M. Sreedevi Vs. University of Medical Sciences, A.P. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3405 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14614 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14614 of 1999)
Petitioner: M. Sreedevi
Respondent: University of Medical Sciences, A.P. & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3405 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14614 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14614 of 1999)
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, M.B. SHAH & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 05, 2000
Head Note:
EDUCATION
Constitution
Articles 226, 14 – Admission – Meritorious candidate from SC, ST or OBC – Right of admission on merits and not against reserved quota – High Court allowing the plea but no consequential benefit given. Held that University shall consider the candidate on the basis of correct criteria and from the quota of her State, in appropriate category and on merits. University was at fault and candidate should not suffer.
(Paras 5,6)
Cases Reffered:
1. C. Tulasi Priya v. A.P. State Council of Higher Educa-tion and Ors. (JT 1998 (5) SC 246)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The grievance of the appellant found favour with the Division Bench of the High Court, namely, that candidates from the Sched-uled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes who were meritorious had a right to admission on merit and they could not be considered against the reserved quota. The Division Bench added, “concedingly, if this principle had been followed, the appellant would have got admission in the course. Thus, the appellant has suffered on account of the conduct of the Universi-ty in not following the settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court.” But, surprisingly, instead of granting the necessary consequential relief, the Division Bench only found it fit to award costs in the sum of Rupees five thousand against the Uni-versity. The appellant, therefore, challenges the correctness of its order.
3. If it was the fault of the University, as the Division Bench found, it was proper to direct the University to make due amends. Our attention has been drawn to the judgment and order of this Court in C. Tulasi Priya v. A.P. State Council of Higher Educa-tion and Ors. (JT 1998 (5) SC 246 = 1998 (6) SCC 284) where also the University had committed a mistake to the detriment of the student and this Court directed that the student should be considered for admis-sion to a medical college in the State in a seat from the quota of that State for the academic year in question upon the correct and not the mistaken basis.
4. Learned Counsel for the University has drawn our attention to the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the appellant’s writ petition was dismissed for the reason that its cause did not survive for further adjudication, and that apart, in the learned Single Judge’s words, “the University merely followed the direc-tions of this Court in W.P. No. 23481 of 1997 and batch dated 11.12.1997.”
5. What those directions were, we do not know because the relev-ant order is not produced by the University before us, nor appar-ently, was it produced before the Division Bench for it is not referred to in its order. The position in law is well settled, as the Division Bench noted. The University was in error. The appellant cannot be made to suffer for the same.
6. The civil appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The University and its Admission Committee shall consider the candidature of the appellant for admission to a medical college within the province of the University from the quota of the State in the appropriate category for the Academic Year 2000-2001 on the basis of her merit.
7. No order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. The grievance of the appellant found favour with the Division Bench of the High Court, namely, that candidates from the Sched-uled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes who were meritorious had a right to admission on merit and they could not be considered against the reserved quota. The Division Bench added, “concedingly, if this principle had been followed, the appellant would have got admission in the course. Thus, the appellant has suffered on account of the conduct of the Universi-ty in not following the settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court.” But, surprisingly, instead of granting the necessary consequential relief, the Division Bench only found it fit to award costs in the sum of Rupees five thousand against the Uni-versity. The appellant, therefore, challenges the correctness of its order.
3. If it was the fault of the University, as the Division Bench found, it was proper to direct the University to make due amends. Our attention has been drawn to the judgment and order of this Court in C. Tulasi Priya v. A.P. State Council of Higher Educa-tion and Ors. (JT 1998 (5) SC 246 = 1998 (6) SCC 284) where also the University had committed a mistake to the detriment of the student and this Court directed that the student should be considered for admis-sion to a medical college in the State in a seat from the quota of that State for the academic year in question upon the correct and not the mistaken basis.
4. Learned Counsel for the University has drawn our attention to the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the appellant’s writ petition was dismissed for the reason that its cause did not survive for further adjudication, and that apart, in the learned Single Judge’s words, “the University merely followed the direc-tions of this Court in W.P. No. 23481 of 1997 and batch dated 11.12.1997.”
5. What those directions were, we do not know because the relev-ant order is not produced by the University before us, nor appar-ently, was it produced before the Division Bench for it is not referred to in its order. The position in law is well settled, as the Division Bench noted. The University was in error. The appellant cannot be made to suffer for the same.
6. The civil appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The University and its Admission Committee shall consider the candidature of the appellant for admission to a medical college within the province of the University from the quota of the State in the appropriate category for the Academic Year 2000-2001 on the basis of her merit.
7. No order as to costs.
