Supreme Court Rs 30 Lakh Seat Leaving Bond Relief to Doctor who Left DM Endocrinology Seat at CMC Vellore

New Delhi: The Supreme Court bench recently granted relief to a postgraduate medical candidate from Rs 30 lakh seat leaving penalty imposed on him for resigning from a DM Endocrinology seat from Christian Medical College (CMC), Vellore.

However, noting that the candidate resigned from the seat after his position remained unchanged in the second round of counseling because of the subsequent changes in the institute's prospectus, the top court bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan observed, "We find that the present case is not the one wherein the entire blame would be on the appellant. The appellant has unfortunately acted on the representation made to him in the original prospectus. The later amendment to it has created confusion."

The top court bench opined that the authorities including the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC), and Director General of Health Service (DGHS) should have been more diligent in notifying a final prospectus before commencing the admission process. "We find that on account of the casual approach of Respondent Nos.1 to 3, one precious seat in one of the most reputed colleges in the country, i.e. Respondent No.4/College has gone waste," observed the Apex Court.

However, holding the petitioner doctor guilty of contributory negligence for not checking the latest rules on the website before resigning from the seat, the bench directed him to pay a penalty of Rs.4,06,749.60, which had already been deposited by the petitioner.

In the admission process for the Academic Year 2022-2023, the petitioner doctor had participated based on the prospectus that was available on the college's website. In the prospectus, while specifying the eligibility to avail the option "Exit with Forfeiture", the college had mentioned that candidates who had been allotted a seat in Round 1 but did not report at the college, candidates who had been allotted a seat in Round 2 but did not report could resign the seat.

Further, the conditions mentioned that Round 1 candidate who had not been upgraded in Round 2, could resign the seat allotted in Round 1 within two days of Round 2 result announcement.

The petitioner was allotted a seat in DM Endocrinology in the college during the first round of counselling. Accordingly, he was admitted to the college and joined the course on 14th April, 2022.

When the result of the second round of counselling was notified on 26th April 2022, the petitioner noted that he had not been granted any upgradation. Therefore, he resigned from the said seat immediately on the said date. Indisoutably, the communication addressed by the doctor was received by the college on the same day i.e. 26th April 2022 and the email in this regard was also placed on record by the petitioner. However, the authorities claimed that they were not aware of the resignation till 30th April 2022. 

The Court noted that in the meantime, the college amended the prospectus on 20th April 2022 and the option previously granted to candidates to resign from the seat allotted in Round 1 if they did not get any upgradation in round 2 was deleted.

Therefore, when the petitioner sought to resign from the seat, the college invoked a clause in the bond and asked the petitioner to pay a penalty of Rs 30 lakh and also directed that till the payment of the amount was done, his documents would not be released. 

Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the Single Judge bench of the Madras High Court challenging the college's decision. However, his petition was dismissed and an appeal against the decision was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Thereafter, the candidate challenged this order before the Apex Court bench.

While considering the case, the Supreme Court bench took note of the fact that as per the previous prospectus valid at the time of his joining, he could have resigned from the seat if he did not received any upgradation in Round 2 and if such resignation was sent within two days of the announcement of the result of round 2.

Observing that there was no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner had resigned within two days from the date of declaration of result of round 2, the Supreme Court bench noted that the plea had raised due to the confusion created by two different answers given to question no.37 in the original prospectus which was initially in vogue on 8th April 2022 and the second one which was notified on 20th April, 2022.

"No doubt that the appellant also ought to have been more diligent. When he was resigning from a prestigious seat of M.D. (Endocrinology) from a highly reputed institution like the Respondent No.4, he should have checked the latest position on the website of Respondent Nos.1 to 3," noted the Commission.

"However, we find that the appellant needs to be given an allowance in the present matter, inasmuch as his decision was largely affected on account of answer no. (c) to question No.37, in the original prospectus," it further observed.

At the same time, the court opined that the authorities ought to have been more diligent in notifying a final prospectus before the commencement of the admission process, noting that "The amendment to the prospectus when the process of admission was underway has created an unfortunate situation like the present one."

"It is clear from the communications placed on record that the respondents/Authorities were at least aware about the appellant’s resignation on 30th April 2022. It is not in dispute that even after that date in the peculiar facts and circumstances on account of covid situation, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had filled in unfilled posts in the mop-up round. Had the respondent Nos.1 to 3 acted diligently, the seat which lapsed could have been filled by a meritorious student. We find that on account of the casual approach of Respondent Nos.1 to 3, one precious seat in one of the most reputed colleges in the country, i.e. Respondent No.4/College has gone waste," it further observed.

Therefore, the bench concluded that the entire blame could not be placed upon the petitioner, who unfortunately acted on the representation made to him in the original prospectus. However, at the same time, finding the petitioner also guilty of contributory negligence, the top court bench ordered, "However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that instead of paying additional penalty of Rs.30 Lacs, the forfeiture of the amount of Rs.4,06,749.60 already deposited by the appellant (Rs.2,06,749.60 with Respondent No.4/College and Rs.2,00,000/- by Respondent No.4/College with Respondent No.2/Director General of Health Service for the admission of the appellant) shall subserve the ends of justice."

"We therefore modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. We direct that the appellant would be liable to pay a penalty of Rs.4,06,749.60, which has already been deposited, as above... The Respondent No.4/College shall forfeit the amount of Rs.2,06,749.60 deposited with it by the appellant. Respondent No.2 shall refund a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, within a period of two weeks, deposited by Respondent No.4/College with it back to Respondent No.4/College as a part of contribution of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 towards the negligence," it mentioned in the judgment.

The top court also directed the college to release all the documents of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of order.

To view the top court order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/s-gunasekaran-vs-the-under-secretary-to-govt-and-others-266680.pdf

Also Read: Abolish seat leaving, compulsory rural service bonds instead give positive incentives: NMC task force on mental health