ORDER
R.V. Raveendran, J.
1. All these petitions relate to admission of petitioners to the MBBS Course to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College, Bangalore managed by Ananda Social and Educational Trust. As the ranks of respondents differ in the various petitioners, we have used the following abbreviations for the respondents; 'College' for Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College; 'Trust' for Ananda Social and Educational Trust; 'University' for Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences; 'MCF for Medical Council of India; and 'DME' for Director of Medical Education.
2. It is stated that the college is managed by a Governing Council consisting of the Trustees of the Trust and that the office of the Chairman of the said Governing Council is filled by rotation. It is further alleged that during the academic year 2002-2003, one of the Trustees by name L. Shivalingaiah was the Chairman of the Governing Council and he was making the admissions to the I year MBBS Seats falling under management quota.
3. The College is recognised by the MCI to conduct MBBS Courses. The College is also duly affiliated to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. The permitted intake per year is 100. During the academic year 2002-2003 the admission to the medical courses were governed by Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 1997, as amended by the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical and Dental Courses (Amendment) Rules, 2002. Under the said Rules, 85% of the seats (Government Seats) were filled through GET Cell and 15% of the seats (NRI Quota) were filled by the management. It is stated that accordingly 85 seats were filled by GET Cell and 15 seats were filled by the college management and the lists of admissions was also submitted to the DME, University and MCI.
4. The petitioner in these petitions approached the Chairman of the Governing Council of the College for admission to MBBS Course, under the Management quota, for the year 2002-2003. It would appear that the college had applied for increase in the intake capacity from 100 to 150 and expecting that the intake capacity is likely to be increased for the academic year 2002-2003, the Chairman of the Governing Council entertained the requests from petitioners for admission and granted them provisional admission to first year MBBS Course for the academic year 2002-2003. The petitioners allege that such admissions were after negotiations with the Chairman of the Governing Council, (either by the parents/guardians of the petitioners directly or through agents) subject to payment of the following amounts:
(a) Rs. 5,44,750 - College fee for the entire course;(b) Rs. 50,000 - Hostel fee for the entire course;(c) Rs. 2,500 - Cost of prospectus and application fee;(d) Rs. 2,500 - Cost of eligibility certification, Registration, etc., with theUniversity;(e) Contribution to development fund asagreed between each student and the Chairman of the Governing Council by negotiations.
5. The petitioners allege that the Chairman of the Governing Council did not disclose that all seats for 2002-2003 were filed up and that they were being offered seats provisionally against expected sanction of additional intake. They were given to understand that their admissions will be regularised. In pursuance of the negotiations, the petitioners allege to have paid huge amounts agreed as contribution to development fund, either in full or in part and the Chairman of the Governing Council issued to them certificates-cum-receipts dated 16-1-2003 certifying that petitioners have paid the amounts stated therein to the college and further certifying that the student has deposited all the original certificates with him and confirming that they were given provisional admission to MBBS Course for the academic year 2002-2003. Wherever the contribution to the development fund as agreed was paid in full, the certificate-cum-receipt certified that, 'development fund as agreed has been paid in full'. Where the contribution to development fund has not been paid in full by the student, the certificate-cum-receipt stated 'development fund a agreed has been paid in part. Balance due is Rs. . . .'. Thus, none of the certificate-cum-receipts issued by Sri L. Shivalingaiah, Chairman of the Governing Council stated what was full development fund agreed, nor stated what was the total payments made by each student towards the Development Fund. It only showed whether full payment was made and if not made, the balance amount due by the student. The petitioners allege that they have been, paid the following amounts to L. Shivalingaiah, Chairman of the Governing Council in pursuance of the agreement:
SI.No.
W.P.Numbers
Petitioner's Name
Amount agreed as Contribution to Development Fund
Amount allegedly paid towards Fund
Amount allegedly paid towards Fees
Amount shown as due
1.
20674/2003
Amit Vikram Raina
20,00,000/-
20,00,000/-
2,39,350/-
Due Nil
2.
20675/2003
Suruchi Sharma
18,00,000/-
18,00,000/-
2,39,250/-
Due Nil
3.
26185/2003
Mohammed Ashari Gafoor
15,00,000/-
7,50,000/-
5,000/-
Due Rs. 7,50,000 + College Fee
4.
27914/2003
SaisapnaAnmol Singh
25,00,000/-
25,00,000
5,49,750/-
Due Nil
5.
27916/2003
JaskaranSingh B.
22,00,000/-
15,00,000/-
2,38,000/-
DueRs. 7,00,000/-
6.
27917/2003
Ruchi Sarohia
22,00,000/-
15,00,000/-
2,38,000/-
Due Rs. 7,00,000/-
7.
28543/2003
Anil AbrahamVarghese
22,00,000/-
17,00,000
5,000/-
Due Rs. 5,00,000/- + College Fees, Hostel Fees
8.
28544/2003
Ancy Cherian
22,00,000/-
22,00,000/-
55,000/-
Due onlyCollege Fees
9.
29614/2003
Ramyajit lahiri
18,OO,000/-
7,00,000/-
Nil
DueRs.16,44,250/-
10.
29615/2003
KaranGoel
18,00,000/-
7,00,000/-
5,54,750/-
DueRs. 11,00,000/-
11
29616/2003
PiyaGhose
15,00,000/-
15,00,000/-
5,94,750/-
Due Nil
12.
29617/2003
SubhrathanuChnkraborti
18,00,000/-
18,00,000/-
5,00,000/-
Due Rs. 44,750/-
13.
29618/2003
Aruna B. Rao
17,00,000/-
15,00,000/-
2,34,250/-
Due Rs. 5,60,500/-
14.
29619/2003
Minal Chowdhary
19,00,000/-
19,00,000/-
2,50,000/-
Due Rs. 3,44,760/-
15.
29620/2003
Beenish Shah
18,00,000/-
10,00,000/-
1,84 ,250/-
Due Rs. 11,60,000/-
16.
29621/2003
MushtaqueTasim
Notstated
NotAdmitted to the course
17.
29622/2008
VikasChowdhary
20,00,000/-
15,00,000/-
Nil
Due Rs. 10,44,750/-
18.
29623/2003
PriyankaApte
19,00,000/-
10,00,000/-
1,84,250/-
Due Rs.13,15,750/-
19.
29624/2003
Neauman-Ulhaq
18,00,000/-
10,00,000/-
1,84,250/-
Due Rs. 11,60,000/-
20.
29625/2008
DhruvaDeb
Notstated
NotAdmitted to the course
21.
29626/2003
Eklavya Bhagat
20,00,000/-
10,00,000/-
1,84,250/-
Due Rs. 10,00,000/-
22.
29627/2003
Novak Gupta
Notstated
1,00,000/-
1,84,250/-
Not admitted
23.
31047/2003
Hardik Panchal
20,00,000/-
13,00,000/-
6,00,000/-
Due Rs. 7,00,000/-
24.
31048/2003
NilayaSen
Notstated
Not admitted to the
5,99,750/-
Not admitted to thecourse
25.
31253/2003
JyothiSusan Thomas
20,00,000/-
20,00,000/-
2,39,250/-
Due Nil
26.
33934/2003
ManpreetAnand
16,00,000/-
10,00,000/-
Nil
Not admitted to thecourse
27.
33935/2003
D'SaSideny Xavier
Notstated
10,00,000/-
5,000/-
Not admitted to thecourse
28.
33936/2003
SantoshR.
12,00,000/-
12,00,000/-
5,000/-
Due College Fees
29.
37227/2003
Ranjan B. Devar
15,00,000/-
10,00,000/-
1,89,250/-
Due Rs. 5,00,000/-
30.
41929/2003
Snnthosh Kumar Navale
10,00,000/-
10,00,000/-
2,39,250/-
Due Nil
Some of the petitioners claim that they have made payments partly by Demand draft and partly by cash. Some claim that the entire amount has been paid by cash.
6. The petitioners further allege that on such payment and provisional admission for 2002-2003 as aforesaid, the Chairman of the Governing Council allotted them accommodation in the College Hostel and also permitted them to attend the classes for the academic year 2002-2003. They allege that they accordingly started attending the classes but were not given attendance.
7. The State Government by an order dated 18-1-2003, appointed an Administrator under the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 to manage the affairs of a society known as Ananda Social and Educational Society (for short, the 'Society'). There is a serious dispute between the State Government, the Society and the Trust as to whether Ananda Social and Educational Trust is a part of the said Society or whether it is an independent body unconnected with the society. The Administrator appointed for the Society, claimed that the said Society was running the college and therefore purported to take charge of the affairs of the college also. The petitioners allege that the said Administrator, and on his instructions, the Principal of the College prevented them from attending the classes from March 2003 on the ground that they were not duly admitted to the course for the year 2002-2003 and their admissions were not approved. The petitioners allege that they were not aware that their admissions were irregular, and that they had taken admission to the course being under the bona fide belief that their admissions were within the intake capacity on the assurance made by the Chairman of the Governing Council of the College, parting with huge sums of money.
8. The petitioners have therefore filed these petitions for the following reliefs:
(a) A direction to the College and the Trust running the college to permit them to pursue the first year MBBS Course for the academic year 2002-2003 and to continue to stay in the college hostel.
(b) Alternatively a direction to the college and the Trust, to admit them/treat them as admitted against the intake fixed for the academic year 2003-2004 under the management quota by taking into account the payments already made by them.
Some of the petitioners have also sought a direction to the University and the DME to initiate action against the College. One of the petitioners has even sought award of compensation for wasting of one year of their academic career. These petitions were filed on the following dates:
-----------------------------------------------------------Write Petition Numbers Date of filing----------------------------------------------------------- 20674-675/2003 21-4-2003 26185/2003 29-5-2003 27914/2003 12-6-2003 27916-917/2003 12-6-2003 28543-544/2003 18-6-2003 29614-627/2003 26-6-2003 31047-048/2003 9-7-2003 31253/2003 10-7-2003 33934-936/2003 30-7-2003 37227/2003 16-8-2003 41929/2003 18-9-2003---------------------------------------------------------
9. The petitioners also made in interim prayer to permit them to continue in the MBBS course and continue in the Hostel. When these petitions were being listed for preliminary hearing and consideration of interim prayer before the learned Single Judge, it was brought to his notice that certain interim orders have been passed in other pending writ petitions (filed by the Trust and by the Society against the State) which having a bearing on the prayers in these petitions. We may at this juncture make a brief reference to those petitions.
9.1 The Ananda Social and Educational Trust represented by its Managing Trustee filed W.P. Nos. 29684 and 29721 and 29722 of 2003 for restraining the Administrator appointed under the Government Order dated 18-1-2003 in respect of Ananda Social and Educational Society, from interfering with the management and functioning of the Trust and its institutions and a further direction to the said Administrator not to invite applications for admissions to the Medical College and other institutions run by the said Trust. Subsequently, the Trust also included a prayer for quashing the said order dated 18-1-2003 appointing the administrator.
9.2 The Anand Social and Educational Society filed W.P. No. 33408 of 2003 for quashing the Government order dated 18-1-2003 appointing the Administrator to manage its affairs and the subsequent Government order dated 15-7-2003 extending the term of the Administrator. It also sought a direction to the Administrator to forthwith hand over administration of the said Society, to the Secretary of the Society.
9.3 In W.P. Nos. 29684, 29721 and 29722 of 2003 filed by the Trust, the learned Single Judge issued an interim order dated 27-7-2003 staying the operation of the public notice issued by the Administrator inviting applications for admission to MBBS Course for the academic year 2003-2004. While so doing, the learned Single Judge also directed the Trust not to admit any student to the medical and dental courses. The said interim order was initially granted till 15-7-2003 and consequently continued till further orders. On 28-7-2003, the interim order was modified by permitting the admission of students allotted by GET Cell, to the seats under the Government quota. The learned Single Judge however reiterated that 'insofar as management quota students are concerned, no admissions shall be made until further orders from this Court'
9.4 In view of the said interim orders in W.P. Nos. 29684, 29721 and 29722 of 2003, the learned Single Judge who was hearing these petitions filed by the students directed that these cases may be brought up along with the writ petitions filed by the Trust and the Society, where interim order had been granted. In the meanwhile, as the writ petitions filed by the Trust and the Society were referred to the Division Bench, these petitions filed by the students were also referred to Division Bench by order dated 13-10-2003.
10. On 16-10-2003, we directed the college to produce statements of accounts/books of accounts, showing the amounts received by the college; the list of applications received against the management quota for admission to MBBS Course for the academic year 2003-04, arranged in the order of merit; and list of admissions made for the academic years 2002-03 and 2003-04. We also directed the principal of the college to file an affidavit disclosing the amounts received from the petitioners. The Chairman, Governing Council, was also directed to file an affidavit in regard to the amounts received by him.
11. The Chairman of Governing Council has expressed his inability to give particulars of the amounts received by him in the absence of records. The College (represented by the Principal) has stated that it has not received the amounts alleged to have been paid by the petitioners, from the Chairman of the Governing Council. The college has admitted receipt of only the following amounts from the petitioner:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------SI. Name Writ Petition Nos. Amount admittedNo. to be received bythe college-----------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Anil Abraham Varghese 28543/2003 Rs. 5,00,000/-2. Ancy Cherian 28544/2003 Rs. 5,00,000/-3. Karan Goel 29615/2003 Rs. 11,24,750/-4. Piya Ghose 29616/2003 Rs. 14,94,750/-5. Subrathanu Chakraborti 29617/2003 Rs. 6,00,000/-6. Dhruva Deb 29625/2003 Rs. 2,50,000/-7. Hardik Panchal 31047/2003 Rs. 6,00,000/-8. Manpreet Anand 33934/2003 Rs. 10,00,000/----------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. On 23-10-2003, after hearing the learned Counsels for the parties in these cases and connected cases, we made the following order:
'The Ananda Social and Education Society has challenged the appointment of Administrator on several grounds. Ananda Social and Educational Trust has challenged the interference of the Administrator in the affairs of the Trust and the Institution run by it (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College and other Colleges) on the ground that the Administrator is appointed only for the society and not in regard to the trust and therefore the Administrator can have no say in the affairs of the institutions. The State and the Administrator would contend that the Trust is only a body constituted by the Society to hold its properties and the Trust is nothing but an organ of the society and when an administrator is appointed for the society he would necessarily have control over the Trust and its institutions.
2. Some students (31 petitioners) have also filed writ petitions alleging that they have been promised admission to first year MBBS course for the year 2002-2003; that they have been required to make contribution to the Development fund to an extent of Rs. 22 to 25 lakhs per student in the case of majority of them and Rs. 10 to 17 lakhs in the case of four students, to the college in addition to the regular fees; that they have made payments either in part or in full towards development fund and it has been acknowledged by the Chairman of the Governing Council of the college; that they have not however been accommodated during the year 2002-2003 and that they should be accommodated during the year 2003-2004.
3. In the above petitions, broadly two issues arise for consideration in these petitions:
(i) Whether Ananda Social and Educational Trust, which is running Dr. Ambedkar Medical College, Dr. Ambedkar Dental College and Dr. Ambedkar Nursing College is a part of Ananda Social and Educational Society, a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. Alternatively whether the Society controls or has a say in the affairs and institutions of the Trust. Or whether Ananda Social and Education Trust is a separate legal entity?
(ii) Whether the 31 students who claim to have paid Rs. 7,50,000/- to Rs. 25,00,000/- towards development fund should be admitted to I MBBS during 2003-2004?
4. These two issues have given rise to several other supplementary issues. In this back ground several interim orders are sought, that is stay of appointment of administrator to the society; stay of interference of the administrator in the affairs of the Trust and the college; stay of admissions to MBBS Course for 2003-2004; and direction to admit the students who have paid contribution to Development Fund, to the MBBS Course for 2003-2004.
5. During lengthy arguments spread over four days, relating to the several interim prayers, a consensus was reached to attempt to solve the several pending issues by discussions and conciliation. Though some parties are not very sure about the result of such negotiations, all agreed to participate in the negotiations to arrive at a lawful solution. The discussion of course will be without prejudice to their rights and contentions. They submit such discussions may be permitted to be held in the presence of a neutral third party, preferably a retired High Court Judge who can guide them to arrive at mutually acceptable solutions.
6. Having heard the parties we think that final opportunity should be given to them to sort out the several issues by mutual negotiations before we proceed with the hearing on the interim prayer. Accordingly, we request Sri Justice S.R. Venkatesh Murthy, a retired Judge of this Court as a neutral observer-cum-conciliator. The parties agree to meet in the High Court Premises (Lok-Adalat Chamber in the first floor) at 10.30 A.M. on 25-10-2003. The Registry may request Justice S.R. Venkatesh Murthy (Retired) accordingly.
List on 27-10-2003 for orders'.
13. On 29-10-2003, the Trust (Petitioner in W.P. Nos. 29684, 29721 and 29722 of 2003), the Society (Petitioner in W.P. No. 33408 of 2003), the impleading applicants in W.P. No. 33408 of 2003, Chairman of the Governing Council, the College Employees Association and the Principal of the college, filed a joint memo for constituting an ad hoc committee under the chairmanship of a retired High Court Judge, to run the institution, in the facts and circumstances set out in the order dated 23-10-2003. Accordingly, on 29-10-2003 we appointed an ad hoc committee to carry on the following functions:
(i) To manage and look after the day-to-day administration of the respective college by issuing necessary instructions to the Principal; and
(ii) To be in-charge of all admissions to the respective college. The ad hoc committee was also directed to take up the request of the students for admission on priority basis and the students [petitioners herein] were directed to appear before the said committee to sort out the pending issues.
14. In pursuance of it, the ad hoc committee submitted a report dated 26-11-2003 to the following effect: That 24 students had appeared before it on 30-10-2003 and stated that they had been assured admission for the year 2002-2003 by the then Chairman on Governing Counsel (Sri L. Shivalingaiah) by collecting in advance various sums of money by way of College fee, hostel fee, application fee, eligibility fee etc., as also huge amount as contribution towards Development Fund and that he had permitted them to attend the classes for 2002-2003 and also admitted them to the hostel. The receipts/certificates produced by the students showed the amounts had in fact been collected by the said Sri L. Shivalingaiah, Chairman of Governing Council. As the admissions of petitioners were in excess of the intake prescribed for the year 2002-03 (apparently made in anticipation of the sanction of additional intake), it decided to accommodate the said 24 candidates who were promised admissions for the year 2002-03 and from whom large amounts had been collected during 2002-2003, by treating them as candidates admitted for the academic year 2003-04 as against the management quota, subject to appropriate directions from this Court.
15. In this manner, 24 students that is (petitioners herein except the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 29621, 29625, 29627, 31048, 33934 and 33955 of 2003) have been admitted to the course for the academic year 2003-04 on 30-10-2003. The other six students did not appear before the committee nor pursued the request for seat. It is stated that those six are not interested in taking MBBS seat in the college, either in view of the serious disputes involving to the college or having regard to the fact that they had secured seats in other colleges. It is stated that out of the total management quota of 25 seats for the year 2003-04, the Administrator had admitted one student, and 24 seats were available and those were filled by the said 24 students i.e., petitioners in these writ petitions. It is stated that the said 24 petitioners are pursuing their studies in the first year of MBBS Course in the College.
16. The ad hoc committee has reported that the chairman of the Governing Council-Sri L. Shivalingaiah had refused to co-operate with the ad hoc committee and had also failed to hand over the amounts received by him from the students. On 6-1-2004, we directed that if said Shivalingaiah fails to account for the amount collected by him from the students by 12-1-2004, the college may take appropriate action by lodging a police complaint against him. It is stated that in pursuance of it, the ad hoc committee has lodged a police complaint against Sri L. Shivalingaiah on 23-1-2004 and the matter is pending investigation.
17. In this factual background, having regard to the fact that the 24 petitioners have already been permitted to pursue their MBBS Course from the academic year 2003-04 and thereby granted the alternative prayer in these petitions and as the other six are not interested in admission to the college the question that arises for consideration is what final order is to be passed in these cases? The college and the ad hoc committee have proceeded on the basis that these students having been provisionally (though illegally) admitted for the MBBS Course during the academic year 2002-03 by the then Chairman of the Governing Council (L. Shivalingaiah) in anticipation of sanction of additional intake (which in fact did not materialise) and accommodated in the college hostel and as they had been permitted to attend the classes during the academic year 2002-03 itself, and having regard to the fact that these students had parted with large sums of money towards the College Development Fund, the said students should be treated as candidates admitted for the academic year 2003-04 against the management quota. It is pointed out that such admissions against 2003-04 quota will be within the permitted intake of the college as they have been admitted against the 24 management quota seats, which had remained vacant on account of the interim order of stay granted in W.P. Nos. 29684, 29721 and 29722 of 2003. The learned Counsel for the college submitted that having regard to the factual background, the college has no objection to continue these students to pursue their studies.
18. Learned Counsel for the Medical Council of India (MCI), however, submitted that the last date for admission to the first year MBBS Course was 30-9-2003 as per the calendar published by the MCI. He submitted that having regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, : [2002]SUPP2SCR228 and GSF Medical and Paramedical Association v. Association of Management of Self Financing Technical Institutes, 2004 AIR SCW 63 no student could be admitted beyond 30-9-2003 for the academic year 2003-04 and as petitioners herein were admitted on 30-10-2003, their admissions cannot be approved or accepted. We were also informed that the MCI had already sent a show-cause notice dated 5-2-2004 calling upon the college to show cause why the belated admissions should not be rejected.
19. Learned Counsel for the MCI relied on the following observations in the head note in Madhu Singh's case:
'Belated/midstream admissions to medical colleges in different courses, both pre-graduate and post-graduate is not desirable. If any student is admitted after commencement of the course it would be against the intended objects of fixing a time Schedule. In fact the inevitable result is increase in the number of seats for the next session to accommodate the students who are admitted after commencement of the course for the relevant session. Object of preventing loss of national exchequer cannot be a ground to permit midstream admissions which would be against the spirit of governing statutes. As the definition of admission capacity' under Explanation 2 to Section 10-A shows it is the maximum number of students that may be fixed by the Council from time to time for bring admitted to the course and training. By carrying forward the unfilled seats from one year to the subsequent year, there is necessarily increase in the number of seats i.e., admission capacity. Section 10-B frowns upon such admissions beyond the prescribed limit. In fact, there is a possibility of derecognition under Section 19. 'Suggestion that extra classes can be taken is also not acceptable. The time Schedule is fixed by taking into consideration and capacity of the student to study and the appropriate spacing of classes. The students also need rest and the continuous taking classes with the object of fulfilling requisite number of days would be harmful to be students' physical and mental capacity to study.
There is, however, necessity for specifically providing the time Schedule for the course and fixing the period during which admissions can take place, making it clear that no admission can be granted after the Schedule date, which essentially should be the date of commencement of the course. In conclusion:
(i) there is no scope of admitting students midstream as that would be against very spirit of statutes governing the medical education;
(ii) even if seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid session admissions;
(iii) there cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year;
(iv) the MCI shall ensure that the examining bodies fix a time Schedule specifying the duration of this course, the date of commencement of the course and last date of admission;
(v) different modalities for admission can be worked out and necessary steps like holding of examination if prescribed, counseling and the like have to be completed within the specified time;
(vi) no variation of the Schedule so far as admission are concerned shall be allowed;
(vii) in case of any deviation by the concerned institution, action as prescribed shall be taken by the MCI'.
The principles laid down in Madhu Singh are reiterated in GSF Medical and Paramedical Association's case. The learned Counsel for the MCI also relied on several orders passed by the Supreme Court, rejecting the requests for extension of time for admissions.
19.1 But Madhu Singh's case, may not apply to the facts and circumstances of these cases. Madhu Singh's case considered admissions to the academic year 1997-98,-in pursuance of combined entrance competitive examination held in the State of Bihar on 3-8-1997. A combined merit list of students (for medical and dental) was published on 7-10-1997. Madhu Singh was one of the candidate, who appeared for the said examination. But, she was not selected for the MBBS Course. She therefore joined BDS course. After the first Counselling held between 26-12-1997 and 31-12-1997, certain seats fell, vacant on account of selected candidates abandoning the course or not taking the admission. The Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board decided not to fill up the said vacancies, as the admissions for the academic year 1997-98 were completed by the end of January 1998. Two students, who were admitted to the dental course; filed writ petitions before the Patna High Court seeking a direction to the Controller of the Examinations to admit them against the vacant seats in MBBS course, on the ground that the second counselling was not done in regard to the seats that were lying vacant. By order dated 4-12-1998, the Patna High Court directed the Controller of Examinations to admit the writ petitioners as per the merit list against the vacancies existing due to non-joining of students. Five more students filed writ petitions making identical prayer and by order dated 10-3-1999, the Patna High Court directed the seats which were lying vacant upto 4-12-1998 for the session 1997-98 should be filled up from amongst the eligible candidates as enlisted in the merit list. The said order was maintained in Letters Patent Appeals filed by the Controller of Examination, with certain modifications. The Executive Committee of MCI at its meeting held on 14-9-1999 refused permission to students in respect of vacant seats of 1997-98 session after 18 months as that would amount to increasing the intake capacity and would be contrary to the provisions of Medical Council of India Act. Acting on the communication of the MCI, the Controller of Examination, cancelled the admissions of four students, including Madhu Singh, who had got admission and consequently they were shifted back to BDS course. That was again challenged before the Patna High Court by impleading MCI as a party. The matter was referred to a Division Bench and the Division Bench by order dated 12-5-2000 allowed the writ petitions primarily on the ground the vacancies remained unfilled due to lapse on the part of the Controller of Examinations or MCI, and Madhu Singh was allowed to complete the course as per the directions given in the earlier order.
19.2 It is in this background, the Supreme Court made the aforesaid observations, relied by the MCI. In these cases, the question of intake capacity being increased does not arise, as the intake capacity of the college i.e., 100 seats has not been exceeded by the admission of 24 students (petitioners herein). Further, these students were illegally admitted by the Chairman of the Governing Council for the academic year 2002-03. They claim to have paid large amounts towards such admissions. Wherever, amounts have been paid by cheque or demand draft and credited in the Bank Account the same is admitted by the college. In view of the non-co-operative attitude of the Chairman of the Governing Council and the other Trustees (in view of appointment of Administrator), the college is not in a position to ascertain whether the other amounts alleged to have been paid by the students have in fact been received or not. The matter is pending criminal investigation. What is relevant to be observed is that these 24 students who were admitted during the academic year 2002-03 and were permitted to attend the classes during 2002-03 and were also admitted to the hostel. They could not be treated as admitted for the academic year 2002-03, as the permitted intake was already filled. Therefore they have been treated as having been admitted to the academic year 2003-04. The petitioners approached this Court as early as April, June and July 2003 (except two approached in August and September 2003) long prior to commencement of the MBBS course, asserting that and they had already been admitted to the course by paying a huge amounts and have been attending classes. Their interim prayer for immediate admission to 2003-04 academic year could not be considered in view of the interim order of stay that had been granted in W.P. Nos. 29684, 29721 to 29722 and 2003, which is a litigation between the Trustees of the Trust running the College and the State Government. We have already made exhaustive reference to several interim orders and the stages through which these cases have passed through, before the petitioners were admitted to the course.
19.3 The difference between Madhu Singh's case and these cases are highlighted below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------SI. No. In these cases In Madhu Singh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------(i) Admissions within intake Admission had the effect of exceeding the intake (ii) Though the delay in admissions There was a delay of 18 monthswas about 1 month (30-9-2003 to in admission 30-10- 2003), the petitioners hadin fact were admitted to 2002-2003 and attended classes and were counted against2003-2004 (iii) The petitioners had approached The persons admitted had the Court long prior to last date approached the Court long after for admissions and the last date of admissions commencement of classes, but were prevented from joining the course, in view of interim order granted in another litigation against the college. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are therefore of the considered view that the principles laid down in Madhu Singh's case, will not apply to the petitioner.
20. One recognised principle of law that has to be kept in view is that no act of the Court shall prejudice a litigant. The Supreme Court in Rameshwar and Ors. v. Jot Ram and Ors., : [1976]1SCR847 , observed thus:
'The philosophy of the approach which commends itself to us is that a litigant who seeks justice in a perfect legal system gets it when he asks for it. But because human institutions of legal justice function slowly, and in quest of perfection, appeals and reviews at higher levels are provided for, the end product comes considerably late. But these higher Courts pronounce upon the rights of parties as the fact stood when the first Court was approached. The delay of years flows from the infirmity of the judicial institution and this protraction of the Court machinery shall prejudice no one. Actus curiae neminem gravabit. (An act of Court shall prejudice no one). . . It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date of suit or institutes the legal proceedings. This is an emphatic statement that the right of a party is determined by the facts as they exist on the date the action is instituted granting the presence of such facts, then he is entitled to its enforcement. Later developments cannot defeat his right. The Court's procedural delays cannot deprive him of legal justice or rights crystallised in the initial cause of action'.
In Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punja, : (1994)IIILLJ972SC , the Supreme Court observed thus:
'It is well-settled that no man should suffer because of the fault of the Court or delay in the procedure'.
The Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, : 1988CriLJ1661 , held thus:
'. . . The basic fundamentals of the administration of justice are simple. No man should suffer because of the mistake of the Court. No man should suffer a wrong by technical procedure of irregularities. Rules or procedures are the hand-maids of justice and not the mistress of the justice. Ex debito justitia, we must do justice to him. If a man has been wronged so long as it lies within the human machinery of administration of justice that wrong must be remedied'.
21. In these cases, the petitioners were admitted for the academic year 2002-03 but were subsequently told that their admissions were not valid for 2002-03 for no fault of theirs. They approached this Court from April 2003 onwards for treating them as having been admitted for the academic year 2002-03 or alternatively for the year 2003-2004. Though the petitions were filed in April, June and July 2003 their interim prayer could not be considered in view of an interim order issued in a litigation between the trust and the Administrator, wherein this court had directed that no admissions should be made till further orders of the Court. Having regard to the complications involved on account of the litigation between the Trust and the Administrator, the Society and the Administrator, Students and the College, the interim prayer of the students could be considered only in October 2003. It is in these peculiar circumstances, this Court permitted the ad hoc committee to consider the cases of these petitioners for admission and the ad hoc committee found that they had already been admitted provisionally for 2002-03, in anticipation of increase in intake by taking large amounts of money. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the ad hoc committee treating these petitioners as having been continued/admitted against 2003-2004 quota. Petitioners are therefore entitled to be treated as having admitted for the academic year 2003-2004 against the Management quota seats in the College.
22. It is stated that the petitioners had made voluntarily contributions to Development Fund for admission to MBBS course (for the academic year 2002-2003) and provisional admission certificates were also issued showing payments towards development fund for admission to 2002-2003. Having regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 2003(1) Kar. L.J. 1 (SC): (2002)8 SCC 481 : 2002(8) Supreme 62 : (2002)4 LEI 329 and Islamic Academy of Education and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., : AIR2003SC3724 , the college is not entitled to receive any amount in excess of the fees for the academic year 2003-04. The college contends that the amounts were received against management quota seats for 2002-2003 and therefore the prohibition in regard to receipt of any amount in addition to fees will not apply. Be that at it may. That issue does not arise for consideration in these case. In view of what transpired after the filing of the petitions, the 24 petitioners have not sought any refund. Insofar as the six petitioners who have not been granted admission, it is open to them to take such action as is available in law, in accordance with law for recovery of any amount paid by them.
23. We, therefore, direct the MCI and the college to treat the admission of the petitioners herein, who were illegally admitted for the academic year 2002-03, as continued and counted against 2003-04 intake. As these students had in fact attended course even during 2002-03, though their admissions were not legal, the fact that their admissions were belated by about month for 2003-04 should make no difference on the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases.
24. In the circumstances we dispose of these petitions moulding the relief in the light of subsequent events:
(i) We direct the MCI, the University and Director of Medical Education to consider the approval of admission of petitioners in W.P. Nos. 20674-75 of 2003, 26185 of 2003, 27914 of 2003, 27916-17 of 2003, 28543 and 28544 of 2003, 29614 to 29620, 29622 to 29624 and 29626-2003, 31047 of 2003, 31253 of 2003, 33936 of 2003, 37227 of 2003 and 41929 of 2003 by the College for the academic year 2003-2004 (though made against 2002-2003) in the light of the observations above and grant them all consequential reliefs. It is needless to say that their admissions cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they were admitted on 30-10-2003 beyond the last date.
(ii) W.P. Nos. 29621, 29625, 29627, 31048, 33934 and 33935 of 2003 are disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners therein recover any amount paid by them in accordance with law.
(iii) I.As. I and II of 2003 filed by petitioners in W.P. Nos. 20674 and 20675 of 2003 for impleading the Trustees of the Trust running the college are dismissed.
(iv) Parties to bear their respective costs.