The Madras High Court Bench here on Thursday directed Velammal Medical College Hospital and Research Institute (VMCHRI) here to pay a compensation of Rs.3 lakh each to three students for having denied MBBS admission to them “mischievously” during the academic year 2013-14.
Passing a common judgement in cases filed by them, Justice K. Ravichandra Baabu held that the college had played a “mischief” by sending admission call letters dated September 24 by post on September 29, just a day before the deadline set by the Supreme Court for admitting students in professional courses.
The judge agreed with the petitioners that they had lost their legitimate right to admission due to the conduct of the college, but held that he could not direct it to admit them at present since the deadline set by the apex court had expired. Admissions made beyond the cut-off date would amount to contempt of court, he said.
Nevertheless in order to compensate the loss suffered by the three students – Nihaal Ahamed, E. Sneha Preethi and R. Gayathri – who had lost an entire academic year due to the receipt of the call letters on September 30, the judge directed the college to pay the damages, fixed by him, within eight weeks.
Earlier, one of the petitioners’ counsels, N. Satish Babu, had contended that the students had applied for medical seats under management quota of the college through a common rank list prepared by The Tamil Nadu Private Professional Colleges Association – Health Sciences.
However, the college chose to ignore the petitioners who were on top of the rank list and admitted others who had been ranked much below them, he alleged. He also said that the petitioners had lodged complaints in this regard to a committee monitoring admissions in private colleges.
On the other hand, the counsel for the college claimed that the writ petitioners were not admitted in the course since they failed to attend a counselling session conducted by the institution on September 26, to verify their qualifications, despite being informed of it orally on September 23.
Further, stating that the college had instituted an enquiry to find out the individual responsible for having posted the call letters belatedly, he said that the delay would have no bearing with respect to the petitioners’ claim since they had been informed about the counselling session orally much in advance.
