Referred to Larger Bench XII Answered: Doctrine of Relation Back in Admissions

The view, the only relief which can be granted would be compensation only [Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521], is not good law and cannot be accepted.

Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah [Three-Judge Bench], S. Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2020 SC 47.

_____

The proposition of law which emerges from S. Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (2019) SCC Online SC 1609 and National Medical Commission v. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi, (2020) SCC Online SC 992 is, in rare and exceptional cases, a meritorious candidate, who has suffered injustice by reason of his/her inability to secure admission in a medical course, whether under-graduate or post-graduate, due to no fault of his/her own, who has taken recourse to law promptly, without delay, might be granted relief of being accommodated in the same post in the next session.

In S. Krishna Sradha, the condition of “fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach of rules and regulations” for grant of the relief of admission in the next session to a candidate wrongly denied admission in an earlier session, is a sequel to and flows from the condition of there should be “no fault of the candidate”.  

The Court has elaborated on the condition of “no fault of the candidate” to ensure, relief is not claimed as a matter of right. To cite an example, an individual candidate cannot as a matter of right claim relief when inability to fulfill a condition of admission is for reasons such as a computer crash; inability to raise funds; inability to adhere to time schedules because of a vehicular breakdown, illness, bereavement. In this case, there has not been any lapse.

Hon’ble Justice Indira Banerjee, Dr. Rohit Kumar v. Secretary Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi, [Civil Appeal No. 2739 of 2021] decided on 20.07.2021.