Denied Admission, Granted Justice: A Supreme Court-Inspired Resolution for MBBS Aspirants.
28 November 2024
Education >> Miscellaneous
In a significant legal development in the matter of Mashalkar Prasad v/s Terna Medical College & Hospital, Through its Registrar, Navi Mumbai & Others addressing the breach of admission rules in medical colleges, the High Court has recently ruled in favor of a petitioner who was unfairly denied admission to the MBBS course at Terna Medical College and Hospital. The court's decision underlines the application of restitutive justice, a legal remedy grounded in fairness and equity, to address situations where meritorious students are deprived of opportunities due to administrative lapses.
Background: The Petitioner's Case
The petitioner, having cleared the NEET (UG) examination for the 2024-25 academic session, appeared on the provisional select list published by the State Common Entrance Test (CET) Cell. He was assigned a seat at Terna Medical College under the Institutional Quota in the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category. According to the admission process, the petitioner was required to pay three times the regular tuition fees to secure his admission, as per the Fees Regulating Authority's (FRA) notification dated 10/11/2023.
On 31/10/2024, the petitioner approached the medical college with the required fees—three demand drafts totaling Rs 26,94,000 (tuition fees), Rs 4,00,000 (hostel fees), and Rs 50,000 (mess fees)—all drawn the same day. Despite this, the college refused to process his admission, instead demanding an amount equivalent to five times the regular fees. Upon raising concerns with the FRA and CET Cell, the petitioner alleged administrative lapses and unfair denial of his rightful admission.
Arguments Presented:
The petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Mr. Devdatt Kamat, contended that the college's refusal was unjust and violated the fees schedule prescribed by the FRA. This schedule allowed a maximum of three times the regular fees for admission under the Institutional Quota. Additionally, Kamat pointed to the fact that the college appeared to demand fees for the Second Year while the petitioner sought admission into the First Year, a practice inconsistent with the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act, 2015.
On the other hand, the Medical College's legal counsel, Mr. V.P. Savant, defended the refusal, arguing that the petitioner delayed submission of anti-ragging documentation and failed to meet other procedural requirements. However, the petitioner’s legal team emphasized that the refusal to admit was without merit and not attributable to any delay on his part.
Legal Analysis & Judgment:
After reviewing the case, the court found that the Medical College's refusal to admit the petitioner was unjustified, especially considering the petitioner had complied with the FRA's fee guidelines and had taken all necessary steps to secure his admission by the cut-off date of 05/11/2024. The judgment placed particular emphasis on Section 14(5) of the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act, 2015, which prohibits medical colleges from demanding excessive fees or violating the fee schedule established by the FRA.
The court further noted that the petitioner had no fault in the series of events that led to the denial of admission and had pursued his grievance expeditiously, raising the issue with the FRA and the CET Cell immediately after the denial.
The Principle of Restitutive Justice:
Applying restitutive justice, the High Court highlighted the idea that candidates should not suffer for circumstances beyond their control, especially when they have acted in good faith and without delay. Drawing on precedents from Manoj Kumar vs. Union of India and Vansh Prakash Dolas vs. Ministry of Education, the court reasoned that restitution could involve creating supernumerary seats to accommodate the candidate's admission and ensure fairness.
Given that all seats had already been filled by the cut-off date, the court directed the creation of a supernumerary seat to enable the petitioner's admission. This decision aligns with the Supreme Court's guidance that such remedies should be applied only in exceptional cases.
Final Verdict:
In light of the above, the court ruled as follows:
The petitioner was unfairly denied admission through no fault of his own.
The Medical College and other concerned authorities must create a supernumerary seat to admit the petitioner into the First-Year MBBS course under the Institutional Quota.
The FRA will continue its investigation into the Medical College's conduct but without affecting the petitioner's right to admission through this relief.
The court's ruling effectively ensures that the petitioner will be allowed to pursue his MBBS education despite administrative roadblocks, emphasizing equity and fairness in medical admissions.
Implications:
This decision reaffirms the courts' role in upholding constitutional rights and addressing systemic lapses in administrative processes, particularly in competitive areas such as medical education. By invoking restitutive justice, the High Court has provided a legal remedy that prioritizes fairness without punishing the petitioner for administrative delays or breaches.
It also serves as a cautionary tale for medical institutions to adhere strictly to regulatory provisions like those set by the Fees Regulating Authority and to ensure transparent, fair, and lawful admission processes.