Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

In a recent judgment, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed an appeal by the Directorate of Medical Education and Research, upholding a single judge’s decision to reinstate an MBBS seat for a student who mistakenly chose a Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course.

The case involved a meritorious student, Jubil Timothy, who accidentally selected the BDS program after initially being allotted an MBBS seat during the first round of counseling. Court acknowledged the error as unintentional and opined that the student’s choice should be excused, allowing him to claim the MBBS seat from the first round.

The appellants, led by Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran, argued that rules dictate the relinquishment of previously allotted seats if a candidate opts for a different course during subsequent rounds. According to these rules, once a candidate accepts an upgraded position, they lose entitlement to previous allocations.

However, court found that this rule was misapplied in Timothy’s case, as his shift to the BDS course constituted a “degradation,” not an “upgradation.”

The division bench of Justice R. Subramanian and Justice Sunder Mohan underscored that the relevant rules pertain solely to upgradations and do not apply to cases where a candidate mistakenly opts for a different course, thus leading to an unintended downgrade.

Referring to a Karnataka High Court precedent in Lakshmi P. Gowda vs. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences, the bench reiterated that concerns over reopening allotments cannot justify depriving a deserving candidate of their rightful seat. It noted that prior cases had required authorities to reopen allotments, especially where administrative errors disadvantaged candidates.

Rejecting the appellants’ request for strict enforcement of the rules, court labeled their argument as overly technical and lacking empathy. The bench concluded that enforcing this penalty on the student would be disproportionate, particularly considering his high academic achievement and the unintentional nature of his choice.

"The arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants is to the effect that the student should be imposed capital punishment for the mistake. We are unable to agree with the highly technical contention of the learned Additional Advocate General," said the bench.

Accordingly, court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: The Director, Directorate of Medical Education and Research and Others Vs. Jubil Timothy and Others