SC Comes to Rescue of PG Medical Candidate Facing Rs 30 Lakh Penalty for Resigning Seat

"We find that the present case is not the one wherein the entire blame would be on the appellant. The appellant has unfortunately acted on the representation made to him in the original prospectus. The later amendment to it has created confusion," a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan said.

The court held that the respondent authorities ought to have been more diligent in notifying a final prospectus before the commencement of the admission process, which could have saved the situation of a prestigious seat in the college going waste.

In the admission process for the academic year 2022-23, the appellant S Gunasekaran had participated on the basis of the prospectus that was available on the website of the respondent Institution.

In the first round of counselling, the appellant was allotted a seat in the MD (Endocrinology) in Respondent College. Accordingly, the appellant took admission and joined the course on April 14, 2022.

For the second round of counselling, the result was notified on April 26, 2022, in which the appellant did not get any upgradation. Therefore, he resigned from the said seat immediately on the said date. Indisputably, he addressed the communication to the college on April 26, 2022.

Insofar as the communication to others including the Director General of Health Services, though the appellant haf placed on record an Email of April 26, 2022, it was the contention of the Union government and others that they were not aware about the resignation of the appellant till April 30, 2022.

Before the second round of counselling, the college amended its prospectus on April 20, 2022.

On resignation by the appellant, the respondent college invoked a clause in the bond and asked the appellant to pay a penalty of Rs 30 lakh and also directed that till the said amount is paid, his documents would not be released.

Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Madras High Court challenging the decision of the college, however, the petition was dismissed. An appeal carried there against the High Court's decision also came to be dismissed by the division bench of the High Court.

On further appeal, the apex court noted that in view of answer (c) to question No 37 in the original prospectus, if the appellant was not upgraded in round 2, he could have resigned from the seat allotted in round 1, if such resignation was sent within two days of the announcement of the result of round 1. Indisputably, the appellant’s resignation was within two days from the date of declaration of result of round 2, court highlighted.

"We, therefore, find that the present situation has arisen due to the confusion created by the two different answers given to question no 37 in the original prospectus which was initially in vogue on April 8, 2022, and the second one which was notified on April 20, 2022. No doubt that the appellant also ought to have been more diligent. When he was resigning from a prestigious seat of MD (Endocrinology) from a highly reputed institution like the Respondent No 4, he should have checked the latest position on the website of Respondent Nos 1 to 3," the bench observed.

Court, however, opined that the amendment to the prospectus when the process of admission was underway had created an unfortunate situation like the present one.

"It is clear from the communications placed on record that the respondents/Authorities were at least aware about the appellant’s resignation on April 30, 2022. It is not in dispute that even after that date in the peculiar facts and circumstances on account of covid situation, Respondent Nos 1 to 3 had filled in unfilled posts in the mop-up round. Had the respondent Nos 1 to 3 acted diligently, the seat which lapsed could have been filled by a meritorious student. We find that on account of the casual approach of Respondent Nos 1 to 3, one precious seat in one of the most reputed colleges in the country, i.e. Respondent No.4/College has gone waste," the bench said.

At the same time, the court found that the appellant was also guilty of contributory negligence.

"However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that instead of paying additional penalty of Rs 30 lakh the forfeiture of the amount of Rs 4,06,749.60 already deposited by the appellant (Rs 2,06,749.60 with Respondent College and Rs 2,00,000 by Respondent College with Respondent No 2/Director General of Health Service for the admission of the appellant) shall subserve the ends of justice," the bench said.

Therefore, court modified the order passed by the single judge and the division bench of the High Court and directed that the appellant would be liable to pay a penalty of Rs 4,06,749.60, which had already been deposited.

The bench directed the College to release all the documents of the appellant within a period of two weeks.

The court also clarified that the order was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and would not be treated as a precedent in any other matter.