Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs Kuldeep Tassa on 11 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010074982024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/378/2024
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,WELFARE
OF PLAINS TRIBES AND BACKWARD CASTE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR
GUWAHATI 06
2: THE STATE LEVEL CASTE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM SECRETARY
WELFARE OF PLAIN TRIBES AND BACKWARD CASTE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR GUWAHATI 0
VERSUS
KULDEEP TASSA
S/O HAREN TASSA,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NIZ VEKULAJAN, PO TENGAKHAT, DIST
DIBRUGARH, ASSAM
2:THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
ASSAM SIX MILE
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI 781022
3:THE PRINCIPAL
ASSAM MEDICAL COLLEGE
AMC ROAD
BARBARI
DIBRUGARH
ASSAM 786002
4:THE DIRECTOR OF PLAIN TRIBES WELFARE
ASSAM
RUPNAGAR
GUWAHATI 781032
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/10
5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
DIBRUGARH
ASSAM 78600
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R M DAS,
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MD IMRAN (R1),MD R ISLAM (R1),MS F
HUSSAIN (R1),MR S M ABDULLAH P (R1),SC, HEALTH
Linked Case : WA/366/2025
THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
ASSAM AND ANR
SIX MILE
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI 781022
2: THE PRINCIPAL
ASSAM MEDICAL COLLEGE
AMC ROAD
BARBARI
DIBRUGARH
ASSAM 786002
VERSUS
KULDEEP TASSA AND 4 ORS
S/O HAREN TASSA
R/O VILL. NIZ VEKULAJAN
P.O. TENGAKHAT
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM.
2:THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
WELFARE OF PLAIN TRIBES AND BACKWARD CASTE DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006
ASSAM.
3:THE STATE LEVEL CASTE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM SECY. WELFARE OF PLAIN TRIBES
AND BACKWARD CASTE DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006
ASSAM.
Page No.# 3/10
4:THE DIRECTOR OF PLAIN TRIBES WELFARE
ASSAM
RUPNAGAR
GUWAHATI 781032
ASSAM.
5:THE DIST. COMMISSIONER
DIBRUGARH DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM 786001
------------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.P. Borah, SC, Health Department
Mr. R.M. Das, SC, WPT, BC
Ms. R.B. Bora, Jr. GA, Assam
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. F. Hussain, Advocate
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
11.11.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
Out of these two writ appeals, WA No. 366/2025 has been preferred
by the Director of Medical Education, Assam and the Principal, Assam
Medical College, Dibrugarh, and WA No. 378/2024 has been preferred
by the State of Assam, represented by the Secretary to the Government
of Assam, Welfare of Plains Tribes & Backward Caste Department as well
as by The State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, represented by its
Chairman cum Secretary, Welfare of Plains Tribes and Backward Caste
Department, Government of Assam, against the judgment dated
07.03.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.
7103/2023 directing the appellants herein to compensate the writ
Page No.# 4/10
petitioner and pay to him an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh as compensation for
the delay in making a decision which led to the petitioner losing one year
in his medical education.
We have heard Mr. D.P. Borah and Mr. R.M. Das, learned Advocates
for the appellants in WA No. 366/2025 and WA No. 378/2014, respectively,
and Ms. F. Hussain, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1/writ
petitioner.
The writ petitioner, a student hailing from Ex-Tea Garden Labourer
community, which is a reserved community under Other Backward
Castes (OBC) category and has a reserved quota in medical education
in Assam, had appeared in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for
Undergraduate (NEET-UG), 2023 in which he had scored 417 marks.
Based on that score, he was provisionally selected for admission in the 1 st
Year MBBS Course in the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, under the
quota of OBC. He had taken admission on the basis of the provisional list
issued by the Director of Medical Education, Assam. However, shortly
thereafter, his admission was cancelled on 03.09.2023 holding that the
OBC certificate furnished by him was either false or fake. The matter went
to litigation and, ultimately, under the direction of this Court, a
verification exercise was undertaken to find out whether the petitioner
really hailed from the OBC category and had furnished a genuine
certificate.
The respondents/appellants herein, taking the aid of the Criminal
Investigation Department (CID), made verifications and found that the
Caste Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was genuine and that
Page No.# 5/10
he was rightly allotted one seat in the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh,
under the reserved quota meant for OBC category candidates.
Thereafter, the petitioner was admitted to the 1 st year medical course
but only in the 2024 Session. In that process, the petitioner had lost one
academic year.
The learned Single Judge, after having dealt with the facts of the
case, found that the petitioner was entitled to be compensated and,
therefore, directed for payment of an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh to the
petitioner, as compensation, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, which has been impugned in
the present set of appeals.
The appellants in both the appeals do not question the judgment on
its merit, as the facts stand established that the writ petitioner hails from
OBC community and he had been admitted to the MBBS course in the
Session commencing from the year 2023 under the OBC quota, but
wrongly, on an accusation of the Certificate furnished by the petitioner
to be fake and false, his admission was cancelled. The position could be
restored only after this Court ordered for a verification exercise, wherein
the Caste Certificate was found to be genuine.
Thus, both the appeals aim at questioning the quantum of
compensation directed to be paid to the writ petitioner.
Mr. D. P. Borah, learned Advocate for the appellants in WA No.
366/2025 has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 22 of the
impugned judgment, which reads as hereunder:
"22. Regard being had to the claim of compensation, after anxious
Page No.# 6/10
consideration, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled
to be compensated as the petitioner has lost one full academic year for no fault
on his part. This Court vide Order dated 12.10.2023 in WP(C) 5941/2023
directed the petitioner to appear before the State Level Scrutiny Committee on
16.10.2023 at 10.30 AM on the consent of the parties and the petitioner
appeared with all documents. The State Level Scrutiny Committee held its
meeting on 29.12.2023 and 30.12.2023 after lapse of 2 and half months and
found the caste certificate of the petitioner genuine and communicated its
decision on 09.01.2024. Had the decision been taken on 16.10.2023 as
directed by this Court, the admission of the petitioner could have been saved."
Mr. Borah therefore submits that in the estimation of the Court, an
amount of Rs. 1 Lakh was found to be sufficient compensation, but there
was no necessity of holding the appellant, namely, the Director of
Medical Education, Assam and the Principal, Assam Medical College,
Dibrugarh, to be responsible for the delay in making the verification,
which ultimately led to the loss of one year for the writ petitioner. He
therefore submits that the direction to pay the compensation to the writ
petitioner ought not to be taken as stigmatic on the conduct of the
appellants.
On the other hand, Mr. R.M. Das, learned Advocate for the
appellants in WA 378/2024 submits that the writ petitioner could not be
admitted in the 2023 Session for the reason that the verification with
respect to his Caste Certificate, which was the basis for his admission,
took some time and the Session could not have been delayed because
of the direction of the Supreme Court in maintaining the academic
sessions of medical and technical education.
In any view of the matter, the sum and substance of the submissions
of Mr. Borah and Mr. Das is that the direction for the compensation to be
paid to the writ petitioner ought not to be held as any kind of castigation
Page No.# 7/10
on the conduct of the appellants as a State.
Compensation is a kind of monetary redress granted by the
Constitutional Courts for violation of any legal or fundamental right of an
individual by any State action or inaction. It is distinct from private law
damages which require the proof of negligence or, perhaps, the tortuous
acts. It is also different from ex-gratia relief, which is discretionary or policy
based.
In Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (1883) 4 SCC 141 , it was for the
first time that the Courts laid down that Article 32 and 226 of the
Constitution of India empower the Constitutional Courts to award
monetary compensation as appropriate and effective remedy. Award of
compensation does not necessarily depend upon the proof of mala fides
or negligence. The State, as a Constitutional entity, is responsible for the
acts of its instrumentalities which actually result either in deprivation of
life, liberty or any lawful entitlement of the citizens.
In the past, the Courts have directed for compensation to be paid as
an effective recompense for deprivation of entitlement in cases of illegal
detention; death because of police beating; or for any other form of
custodial death. [Refer to Sebastian M. Hongray vs. Union of India and
Others (1984) 1 SCC 339; Bhim Singh, MLA vs. State of J&K and Ors., 1984 SUPP
(1) 504; Saheli, a Women's Resources Centre vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi
Police, (1990) 1 SCC 422; State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Ravikant S. Patil,
(1991) 2 SCC 373].
Since the learned Advocates representing the appellants in both the
appeals have questioned the determination of the quantum of
compensation, it would only be necessary to expatiate on this aspect as
Page No.# 8/10
well.
In such cases, where compensation is awarded as a public law
remedy, the issue of quantum of compensation so awarded is not arrived
at by any fixed formulae. The whole purpose would be defeated if the
award of such compensation is made formulaic. It depends upon the
nature and the extent of injury, whether physical, mental, reputational or
resulting in loss of opportunities. It also depends on the socio-economic
impact on the victim. The quantum of compensation is also to depend
on the duration and consequence of any action or inaction of the State,
leading to physical or mental injury. It is also to be considered in the
context of the conduct of the authorities.
In the present case, it was both mental and reputational, as the very
genuineness of the Caste Certificate furnished by the writ petitioner was
questioned as being non-genuine.
The learned Single Judge, in the present case, has found that
despite the order of the Court, two months were taken for verification of
the correctness/genuineness of the Caste Certificate furnished by the writ
petitioner. Seen generally, for the State or its instrumentalities or agencies,
arriving at a proper decision in two months is not something unusual.
However, in the present case, this has resulted in loss of a full academic
year of the writ petitioner, which cannot be recompensed otherwise. This
monetary compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh, in our considered view, is only a
solace and it does not form part of any retributory exercise of power by
the learned Single Judge. The restorative purpose, for which the
compensation was awarded, is clear in the judgment impugned. No
stigma has been cast; no responsibility has been fixed.
Page No.# 9/10
The writ petitioner hails from Other Backward Castes, which, because
of its less representation in medical institutions, was given reservation and
the writ petitioner rightly and genuinely availed of such concession.
It also needs to be explained here that the defence of sovereign
immunity is inapplicable in cases of violation of any right or entitlement.
The appellants therefore cannot claim that because it was necessary to
verify and examine the genuineness of the Caste Certificate furnished by
the writ petitioner, the delay had occurred and for that they cannot be
held responsible.
This deprivation of a citizen for any State action or inaction, as noted
above, is to be dealt with by applying the doctrine of strict liability
fastened on the State.
With this evolved jurisprudence, we find that the compensation
awarded to the petitioner is just and reasonable. The Courts have
awarded compensation for such loss of academic year to students
ranging from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-.
We therefore do not find any merit in the challenge of the appellants
with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded to the writ
petitioner, when there is no specific fixation of guilt or responsibility on any
of the agencies of the State, be it the Directorate of Medical Education,
or the State in its department of Welfare of Plains Tribes & Backward
Caste Department, or the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee.
All that we would care is that the amount of compensation be paid
to the writ petitioner without any delay, preferably within a period of four
weeks from today, failing which a serious view of the matter would be
taken on a two-pages affidavit filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.
Page No.# 10/10
1, which would revive both the appeals for further consideration.
Both the appeals stand disposed off accordingly.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
