Institutions Can't Cancel Enrolment Of 'Erroneously Admitted' Students Mid-Course In Absence Of Any Wrongdoings On Their Part: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has allowed a petition filed by students of MSc Nursing at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), challenging an Office Memorandum (OM) of the Institution canceling their admission. The students had been admitted based on the eligibility conditions in the Prospectus of AIIMS and offer letters. However, 2 months into the course, the Institution decided...
The Delhi High Court has allowed a petition filed by students of MSc Nursing at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), challenging an Office Memorandum (OM) of the Institution canceling their admission.
The students had been admitted based on the eligibility conditions in the Prospectus of AIIMS and offer letters. However, 2 months into the course, the Institution decided to cancel their admissions as it had released the qualifying examination results later than the due date. Thus, the students approached the Court, praying for relief.
Noting that the students had been studying for two months into the course, Justice Prateek Jalan ruled that the Institution could not now hold the students responsible for the University's shortcomings. Justice Jalan observed:
"The petitioners have prosecuted their studies for almost two months prior to issuance of the impugned OM dated 18.10.2021. There is no allegation that the petitioners had misrepresented or concealed any information from AIIMS - indeed, there cannot be, as the qualifying examination was conducted by AIIMS itself. Applying the observations of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur, in the present case also, the blame lies more upon the Institution than the petitioners."
Accordingly, the Court upheld the Petition.
Liability to Institutions
The issue that squarely came before this Court was whether the candidature of innocent students was liable to be canceled due erroneous admission by the Institution.
The Court heavily relied on Supreme Court's observations in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v Karnataka University (1986), Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur and Ors. (1989) and Javed Akhtar and Another v. Jamia Hamdard & Another (2005). In these cases, the students were ineligible for admissions or the University had negligently processed the applications. The students were not guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation in all such cases.
In Rajendra Prasad, the blame was apportioned to the Institution for capitalizing on the fees to accommodate ineligible students. Accordingly, the students were permitted to continue their studies despite being ineligible for the course. In Ashok Chand, the Court followed Rajendra Prasad Mathur, reiterating the principle that a candidate who is not at fault should not be made to suffer for the mistaken admission by the Institution. In Javed Akhtar, the facts were similar to the present case. In this case, the candidate had been studying for one month before they canceled her admission. The Court faulted the University for invalidating admission of a candidate who had been admitted inattentively. The Court had held:
"The respondents cannot be allowed to cancel the admission at their own convenience at any time of the year without considering the fact that if they cancel the admission after the session has started then the entire year of the petitioners will be spoiled as the petitioners would not be in a position to take admission in any other college/University. If this fact of their ineligibility for admission was conveyed to them at the very start they would have taken admission in some other college/University…..the respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong and cannot be permitted to take the plea that under the prospectus they had the power to cancel the admission of ineligible student and the principle of estoppel will operate against them."
Holding
Following various precedents of the Supreme Court, Justice Prateek Jalan held:
"An academic institution cannot be permitted to cancel admissions after the course had started, at any time during the year, due to prejudice that would be caused to the candidates who were admitted as they would by then be unable to take admission in any other university to which they may have been admitted."
Thus, the Court set aside the OM and upheld the Petition allowing the students to continue their studies uninterrupted.
Case Details
Case Title: Abha George & Ors Versus All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 99
Case No: W.P.(C) 12263/2021 & CM APPL. 38369/2021
Date of Decision: 2.1.2022
Coram: Justice Prateek Jalan