Legal Analysis on Admission Denial and Seat Creation in Medical College Case

The recent court case delves into the legal intricacies surrounding admission denial and seat creation in a medical college. The emphasis lies on the court’s detailed legal analysis regarding the adherence to admission procedures and the responsibilities of medical colleges in such cases. The judgment provides valuable insights into the application of legal principles in the context of educational admissions.


  • Respondent No.2-College insisted that Respondent No.1 did not turn up for admission before the last date.
  • Respondent No.1 and her father visited the College on 29.07.2020 only for the purpose of enquiring about admission procedure and the requisite fee.
  • Admission granted to Respondent No.5 was not interfered with as he might have been an innocent party unaware of the circumstances in which seat was denied to Respondent No.1.
  • Respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition in the High Court seeking admission in MS (General Surgery).
  • Respondent No.1 was given provisional admission to the MS (General Surgery) course in the Mop-up Phase (MQ)- P3 and was allotted to Respondent No.2-College under Management Quota.
  • Respondent No.1 approached the College with her father on 29.07.2020 and 30.07.2020 but her admission process was not completed.
  • High Court directed creation of a seat and to grant admission in MS (General Surgery) to Respondent No.1 as she was illegally denied admission by Respondent No.2-College.
  • Respondent No.1 visited the College on 29.07.2020.
  • The High Court directed the creation of a seat in MS (General Surgery) and granted admission to Respondent No.1.
  • Respondent No.1 paid the University Fee of Rs.49,600 on 29.07.2020.
  • Respondent No.2-College was found to have intentionally and illegally denied admission to Respondent No.1 for GS-MS (General Surgery) seat for the academic year 2020-2021.
  • The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the direction for creating a seat in MS (General Surgery) and granting admission to Respondent No.1.

Also Read: Legal Analysis on Seniority Fixation in Contempt Petitions


  • The issue at hand is whether the High Court’s decision to create a seat for admission of Respondent No.1 for the current academic year was correct.
  • The crux of the matter is the legitimacy of the direction given by the High Court to facilitate admission for Respondent No.1.
  • The main question for consideration is the validity and appropriateness of creating a seat specifically for Respondent No.1.

Also Read: Vertical Mobility and Selection Process in Police Department


  • The Appellant’s counsel argued that Respondent No.1 did not pursue available remedies immediately after 30.08.2020.
  • He contended that the direction for creating a seat contradicts the law laid down by the Court.
  • Respondent No.1’s counsel argued that denial of admission by Respondent No.2-College to Respondent No.1, despite her being more meritorious than Respondent No.5, caused irreparable loss to Respondent No.1.
  • It was argued that the High Court was correct in directing the creation of a seat in MS (General Surgery) and granting admission to Respondent No.1.
  • It was acknowledged that Respondent No.1 was provisionally granted admission based on merit and should have voiced her grievance without delay.
  • Mr. Sharma argued that no direction for admission could have been granted on 18.09.2020 as the last date of admission was 30.08.2020.
  • Mr. Buxy argued that the College followed the prescribed procedures and since Respondent No.1 did not approach them before the last date of admission, she cannot claim denial of admission.
  • There was no objection from Respondent No.2-College regarding the direction for creating a seat for Respondent No.1.
  • Respondent No.5’s counsel stated that he joined on 11.08.2020 without knowledge of the events leading to the dispute.
  • Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.5’s counsels had no objection to the judgment of the High Court.

Also Read: Interpretation of Section 80-IA Deductions


  • Annual intake capacity in Medical Colleges is fixed by the National Medical Commission.
  • Admissions cannot exceed the sanctioned annual intake capacity of a medical college.
  • Procedures prescribed by regulations must be followed for filling up seats due to non-joining.
  • Refusal to join by a candidate should lead to offering the seat to the next meritorious candidate immediately.
  • Management of Medical Colleges should not engage in illegalities during admissions.
  • Relief of admission may be granted to a meritorious candidate in the next academic year if found to be eligible and without delay.
  • Compensation can be an additional remedy but not a substitute for restitutional remedies.
  • Court may cancel admissions granted to candidates at the bottom of the merit list to accommodate more meritorious candidates.
  • Directions issued in the S. Krishna Sradha case can be applicable to Post Graduate Courses as well.
  • Compensation may be awarded to a meritorious candidate who loses a full academic year due to no fault of their own.
  • Specific directions provided in the judgement are only for Admission in MBBS Course, not for Post Graduate Medical Courses.
  • In S. Krishna Sradha case, the Court held that a meritorious candidate illegally denied admission in an MBBS course may approach the Court for relief.
  • Efforts should be made to dispose of such cases by the Court at the earliest.
  • If the fault lies solely with the authorities and the candidate has pursued legal remedies promptly, the Court may direct admission even after the last date in exceptional circumstances.
  • The rule of merit for preference in medical courses must be strictly followed without exception, as stated in the Asha case.
  • In rare cases of apparent breach of rules resulting in denial of admission, the Court may direct admission even after the last date, but within one month of the cut-off date.
  • Admissions after the last date should only be allowed in cases of unequivocal discrimination, arbitrariness, or pressing emergencies.
  • Respondent No.1 is entitled to compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs from Respondent No.2-College for losing an academic year unfairly
  • Respondent No.1 is guaranteed admission to the MS (General Surgery) course in the next academic year 2021-22 at a seat allocated to Respondent No.2-College
  • One seat in the MS (General Surgery) course from the Management Quota of Respondent No.2-College for the academic year 2021-22 will be granted to Respondent No.1
  • Respondent No.5 might not have been aware of the illegal denial of admission to Respondent No.1


  • The appeal has been disposed of with specified directions
  • The specific directions given in the judgement will need to be followed
  • No further action is required from the parties involved as the appeal has been addressed


Case Number: C.A. No.-003940-003940 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *