Read Time: 15 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has emphasised that in cases where the court is inclined to grant interim relief, at least a brief prima-facie assessment on the balance of convenience and the irreparable harm aspects are to be discussed, in order to avoid future complications.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan declined a plea made by a medical and a homeopathy college from Madhya Pradesh for creation of an additional seat as they were told to keep a seat each vacant by an interim order of the high court at the behest of candidates but their prayers were ultimately declined. The court, however, partly allowed the college to approach the fee fixation committee to compensate the loss suffered by them to a seat falling vacant.

Dealing with the issue of interim order, the bench said, "Though courts have power to make orders directing seats to be kept vacant in such cases, great caution and circumspection should be shown in exercising the power".

In appropriate cases, even where the exceptional criterion is met, the court will be justified in directing the petitioner to provide security, to the concerned college-institution where the seat is ultimately directed to be kept vacant or on whom ultimately the liability of the vacant seat would fall, the bench opined. 

"The security is to guarantee that in the event of the writ petition/appeal being dismissed and the seat going unfilled for the academic year the petitioner/appellant would make good the loss which the college may incur financially. Even in rare and exceptional cases where orders for keeping seats vacant are made, every endeavor must be made by the court to dispose of the matter before the counselling for admissions are over," the bench said.

The court also pointed out that even if the writ petition/appeal succeeds, but if the matter could not be disposed of before the deadline, the seat may still go vacant. 

"It should not be forgotten that while the recurring and non-recurring expenditure for a college remains the same, a vacant seat will deprive the college of the fees to that extent, not just for one year but for the whole course, which could be four, five or more years," the bench said.

The court underscored that these safeguards are essential to restitute the colleges which may have suffered for no fault of theirs. 

"It is well settled that if on account of an act of a party persuading the court to pass an order, which at the end has been held not sustainable and if in the process one party has gained an advantage which it would not have otherwise earned or the other party had suffered an impoverishment, restitution can be made. This court had held that the principle of restitution is not excluded from its application to interim orders," the bench said.

In their arguments, the appellant colleges contended that compensatory additional seat be ordered for the ensuing academic year as the seat which was directed to be kept vacant had gone waste since the writ petitions could not be disposed of before the cut-off date for admissions. They contended that the vacant seat would result in underutilisation and wastage of resources causing financial harm to them and denial of admission to meritorious candidates.

The authorities, on the other hand, contended that the authorities had no role in the matter and it was the order of the court which had been duly carried out and no liability can be fastened on them.

The bench noted that the interim order directing one seat in the counselling to be kept vacant in both these matters was cryptic where neither the prima facie case nor the balance of convenience and irreparable loss aspects had been discussed. 

"The High Court, in both the matters before us, has wholly ignored these principles," the bench said.

The bench pointed out it has repeatedly held that a medical seat has life only in the year it falls due and that too only till the cut-off date fixed. Even here, there are stringent regulations of the National Medical Commission providing that admission can only be made by the medical colleges within the sanctioned capacity for which permission or recognition has been granted, it pointed out.

"A seat falling vacant in a particular year cannot be carried forward or created in the succeeding year," the bench said, citing Faiza Choudhary Vs State of J&K & Anr, (2012).

The bench also pointed out that no doubt, in rare and exceptional circumstances, courts can direct increase in seats for the same academic year not exceeding one or two seats, if it finds that for no fault attributable to the candidate and for the fault on the part of the authorities, the candidate has suffered. 

This court has also held that if in the same year, the candidate cannot be accommodated, the court can mould the relief and direct the admission to be granted in the next academic year, the bench said, relying upon S Krishna Sradha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, (2020).

"However, this is vastly different from directing the creation of an additional seat at the behest of a college," the bench emphasised.

Referring to Index Medical College, Hospital & Research Centre Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, (2023), the bench said the top court has held repeatedly that keeping vacant seats results in huge financial loss to the college apart from being a national wastage of resources.

The bench also pointed out the top court has also frowned upon the grant of provisional admission unless the court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has a cast iron case which is bound to succeed or the error is so gross or apparent that no other conclusion is possible. Even there, the court has to hear the other side after short notice, the bench said, citing Krishna Priya Ganguly & Ors Vs University of Lucknow & Ors (1984).

"If provisional admission seats are not to be given casually, the said principle should also apply for directions to keep seats vacant. Only if there is a cast iron case for the petitioner and the petitioner is bound to succeed in cases where the error of the respondent authorities is so gross as to negate any other conclusion, interim orders keeping seats vacant could be made," the court said.

Holding that ordering an additional seat in the succeeding academic year is not an option, the bench, however, granted liberty to approach the fee fixation committee which would reckon the deficit in fees that has resulted due to the single vacant seat and fix the fees by adding such amount to the total fees proposed to be fixed, to restitute the colleges monetarily. 

"Considering that it is a single seat and since the fee will be spread over for a period of five years, the financial impact on whom the burden will fall will be marginal, in proportion to the total fee payable," the bench said, holding that this is the best possible option, to neutralise the effect of the interim orders which have operated to the prejudice of the colleges.

Case Title: Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors