University slapped Rs 7 lakh compensation over improper MBBS seat allotment

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R Raghunandan Rao ruled that the University had failed to provide evidence justifying its allocation process, leading to an unjust denial of admission to the petitioner. Additionally, the court imposed a Rs 25,000 cost on the University, to be paid within two weeks.

Case Background: Improper Seat Allotment

Asritha, a 19-year-old student from SPSR Nellore District, had appeared for NEET (UG) 2022 and applied for admission under the NCC Female Open Category, which reserves one seat each at Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Narayana Medical College, and Padmavathi Medical College.

The petitioner alleged that despite ranking higher in merit and the NCC category, the seat at Narayana Medical College was wrongfully allotted to the fourth respondent, who had a lower merit rank. She argued that the seat should have rightfully been allocated to her, but the University overlooked her eligibility.

University’s Justification and Court’s Examination

In response to the petition, Dr NTR University of Health Sciences stated that the MBBS seat at Narayana Medical College was initially allotted to another candidate under the NCC category. However, the other candidate later secured admission at Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupati, through category-based sliding.

As per the University’s policy, a vacated seat must be given to the next eligible candidate within the same category. Since the other aspirant belonged to the BC-D category, the seat was subsequently allotted to the fourth respondent, who also belonged to BC-D, rather than to the petitioner, who did not fall under the BC-D category.

The University relied on G.O.Rt.No.159 (Higher Education Department), dated 13.11.2020, in support of this decision, arguing that the seat was reallocated in accordance with established guidelines.

Petitioner’s Counterarguments

The petitioner, strongly contested the University’s justification, arguing that the entire seat allotment process was flawed and unfairly denied her rightful admission. She maintained that the University’s claim, that the MBBS seat at Narayana Medical College was vacated by the other candidate and subsequently allotted to the fourth respondent was factually incorrect.

According to the petitioner, the candidate was never allotted a seat at Narayana Medical College in the first place. Since she had not taken admission there, the question of her vacating a seat at that institution did not arise at all. The petitioner emphasized that for a seat to be considered "vacated," it must have been legitimately occupied in the first place, which, in this case, was not supported by any evidence from the University.

Furthermore, she argued that the seat under the NCC Female Open Category at Narayana Medical College should not have been converted into a BC-D NCC seat, as the other aspirant had never occupied it under that category. She claimed that such reclassification of the seat was arbitrary and violated the established admission norms, which are meant to ensure fairness in seat allotment under different reservation categories.

The petitioner highlighted that the University’s actions disregarded merit-based admission principles. She pointed out that she ranked higher in the NCC Female Open Category than the fourth respondent, yet the seat was wrongfully allocated to a lower-ranked candidate. She contended that the University’s failure to prioritize merit and adhere to the proper seat allocation process directly resulted in her being unfairly deprived of an MBBS seat.

Through these arguments, the petitioner sought to establish that the entire seat allotment process was riddled with errors and that the University’s justification was merely an attempt to cover up an irregular and unjustified allocation. She urged the court to recognize these discrepancies and rectify the injustice caused by the University’s mismanagement.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

Court Orders University to Explain Seat Allotment Process

After considering the arguments presented by the petitioner’s counsel, in an order dated 20.09.2023, the High Court directed Dr NTR University of Health Sciences to file an affidavit explaining the process followed in seat allotment. In compliance, the University submitted an additional counter affidavit on 04.01.2023, stating that Jakkala Jahnavi had exercised 30 options during the counseling process.

According to the University, Jahnavi was initially allotted a seat at Shantaram Medical College, Nandyal. Later, during Phase-II counseling, she was shifted to Narayana Medical College, Nellore, under the NCC Open Category quota. Eventually, during the category-based round, she was moved to Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupati. The University claimed that since Jahnavi vacated her seat at Narayana Medical College, it was subsequently allocated to the fourth respondent, who also belonged to the BC-D category.

Court Demands Proof of other candidate's Seat Allotment at Narayana Medical College

However, doubting the University’s claims, the High Court, in an order dated 26.04.2024, instructed the University to submit documentary proof, specifically, the letter of allotment issued in favor of the other candidate, showing that she was first given a seat at Narayana Medical College before shifting to Sri Venkateswara Medical College. The court explicitly warned that if such evidence was not produced, it would be presumed that she had never been allotted a seat at Narayana Medical College, making the subsequent allotment of the seat to the fourth respondent invalid and unsustainable.

University Fails to Provide Evidence

Despite multiple adjournments and opportunities to present the necessary documentation, the University failed to provide any material proof that the candidate was ever officially allotted and had joined Narayana Medical College before shifting to Sri Venkateswara Medical College.

On 05.12.2024, the University filed another counter affidavit, merely reiterating the claims made in previous affidavits. However, it once again failed to produce any concrete evidence supporting its argument that she was originally admitted to Narayana Medical College.

The High Court noted that both parties had agreed that if the other candidate had indeed occupied a seat at Narayana Medical College before transferring to another institution, then the vacated seat could have been allotted to the fourth respondent. However, since the University failed to prove that she ever held that seat, the entire justification for awarding the seat to the fourth respondent collapsed.

Court Declares Seat Allotment to Fourth Respondent Illegal

After reviewing all arguments and the University’s failure to provide evidence, the Court declared seat allotment to fourth respondent as illegal. The High Court noted;

"The 2nd respondent, despite any number of adjournments being granted, has not produced any material or document to show that Ms. *** was allotted a seat in Narayana Medical College or that she had joined in Narayana Medical College prior to moving to M/s. S. V. Medical College. In the absence of such material, it would have to be held that Ms. *** had moved from Shantaram College directly to M/s. S. V. Medical College. In such circumstances, the allotment of seat to the 4th respondent who was lower down in merit, without allotting the said seat to the petitioner was illegal."

The court concluded that the petitioner was unjustly denied her rightful seat, leading to an irreversible loss of opportunity to pursue MBBS.

Compensation for Lost MBBS Seat

Since the petitioner had already enrolled in a BDS (Dental) course due to the wrongful seat allotment, the court acknowledged that she had permanently lost the chance to pursue MBBS. The court ruled that she was entitled to an MBBS seat from 2022, but since two academic years had already passed, she could no longer be accommodated in the MBBS program.

To compensate for this career-altering loss, the High Court ordered the University to pay Rs 7 lakh in damages within two months from the date of receipt of the order. It allowed the writ petition with a cost of Rs 25,000, payable by the University to the petitioner within two weeks. It held;

"Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable by the respondent-University, to the petitioner, within two weeks, from the date of receipt of this order. We are informed that the petitioner has since joined in a Dental Course. The petitioner has lost the chance to pursue a career in the Medicine on account of the actions of the respondent-University. Though she would be entitled to a seat in Medicine for the course commencing in 2022, it would not be possible to accommodate her as more than two academic years have already passed. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to compensate her for her loss by award of damages of Rs.7 lakhs. This amount being payable by the respondent-University, within two months, from the date of receipt of this order."

To view the original order, click on the link below: