Courts Should Exercise Caution Before Passing Interim Orders Directing Colleges To Keep Seat Vacant : Supreme Court

Coming to the aid of two medical colleges, which were directed to keep a medical seat vacant pursuant to a High Court order but incurred loss as the said seat ultimately remained unfilled, the Supreme Court recently paved way for monetary restitution through adjustment of the colleges' proposed fees for successive batches.

"considering that it is a case of one seat in each college, we feel that ends of justice will be served if we grant liberty to the appellant colleges to make a representation to the Fee Fixation Committee/Fee Fixation Authority of the State highlighting the vacancy caused due to the interim order of the High Court. If such a representation is made, the Fee Fixation Committee/Fee Fixation Authority shall, while fixing the fees for college (for future batches) 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 which will restitute the colleges monetarily", said a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.

The Court was of the view that its direction was the best possible option to neutralize the effect of the High Court order, which operated to the prejudice of the medical colleges. Further, the fee being spread over 5 years, the financial impact on whom the burden will fall was considered to be marginal.

Briefly stated, the matter pertained to two medical colleges (appellants) to whom the Director, Medical Education issued orders directing that one MBBS seat be kept vacant, with a clarification that the said seat will not be included in the College Level Counseling Round for the academic year 2023-24. The direction was pursuant to an interim order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in writ petitions filed by respondent-students.

Ultimately, both the writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter, the appellant-colleges approached the Supreme Court seeking a compensatory seat in the next academic year, alleging that they were deprived of the opportunity to fill a seat due to an act of a Court and incurred loss.

As per the appellant-colleges, seat which was directed to be kept vacant has gone waste since the writ petitions could not be disposed of before the cut-off date for admissions. It was further their case that the vacant seat would result in underutilization and wastage of resources, causing financial harm to them, and result in meritorious candidates being denied admission to that seat.

After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court observed that the vacant seat ordered could not be filled because by the time the writ petitions were disposed of, the counselling had concluded and the cut-off date for admissions was also over. 

Further, it noted that the interim order of the High Court was cryptic, where neither the prima facie case, nor the balance of convenience and irreparable loss aspects were discussed.

The Court opined that in rare and exceptional circumstances, increase in seats can be directed for the same academic year (not exceeding one or two seats), if a candidate has suffered for no fault attributable to him or due to the fault of the authorities. However, that is vastly different from directing the creation of an additional seat at the behest of a college (as prayed for in the present cases).

Additionally, it was observed that 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 also observed that disposal of such cases shall be endeavored before counselling for admissions is over and that it is justified to direct a petitioner-student to provide security to the concerned college (as a guarantee in case the petitioner's case is dismissed).

"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...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 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...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."

It was further underlined that if a seat goes vacant in a college, the college is deprived of fees not just for one year, but for the entire duration of the course (which can be 4 or more years).

The Court added that principle of restitution is not excluded from its application to interim order. On facts, it remarked that the appellant-colleges were prejudiced for "no fault of theirs" and would have to carry the vacant seats for the entire duration of the course, incurring same expenditure but being deprived of the fees.

Accordingly, the Court granted the appellant-colleges liberty to make a representation to the Fee Fixation Committee of the State, which in turn shall reckon the deficit in fees incurred by the colleges as a result of the High Court interim order, while fixing the fees for successive batches.

Case Title: RAMKRISHNA MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS., SLP (C) No. 11785 of 2024 (and connected case)

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 877

Click here to read/download judgment