Ramakrishnan
8. K.Ganesh
9. P.Vinith Anand
10. M.Priyadharshini
11. A.Madhurambigai
12. A.Vivek

...Petitioners in
WP.No.28045/2014

P.Vigneswaran (Minor) rep.by

his father & natural guardian
Mr.M.Paneerselvam

...Petitioner in
WP.No.28080/2014

T.P.Selvam

...Petitioner in
WP.No.29873/2014

KR.Visalatchi

...Petitioner in
WP.No.29874/2014

S.Sri Harini

...Petitioner in
WP.No.29875/2014
Vs.

1.The Secretary, Selection Committee,

Directorate of Medical Education,
162, E.V.R. Periyar Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. ...

1st Respondent in
W.P.No.26789/2014,
3rd Respondent in
W.P.No.26880/2014, R2 in
WP.No.28045/2014, R3 in
WP.Nos.29873-29875/2014

2.The Dean, Chennai Medical College

Hospital and Research Centre, (SRM),
Trichy.
3.The Dean, Tagore Medical College,
Vandalur, Chennai.
(R2 & R3 impleaded as per order
dated 10.10.2014 in M.P.No.2/2014)

...Respondents 2& 3 in
W.P.No.26789/2014

3
R4 & R5 in WP.Nos.2987329875 2014
4.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by
Secretary to Government,
Health, Medical Education and
Family Welfare Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

5.The Director of Medical Education,

No.162, E.V.R.Periyar Salai,
Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.

... 1st Respondent in

W.P.No.26880/2014 &
& R4 in WP.No.28080/2014
R1 in WP.Nos.2987329875/2014

...2nd Respondent in
W.P.No.26880/2014
R1 in WP.Nos.27034, 28045 &
28080/2014, R2 in WP.Nos.
29873-29875/2014

6. Chennai Medical College & Research

Centrel, Tiruchirappalli-621105.
7. Tagore Medical College & Hospital
Chennai-48.
8.Medical Council of India, New Delhi
rep.by Secretary

...Respondents 2 & 3 in
WP.Nos.27034 & 28080/2014
...R4 in WP.No.27034
2014

9. The Chairman, Medical Council of India

New Delhi-110077.
10.The Management, Chennai Medical
College Hospital & Research Centre
Trichy
11.The Management, Tagore Medical
College, Vandalur, Chennai.

...Respondents 3 to 5
in WP.No.28045/2014

4
Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
(i) Prayer in W.P.No.26789 of 2014 is for the issuance of a writ of
Mandamus directing the respondent to select the petitioner for admission
for MBBS Course and give allotment to her in Chennai Medical College
Hospital and Research Centre, Trichy or Tagore Medical College, Chennai
or in any other colleges under the Government Quota for the academic
year 2014-2015 by considering the petitioner's representation dated
01.10.2014.
(ii) Prayer in W.P.No.26880/2014:- is for the issue of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the selection
list to MBBS for the year 2014-15 session candidates for Chennai Medical
College Hospital and Research Centre, Trichy and Tagore Medical College,
Chennai based upon the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in W.P.(Civil) No.469 of 2014 published in the website of the second
respondent dated -nil-, quash the same and consequently direct the
second respondent to allot a seat to the petitioner in MBBS Course for the
year 2014-15 session in seats created as per the direction of the Supreme
Court of India in W.P.(Civil) No.469 of 2014.
(iii) Petition in WP.No.27034 of 2014 seeking for the issuance of a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the
allotment order of the first respondent dated 30.9.2014, quash the same in
so far as the petitioners are not included therein and consequently direct
the first respondent to admit the petitioners in the vacancies in the second

5
and third respondents' institutions.
(iv) Petition in WP.No.28045 of 2014 seeking for the issuance of a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to
allotment order and the list of candidates allotted to the fourth and fifth
respondent institutions for admission to MBBS Course for the academic
year 2014-15 passed by the second respondent, quash the same and
direct the second respondent to select the petitioners for re-allotment to
MBBS course either at fourth respondent or fifth respondent institution in
accordance with the order of merit list and rule of reservation.
(v) Petition in WP.No.28080 of 2014 seeking for the issuance of a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first
respondent pertaining to the allotment order dated 30.9.2014, quash the
same and consequently direct the first respondent to include and to admit
the petitioner in the vacancies in the second and third respondents'
institutions.
(vi) Petition in WP.No.29873 of 2014 seeking for the issuance of a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the
selection list to MBBS for the year 2014-15 session candidates for the
fourth respondent college and the fifth respondent college based upon the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.(Civil) No.469 of
2014 published in the website of the second respondent dated 1.10.2014,
quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to allot a
seat to the petitioner's daughter Keerthana in MBBS Course for the year

6
2014-15 session in seats created as per the direction of the Supreme
Court of India in W.P.(Civil) No.469 of 2014 and
(vii) Petitions in WP.Nos.29874 & 29875 of 2014 seeking for the
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
relating to the selection list to MBBS for the year 2014-15 session
candidates for the fourth respondent college and the fifth respondent
college based upon the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
W.P.(Civil) No.469 of 2014 published in the website of the second
respondent dated 1.10.2014, quash the same and consequently direct the
second respondent to allot a seat to the petitioner in MBBS Course for the
year 2014-15 session in seats created as per the direction of the Supreme
Court of India in W.P.(Civil) No.469 of 2014.

For Petitioners :
For
For
For
For

Mr.Vijay Narayan, SC for Mr.R.Parthiban

and M/s.N.Manokaran, S.Pushpakaran,
R.Karthikeyan, T.J.Kulasekar, V.Anand
State
: Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, AGP
Medical Council of India : Mr.V.P.Raman
Chennai Medical College : Mr.V.T.Gopalan, SC for
Ms.B.Saraswathi
Tagore Medical College : Mr.Venkatesh Mahadevan
COMMON O R D E R

Admission to Medical Colleges every year, has become a catastrophe

and more the Courts attempt to lay down a law, more the confusion. If
children who get admission to Medical Courses in this melee are blessed,

7
those who do not even participate in this race, appear to be more blessed.
2. The batch of cases on hand amply demonstrates the confusion
into which the Courts have plunged the process of admission to Medical
Courses.
3. The petitioners in all these writ petitions passed out of Higher
Secondary Course in May, 2014 in flying colours with high marks. All of
them aspired to get admission to the Government Medical Colleges, as the
fee structure in Government Medical Colleges is very affordable. But
unfortunately, the petitioners did not have adequate marks to get allotted
in the first, second or third phase of Counselling, to Government Medical
Colleges. Some of them were allotted to Self-Financing Medical Colleges,
but they were not financially sound as to accept such allotment, in view of
the fact that even the fee fixed by the Fee Committee was beyond the
reach of some of the writ petitioners.
4. When the petitioners had resigned themselves to fate, an order
passed

by the

Supreme

Court

in

W.P.(Civil)

No.469

of

2014

on

18.09.2014, came as a Silver Lining. By the said order passed in a writ

petition filed by Hind Charitable Trust Shekhar Hospital Private
Limited, the Supreme Court permitted all institutions whose recognition
was not renewed for the current year, to admit students, sponsored by the
State Government from out of the merit lists maintained by them.
5. It appears that the Selection Committee of the State of Tamil
Nadu sponsored a list of 150 students to one Self-financing Medical

8
College by name Tagore Medical College and a list of 150 students to
another Self-financing Medical College by name Chennai Medical College
and Research Centre, at Trichy. When those two Self-financing Medical
Colleges released the list of candidates admitted by them on 30.09.2014,
the petitioners found that students who had secured lesser marks had
gained admission. Therefore, complaining of a foul play on the part of the
State Government and/or the two Self-financing Medical Colleges and
alleging violation of the orders of the Supreme Court, dated 18.09.2014,
the petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions seeking the
issue of writs of mandamus to direct the respondents to admit them in any
one of these two Self-financing Medical Colleges under the Government
Quota for the Academic Year 2014-15.
6. I have heard Mr.Vijay Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel,
Messers.N.Manoharan, R.Karthikeyan, S.Pushpakaran, T.J.Kulasekar and
V.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.P.Sanjay
Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State
and the Selection Committee, Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Chennai Medical College and Mr.Venkatesh Mahadevan,
learned counsel appearing for Tagore Medical College.
7. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to take
note of the factual background leading to the filing of these cases.

(a) In Mridul Dhar (Minor) Vs Union of India [2005 (5) SCC 65] , the
Supreme Court laid down a schedule (a) for the conduct of examinations;

9
(b) for the conduct of first, second and third rounds of Counselling; and (c)
for the admission of students. The last date for admission of students was
fixed as 30th September of every year.
(b) In Priya Gupta Vs State of Chattisgarh [2012 (7) SCC 433], the
Supreme Court again indicated a time schedule for admission of students.
The last in this series of cases was Lipika Gupta v. Union of India
[W.P.(Civil) No.737 of 2013). In the said case the Supreme Court fixed
a time schedule on 14.03.2014 for admission to Post Graduate Medical
Courses for the Academic session 2014-15.
(c) When Lipika Gupta again came up for hearing on 11.04.2014, the
Supreme Court indicated that if any of the authorities of the State or
Union of India do not comply with the time schedule, they will suffer the
risk of contempt as also the risk of the Court not altering the time
schedule for any round of counselling.
(d) Again when the Lipika Gupta was listed on 09.05.2014, the learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India filed a
comprehensive affidavit containing a time schedule for the Academic year
2014-15. The time schedule is as follows:-

Schedule for admission

Conduct of Examination

Seats filled up by the State

Govt./Institutions

Seats filled up by the

Central Government
through all India Entrance
Examination.

Month of May

Month of May

Declaration of Result of By 5th June

By 5th June

10
Schedule for admission

Seats filled up by the State

Govt./Institutions

Seats filled up by the

Central Government
through all India Entrance
Examination.

qualifying
examination/entrance
examination
1st
Round
counselling/admission

of To be over by 25th June

1st July to 11th July

Last date for joining the By 03rd July

allotted college and course

By 21st July

2nd
Round
counselling/admission

01st to 4th August

of To be over by 27th July

Last date for joining for the By 2nd August

candidates allotted seats in
2nd Round of counselling

16th August

3rd Round of counselling

17th to 26th August

06th to 10th September

Last date for joining for the By 17th September

candidates allotted seats in
3rd round of counselling

5th September

Commencement of academic 1st September

session

1st September

Last date up to which 30th September

students can be admitted
against vacancies arising due
to any reason

Not applicable

(e)On 19.05.2014, the Supreme Court passed an order in Lipika Gupta ,

approving the above time schedule. Not stopping with the approval of the
time schedule, the Supreme Court also recorded the following in its order
dated 19.05.2014:"Having heard Mr.Luthra for the Union of India,
Mr.Gaurav Sharma, learned Advocate for M.C.I. and
Mr.Puneet Jain and others for respondents, we approve
the said schedule and direct that all the authorities

11
shall follow the said schedule for the academic year
2014-15 without any deviation, and we make it clear

that any deviation by any agency will tantamount

to contempt of this Court."
(f) However, trouble erupted again in June/July, 2014, with the Medical of
India refusing to renew the recognition of some of the existing Colleges. In
Tamil Nadu alone, 5 Colleges by name (1) Madha Medical College, (2)
Tagore Medical College, (3) Muthukumaran Medical College, (4) Vinayaka
Mission Medical College and (5) Chennai Medical College, were refused
renewal. Out of these 5 colleges, four colleges came up with writ petitions
before me and I dismissed all of them, on the ground that I cannot violate
the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court and become a party to
making the High Court guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court. The 5th
College went before the Madurai Bench of this Court and they also met
with the same fate.
(g) However, a Division Bench of this Court reversed the aforesaid
decision and directed the Central Government to have a look at the matter
in terms of Section 10-A(4) of the Act. Consequently, the Central
Government got into a predicament as to whether they should reconsider
the matter in accordance with the directions of the Division Bench, thereby
committing contempt of the order of the Supreme Court in Lipika Gupta , or
whether they should refuse to reconsider the matter in view of the
mandate of the Supreme Court, thereby committing a contempt of the
order of the Division Bench.

12
(h) Fortunately for them, the Central Government was saved of the
embarrassment of choosing between a contempt of the Supreme Court and
a contempt of the High Court, when an unrecognized institution by name
Hind Charitable Trust Shekhar Hospital Private Limited approached
the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, by
filing W.P.(Civil)No.469 of 2014. Several Self-financing Institutions joined
the chorus before the Supreme Court, either by filing writ petitions under
Article 32 or by filing Special Leave Petitions against orders of various
High Courts.
(i) On 18.09.2014, a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court
took up all these writ petitions and Special Leave Petitions and expressed
a desire to reconsider the directions given in Priya Gupta . Thereafter, the
Supreme Court proceeded to issue a direction permitting all Medical
Colleges to admit students from the merit lists prepared by the States.
This direction was issued "Notwithstanding any direction given in the
case of Priya Gupta". The Supreme Court further directed the writ
petitions to be listed for further orders on 01.10.2014 and directed the
parties to file the list of students getting admission in pursuance of the
said order, on 01.10.2014.
(j) However, several Interlocutory Applications were filed immediately
seeking various clarifications and hence the matters were taken up by the
Supreme Court on 25.09.2014. Further directions were issued on the said
date, clarifying that both the State Quota as well as the Management

13
Quota shall be filled up only through the merit list furnished by the State.
(k) It appears that out of the 5 Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu, which
came up before this Court for the current academic year, only two colleges
namely Chennai Medical College and Tagore Medical College chose to avail
the benefit of the order of the Supreme Court. Hence, the State
Government appears to have forwarded a list of candidates to these
Colleges. But while doing so, the Selection Committee of the State
Government appears to have goofed up things.
(l) Instead of sending a list of candidates strictly according to merits, the
Selection Committee appears to have sent a list, leaving out more
meritorious

candidates

like

the

writ

petitioners

herein.

The

State

Government appears to have followed Clause 35(b) of the Prospectus for

2014-15 which stipulates that if a candidate opted out of Government
Quota in Self-financing Colleges, even when seats are available in Selffinancing Colleges, he cannot claim it in the subsequent phase of
Counselling. Therefore, the Selection Committee, while sending a list of
candidates to these two colleges, omitted the names of those who had, in
the three rounds of Counselling held earlier, not accepted allotment to
Self-financing Colleges, under the Government Quota earlier. The result is
that students who had secured lesser cut off marks than the petitioners
herein, have gained admission to these 2 colleges. Hence the petitioners
are before this court.
8. The Government had failed to take note of one important fact

14
namely that the fee fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee even for students
admitted under the Government Quota in the Self-financing Institutions,
was nearly Rs.3,00,000/- and more per year. But the fee charged by the
Government Medical Colleges is only Rs.12,000/- per year. Today, by
virtue of the orders dated 18.09.2014 and 25.09.2014, issued by the
Supreme Court in Hind Charitable Trust Case, the students admitted to
these two Self-financing Colleges are obliged to pay only Rs.12,000/- per
year. Therefore, the refusal of these students to accept the allotment even
under the Government Quota to the Self-financing Institutions, during the
first three phases of Counselling, cannot be put against them, while
sending a list in pursuance of the orders passed in Hind Charitable Trust
case.

What

happened

at

the

time

of

the

three

phases

of

Counselling, was not a refusal, but only the expression of inability

to join the Self-financing Institutions even under the Government
Quota.
9. The petitioners in these writ petitions could not accept
allotment to Self-financing Institutions in the first three rounds of
Counselling held earlier, solely due to their inability to pay so much of
fees. Therefore, the Selection Committee ought not to have omitted the
names of the petitioners from the merit list. A gross injustice has been
done to the petitioners herein by sponsoring the names of less meritorious
candidates, on the ground that they had refused allotment earlier.
Therefore, the petitioners are justified in their grievance.

15
10. But the method of redressal of the grievances of the
petitioners poses the greatest threat and risk. Today, I cannot cancel the
merit list already forwarded to these two Self-financing Colleges and direct
the Selection Committee to furnish a fresh list since this will result in the
students who have already been admitted, losing their seats. The students
who are already admitted, are not before me. Therefore, behind their back,
I cannot set aside the list sent by the Selection Committee.
11. Another method of redressing the grievance of the petitioners
is to direct the Selection Committee to forward a fresh list to fill up the
remaining seats. It is reported by Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Chennai Medical College Hospital and Research Centre
that out of the list of 150 candidates sent by the Selection Committee of
the State, only 120 candidates joined. Subsequently two candidates left.
Therefore, as on date there are 32 vacancies in that College. Similarly,
there appears to be 52 vacancies in Tagore Medical College.
12. But Chennai Medical College and Tagore Medical College are
not willing to take any risk by admitting any students as on date. These
Colleges have filed affidavits of undertaking before the Supreme Court and
there is an imminent danger of these Colleges forfeiting their deposit and
inviting penal consequences, if they violate any of the directions of the
Supreme Court. In its order dated 18.09.2014, the Supreme Court has
made it clear that in no case any admission shall be made after
30.09.2014. Chennai Medical College and Tagore Medical College do not

16
wish to violate this mandate and invite the wrath of the Supreme Court. In
fact, out of goodwill, Mr.V.T.Gopalan learned Senior Counsel for one of
these Colleges suggested that any sympathy shown by me to the writ
petitioners, may eventually put me in a precarious position seeking
sympathy.
13.

However,

the

learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

writ

petitioners relied upon at least two decisions of the Division Benches of

this Court, where the Division Benches directed either the grant of
recognition/affiliation to the Colleges or the grant of admissions to
students beyond the cut-off date. Interestingly, in all these cases, the
Division Benches made it clear that the cut-off date fixed by the Supreme
Court was not inviolable or inflexible. The Special Leave Petitions filed
against these judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, were
dismissed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners contended that no disastrous consequences would flow,
even if I issue a mandamus in violation of the time schedule fixed by the
Supreme Court, especially in the interest of justice.
14. I have carefully considered the above submissions. It is true
that in Mridul Dhar [(2005) 5 SCC 65] , Priya Gupta [(2012) 7 SCC 433]
and Lipika Gupta , the Supreme Court repeatedly fixed time schedules. In a
decision rendered on 10-6-2011 in LPA No.544 of 2011 in Shree
Chhatrapati Shivaji Education Society vs. Medical Council, a Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed, by way of an interim order, a

17
breach of the time schedule fixed in Mridul Dhar. The Medical Council of
India challenged the said interim order before the Supreme Court in SLP
(C) No.16233 of 2011. The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave
Petition by order dated 17.6.2011, upholding the order of the Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court. Similarly, in a decision dated 7-8-2013 in
W.A.No.1638 of 2013 in The Board of Governors vs. Tagore Medical
College, a Division Bench of this Court held that when a decision is
arbitrary and violative of Article 14, the Court is not denuded of its
jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions though the cut-off date has
gone. So holding, the Division Bench issued directions in favour of the
self-financing medical institution, holding that the time schedule issued
both in Mridul Dhar and in Priya Gupta , would not be a bar for the grant of
relief, even beyond the cut-off date. The Special Leave Petition filed
against the said order in SLP (C) No.25812 of 2013 was dismissed by the
Supreme Court on 14.8.2013. Yet another Division Bench of this Court in
its order dated 14-8-2013 in W.A.No.1600 of 2013 in Madha Medical
College vs. Union of India, granted relief in favour of the College, even
after the expiry of the time schedule fixed in Mridul Dhar and Priya Gupta,
by approving the decision of the earlier Division Bench dated 07.8.2013.
Interestingly, the Special Leave Petition filed against the said order in SLP
(C)

No.28011

of

2013

was

dismissed

by

the

Supreme

Court

on

04.10.2013, thereby granting a seal of approval to the breach of the time

schedule fixed by the Supreme Court itself. Again, the decision of the

18
Supreme court in Royal Medical Trust vs. Union of India [2013 (12)
Scale 145], allowed a breach of the time schedule.
15. Therefore, it appears that the Supreme Court repeatedly fixed
time schedules and repeatedly warned statutory authorities not to violate
the time schedule, without the fear of being hauled up for contempt. But,
quite a few orders passed by various Courts beyond the time schedule
fixed by the Supreme Court, were also upheld by the Supreme Court.
16. Therefore, what follows, is that no one knows what the
law is and where we stand. Our education in law, appears to be
inadequate to understand the law of education. All that I can do now,
is to quote a passage from an article titled "The Writing of Judgments"
authored by RT. Hon. Lord Macmillan, which reads as follows:"Lord Dunedin, one of the greatest Judges of our day
and generation, had a predilection for deducing from
the particular case before him the general principle of
law which he conceived to be involved and formulating
it in general terms. In the leading case of Sorrell v.
Smith there is a characteristic passage in the opening
paragraph of his judgment. The case raised the most
far-reaching problems in the law of conspiracy at
common law. The Judges in the court of Appeal, said
Lord Dunedin, "had embodied in their judgments an
appeal for guidance so touching, as to recall the prayer
of Ajaz .......... Reverse our judgment as it pleases

you, but at least say something clear to help in

the future." The quotation is from the Iliad, xvii, 647

19
Darkness had shrouded the field of battle between the
Greeks and the Trojans and Ajax invoked Zeus to clear
the sky so that if he and his comrades must die they
might do so in the light. As Zeus responded to the
supplication of Ajax, so Lord Dunedin responded to that
of the Court of Appeal without, however, claiming
divine inspiration."

17. As recently as on 01.9.2014, the Supreme Court considered in

Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur [2014 (10) Scale 1],
the effect of the time schedule fixed by Courts. After taking note of various
earlier decisions, a two member Bench of the Supreme Court deduced in
paragraph 30 of the report, the principles that could be culled out, as
follows:

"(1)

The

schedule relating

to admissions

to

the

professional colleges should be strictly and scrupulously adhered

to and shall not be deviated under any circumstance either by the
courts or the Board and midstream admission should not be
permitted.
(2) Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that
there is no fault attributable to the candidate i.e., the candidate has
pursued his or her legal right expeditiously without any delay and
that there is fault only on the part of the authorities or there is an
apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related
principles in the process of grant of admission which would violate
the right to equality and equal treatment to the competing
candidates and the relief of admission can be directed within the
time schedule prescribed, it would be completely just and fair to
provide exceptional reliefs to the candidate under such

20
circumstance alone.
(3) If a candidate is not selected during a particular
academic year due to the fault of the Institutions/Authorities and in
this process if the seats are filled up and the scope for granting
admission is lost due to eclipse of time schedule, then under such
circumstances, the candidate should not be victimised for no fault
of his/her and the Court may consider grant of appropriate
compensation to offset the loss caused, if any.
(4) When a candidate does not exercise or pursue his/her
rights or legal remedies against his/her non-selection expeditiously
and promptly, then the Courts cannot grant any relief to the
candidate in the form of securing an admission.
(5) If the candidate takes a calculated risk/chance by
subjecting himself/herself to the selection process and after
knowing his/her non-selection, he/she cannot subsequently turn
around and contend that the process of selection was unfair.
(6) If it is found that the candidate acquiesces or waives
his/her right to claim relief before the Court promptly, then in such
cases, the legal maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas
subvenit, which means that equity aids only the vigilant and not the
ones who sleep over their rights, will be highly appropriate.
(7) No relief can be granted even though the prospectus is
declared illegal or invalid if the same is not challenged promptly.
Once the candidate is aware that he/she does not fulfil the criteria
of the prospectus he/she cannot be heard to state that, he/she
chose to challenge the same only after preferring the application
and after the same is refused on the ground of eligibility.
(8) There cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one

21
year with permitted seats of the subsequent year i.e., carry forward
of seats cannot be permitted how much ever meritorious a
candidate is and deserved admission. In such circumstances, the
Courts cannot grant any relief to the candidate but it is up to the
candidate to re-apply next academic year.
(9) There cannot be at any point of time a direction given
either by the Court or the Board to increase the number of seats
which is exclusively in the realm of the Medical Council of India.
(10) Each of these above mentioned principles should be
applied based on the unique and distinguishable facts and
circumstances of each case and no two cases can be held to be
identical."
18. Therefore, it appears that if cases of the writ petitioners herein
fall under the second category indicated in paragraph 30 of the decision of
the Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration, the petitioners may be
entitled to relief, provided the relief of admission can be granted within
the time schedule. The time schedule is now gone. But, there is a small
hitch. The right of the petitioners herein actually flow out of the order of
the Supreme Court in Hind Charitable Trust dated 18.9.2014. All the writ
petitioners pitch their claim only on the basis of the decision of the
Supreme Court in Hind Charitable Trust. The decision in Hind Charitable
Trust came, with the proclaimed object of having more doctors to meet the

growing needs of the Society. This object will now stand defeated, if about
84 seats go vacant, despite the orders of the Supreme Court.
19. But, as I have pointed out earlier, the grant of the relief of

22
admission to the petitioners, poses a greater challenge. There are actually
three alternatives before me. They are :
(i) I can set aside the entire merit list sent by the Selection
Committee to these two colleges and direct the Selection Committee to
send a fresh list of 150 candidates each. That will result in utter chaos and
confusion, as about 118 candidates have joined the Chennai Medical
College and started undergoing the course for the past more than a month.
Similarly, about 98 students or so have joined the Tagore Medical College
and started undergoing the course. They are not parties to these writ
petitions. Therefore, their admissions cannot be set aside. Hence, the first
option is ruled out.
(ii) The second option is to direct the Selection Committee to send a
fresh list of only 84 candidates (32 for Chennai Medical College and 52 for
Tagore Medical College). While sending such a list, I do not know what
principles the State Government can follow. I am clear that the principle
followed by them so far is not correct. They have sent a list excluding the
names of candidates, who had earlier refused to take allotment in self
financing colleges under the Government quota. But, that cannot be put
against them, since the fee structure was very high. But, to the extent
that they are wrong, I am very clear. But, what principle they should adopt
if a fresh list is to be sent, is not clear. I do not know whether they must
take out the merit list of candidates, who have not so far been allotted to
any college. If they do so, less meritorious candidates, who have not got

23
allotted to any college earlier, will

benefit, due to the fortuitous

circumstances created by Hind Charitable Trust. Candidates, who are more

meritorious than them will be studying in self financing colleges paying
about Rs.3 lakhs per year. Therefore, the option of directing the
Government to send a second list, without the Supreme Court or at least
this Court laying down the principle to be followed, is not a correct option.
and
(iii) The last option available to me is simply to direct the
respondents at least to admit the writ petitioners herein, so that about 84
seats in two colleges do not go waste. I do not know if this option will
open the Pandora's box, inviting more writ petitions from candidates, who
have secured more marks than the present writ petitioners, but who dare
not filed any writ petition. In all these eight writ petitions, there are
totally 28 writ petitioners. Once I grant relief to these writ petitioners, the
students, who have not so far approached this Court, may lawfully
approach this Court, opening the flood gates. Though their cases can be
thrown out on the basis of the principle pointed out by the Supreme Court
in paragraph 30(6) on the basis of the legal maxim vigilantibus non

dormientibus aequitas subvenit, I do not know how the cut off date can be
overcome.
20. Therefore, it is clear that I do not have the best of alternatives.
A least detrimental alternative available to me is to direct the petitioners
to approach the Supreme Court for redressal.

24
21. Therefore, all these writ petitions are dismissed. Either the
petitioners or these two colleges or the Selection Committee may
approach the Supreme Court and seek redressal in the pending matter,
namely Hind Charitable Trust case. There will be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected M.Ps. are also dismissed.

Index
Internet
gr/kpl/RS

: Yes
: Yes

17-11-2014

25

V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
gr/kpl/RS

Common Order In
W.P.No.26789 of 2014
& etc. cases

17-11-2014