Karnataka High Court
Sanjana V Tumkur vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.6014 OF 2018 (EDN-MED-ADM)
BETWEEN:
SANJANA V TUMKUR
D/O DR. T.S. VIJAYA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
C/O VIJAYA HOSPITAL
BANASHANKARI
TUMAKURU-572 102
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE
SERVICES (MEDICAL EDUCATION)
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
ANAND RAO CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 009
3. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE
NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110 001
-
2
4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NIRMAN BHAWAN
NEW DELHI-110 001
5. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA
NEW DELHI-110 077
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
6. SRI SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY
OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(DECLARED AS DEEMED
TO BE UNIVERSITY U/S 3 OF
THE UGC ACT, 1956)
SRI SIDDHARTHA MEDICAL COLLEGE
(CONSTITUENT COLLEGE OF
SRI SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY
OF HIGHER EDUCATION)
AGALAKOTE, B.H. ROAD
TUMAKURU-572 107
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
7. THE CHANCELLOR
SRI SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY
OF HIGHER EDUCATION
SRI SIDDHARTHA MEDICAL COLLEGE
(CONSTITUTENT COLLEGE OF
SRI SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF
HIGHER EDUCATION)
AGALAKOTE, B.H. ROAD
TUMAKURU-572 107
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. MADANAN PILLAI, CGC FOR R3;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
PROPOSED R8 IN I.A.No.2/2021;
R7 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R6 AND R7 TO
COMPLY WITH THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN AS PER THE LETTER AT
ANNEXURE-L DATED 11.10.2017 AND ALLOT MBBS SEAT TO THE
PETITIONER IN SRI SIDDHARTHA MEDICAL COLLEGE (THE
CONSTITUENT COLLEGE OF R6) FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2018-
19 FREE OF COST WITHOUT ANY FEES FOR THE ENTIRE COURSE
OF 4 1/2 YEARS IN THE EVENT OF HER QUALIFYING FOR
ADMISSION IN NEET-2018 AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO
EXTEND THE SAME BENEFIT BY SPONSORING THE MEDICAL
EDUCATION OF THE PETITIOENR BY PAYING THE ENTIRE MBBS
COURSE FEES IN ANY OTHER MEDICAL COLLEGE IN KARNATAKA
IN WHICH THE PETITIONER MAY GET A MBBS SEAT FOR THE
ACADEMIC YEAR 2018-19 BASED ON HER NEET - 2018 RANKING
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
The prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows:
"a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
Writ, Order or Direction, directing the 6th and 7th
Respondents to comply with the undertaking given
as per the letter at Annexure-L dated 11/10/2017
and allot MBBS seat to the petitioner in the Sri
Siddhartha Medical College (the constituent college
of the 6th Respondent) for the academic year 2018-
2019 free of cost without any fees for the entire
-
course of 4 1/2 years in the event of her qualifying
for admission in NEET-2018 and/or in the
alternative, to extend the same benefit by
sponsoring the medical education of the Petitioner
by paying the entire MBBS course fees in any other
Medical College in Karnataka in which the Petitioner
may get a MBBS seat for the academic year 2018-
19 based on her NEET-2018 ranking; and
b) Call for the records of the counseling conducted by
the 6th Respondent on 01.09.2017 in respect of
admission to the 1st Year MBBS course for the
academic year 2017-18; and
c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
Writ, Order or Direction, directing the 1st and 2nd
Respondents to conduct a COD Inquiry into the
entire process of counseling conducted by the 6th
Respondent for admission to 1st MBBS Course in the
Sri Siddhartha Medical College for the academic
year 2017-18 and to take appropriate action based
on the report of the COD; and
e) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
Writ, order or Direction, directing the 5th
Respondent to conduct an inquiry into the
counseling and admissions done by the 6th
Respondent for the academic year 2017-18 for
MBBS course and withdraw the
recognition/approval granted to the Sri Siddhartha
Medical College, Tumakuru (constituent college of
the 6th Respondent); and
-
f) Direct the 6th and 7th Respondents to pay damages
of Rs.500,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores only) to
the Petitioner for illegally denying her the medical
seat for admission to 1st MBBS course for the
academic year 2017-18 in the counseling
conducted by the 6th Respondent on 01.09.2017."
2. We have heard Shri. Ajoy Kumar Patil, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri. Sudev Hegde,
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
respondents No.1 and 2, Shri. Madanan Pillai, learned
Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.3,
Shri. N. Khetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.5, Shri. Chandrakanth. R Goulay, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.6 and Shri. Prasanna Kumar,
learned counsel appearing for proposed respondent No.8.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing
for petitioner that the petitioner having secured All India
Rank 195911 in NEET-2017 participated in the counseling
conducted by respondent No.6 - College on 01.09.2017 for
admission to the MBBS Course for the academic year 2017-
18. The petitioner submitted all original academic certificates
-
to respondent No.6 and a DD dated 01.09.2017 of
Rs.15,65,750/- towards first year fees. Neither the
petitioner was given an acknowledgment nor an allotment
letter, but orally assured admission. On 05.09.2017, the
petitioner was informed by the Principal of the college that a
Bank Guarantee for the balance course fees was required.
The petitioner submitted a Bank Guarantee of
Rs.52,50,000/- on 08.09.2017, however, the College
refused to accept it, stating that all seats had been filled and
the admission list had already been sent to the Medical
Council Of India, with the last date of admission having
lapsed.
4. As per Annexure J, it can be seen that the
candidates from Sl.No.15 onwards have secured NEET-2017
ranking lower than that of the petitioner but have been
admitted to the MBBS Course ignoring the merit of the
petitioner. Respondent No.7, acknowledging the error
committed by respondent No.6 issued a letter dated
11.10.2017 (Annexure L) assuring the petitioner a free
medical seat from the management quota for the academic
-
year 2018-19 for the entire course of 4 1/2 years without
any fees.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that respondent No.6 deliberately withheld
admission orders and insisted on an unreasonable
requirement of furnishing a Bank Guarantee for the entire
course, which would not be possible to arrange within a
short duration. Despite the petitioner having complied with
this demand, admission was still denied and that respondent
No.6 committed fraud by selling medical seats in violation of
NEET-2017 merit ranking, contrary to the Apex Court's
judgments that merit alone should determine admission to
professional courses.
6. The petitioner appeared for NEET (UG) 2018 and
participated in the counseling conducted by Karnataka
Examinations Authority in August 2018 and was allotted a
seat in Basaveshwara Medical College as per admission
order dated 24.08.2018 and paid a sum of Rs.24,22,500/-
as 1st year MBBS fees to the said college. In compliance
with the assurance given in Annexure L, the petitioner
-
submitted a representation dated 18.06.2018 to
respondents No.6 and 7 requesting for earlier commitment.
The petitioner's father also contacted the chairman of
respondents No.6 and 7 and an email dated 07.08.2018 was
sent to the principal of respondent No.6 and requested to
fulfill the assurance given as per Annexure L. The petitioner
had also submitted a letter to respondent No.5 regarding the
refusal of respondents No.6 and 7 to comply with the
assurance. However, the respondents have refused to
either grant admission to the petitioner or abide by the
assurance given at Annexure L. It is contended that the
refusal on the part of respondent No.6 to grant admission to
the petitioner has resulted in mental agony and dire financial
loss to the petitioner for which she is liable to be fully
compensated.
7. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the
following citations:-
• National Medical Commission v. Mothukuru
Sriyah Koumudi and Ors. in Civil Appeal
No.3940 of 2020 dated 07.12.2020;
-
• S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh
and Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 47;
• Asha v. PT. B.D. Sharma University of Health
Sciences and Others reported in (2012) 7 SCC
389, and
• Chandigarh Administration and Another v.
Jasmine Kaur and Others reported in (2014) 10
SCC 521.
8. The learned counsel appearing for respondents
No.5 and 6, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner
has delayed in initiating the legal proceedings, filing this
Writ Petition only on 07.02.2018, six months after the
alleged denial of admission in September 2017. It is
contended that the University and the College have no
record of Annexure L allegedly signed by the Chancellor. The
said document which is believed to be fabricated solely for
the purpose of litigation, if it was indeed signed it may have
been under threat and coercion. The Chancellor was
seriously ill from February 2018 and passed away on
26.07.2018 and the writ petition filed is viewed as a
calculated attempt to misuse the situation and gain MBBS
admission without paying the required fees.
-
9. It is further submitted that the request for
allotment of a medical seat in any other College without
payment of fees in untenable and beyond the jurisdiction of
this Court. The Apex Court and this Court have consistently
held that no admissions are permissible after the statutory
cut-off date. The petitioner failed to secure admission within
that timeframe, and therefore the Institution cannot be held
at fault.
10. It is also submitted that as per Annexure B, it is
evident that students allotted seats through KEA were
required to submit a Bank Guarantee to secure admission.
The petitioner neither submitted the Bank Guarantee on
time nor provided a written undertaking like other
candidates. The Bank Guarantee furnished belatedly after
the final admission list had already been submitted to the
Medical Council of India and that the Institution cannot be
faulted with.
11. The petitioner attended the counseling with her
father and was duly informed this requirement. The failure
-
to respond with any written request or compliance indicates
a lack of interest in pursuing admission. The admission
process was transparent strictly in accordance with NEET
rankings and without any irregularities or collection of
additional fees and all students on the official allotment were
admitted based on merit and compliance.
12. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.6 has relied on the following
citations:-
• Shafna A.M v. The Chairman and Others in Writ
Petition (C)No.21650/2013 dated 26.09.2014;
• Shankar Gowda T.K v. Medical Counseling
Committee and Others in Writ Petition
No.7771/2022 dated 06.01.2017;
• Sanjat Suman Lenka v. Medical Council of
India and Others in Writ Petition
No.53797/2016 dated 06.01.2017;
• S. Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra
Pradesh and Others in Civil Appeal
No.1081/2017 dated 13.12.2019, and
• Islamic Academy of Education and Another v.
State of Karnataka and Others in Writ Petition
No.350/1993 dated 14.08.2003.
-
13. We have considered the contentions advanced.
The learned counsel for the respondents have been unable
to show us any provision in the prospectus, the Act or in any
other binding document providing that a Bank Guarantee in
respect of the fees for the entire duration of the course must
be provided to the Educational Institution concerned before
admission is to be provided. The only contention raised by
the sixth respondent is that the Apex Court in Islamic
Academy of Education's case (supra), had directed that
the course fee for the entire duration of the course cannot
be collected and in cases where the Educational Institution
apprehends that the student may discontinue the course half
way through, at best, what can be required is the production
of security or Bank Guarantee for the fees for the entire
course. However, in the instant case, there was no reason
for any such apprehension. The petitioner had reported for
admission and had paid the fees for the first year. On being
informed on 05.09.2017, that a Bank Guarantee for the
balance course fee was required, the petitioner had
submitted such Bank Guarantee on 08.09.2017. In the
-
absence of any provision, in the prospectus, the admission
notification, the statutes governing admissions or anywhere
else that the production of the Bank Guarantee for the entire
course period was required for admission, the action of
respondent No.6 in having denied to the petitioner and
having granted the seat to a less meritorious candidate was
per se arbitrary and illegal and cannot be excused under any
circumstances.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Krishna Sradha's
case (supra), has specifically held as under:-
"33.3. If a candidate is not selected during a particular
academic year due to the fault of the institutions/authorities
and in this process if the seats are filled up and the scope for
granting admission is lost due to eclipse of time schedule,
then under such circumstances, the candidate should not be
victimised for no fault of his/her and the court may consider
grant of appropriate compensation to offset the loss caused,
if any."
Answering the reference, the Hon'ble Apex Court
further held as under:-
"9. In light of the discussion/observations made
hereinabove, a meritorious candidate/student who has
been denied an admission in MBBS course illegally or
-
irrationally by the authorities for no fault of his/her and
who has approached the Court in time and so as to see
that such a meritorious candidate may not have to suffer
for no fault of his/her, we answer the reference as
under:
(i) That in a case where candidate/student has
approached the court at the earliest and without any delay and
that the question is with respect to the admission in medical
course all the efforts shall be made by the concerned court to
dispose of the proceedings by giving priority and at the
earliest.
(ii) Under exceptional circumstances, if the court
finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate and
the candidate has pursued his/her legal right expeditiously
without any delay and there is fault only on the part of the
authorities and/or there is apparent breach of rules and
regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant
of admission which would violate the right of equality and
equal treatment to the competing candidates and if the time
schedule prescribed -- 30th September, is over, to do the
complete justice, the Court under exceptional circumstances
and in rarest of rare cases direct the admission in the same
year by directing to increase the seats, however, it should not
be more than one or two seats and such admissions can be
ordered within reasonable time, i.e. within one month from
30th September, i.e., cut-off date and under no circumstances,
the Court shall order any Admission in the same year beyond
30th October. However, it is observed that such relief can be
granted only in exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of
rare cases. In case of such an eventuality, the Court may also
pass an order cancelling the admission given to a candidate
who is at the bottom of the merit list of the category who, if
the admission would have been given to a more meritorious
candidate who has been denied admission illegally, would not
have got the admission, if the Court deems it fit and proper,
however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to a student
whose admission is sought to be cancelled.
(iii) In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief
of admission can be granted to such a candidate in the very
academic year and wherever it finds that the action of the
authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of the rules and
regulations or the prospectus affecting the rights of the
students and that a candidate is found to be meritorious and
such candidate/student has approached the court at the
earliest and without any delay, the court can mould the relief
and direct the admission to be granted to such a candidate in
the next academic year by issuing appropriate directions by
directing to increase in the number of seats as may be
considered appropriate in the case and in case of such an
-
eventuality and if it is found that the management was at fault
and wrongly denied the admission to the meritorious
candidate, in that case, the Court may direct to reduce the
number of seats in the management quota of that year,
meaning thereby the student/students who was/were denied
admission illegally to be accommodated in the next academic
year out of the seats allotted in the management quota.
(iv) Grant of the compensation could be an
additional remedy but not a substitute for restitutional
remedies. Therefore, in an appropriate case the Court may
award the compensation to such a meritorious candidate who
for no fault of his/her has to lose one full academic year and
who could not be granted any relief of admission in the same
academic year.
(v) It is clarified that the aforesaid directions pertain
to admission in MBBS course only and we have not dealt with
postgraduate medical course."
15. In the instant case, the denial of admission was
admittedly in September 2017. However, on 11.10.2017,
the Chancellor of the University had made an assurance of a
free medical seat in the year 2018-19. The said letter is
countersigned by the Principal of the College and the
petitioner. If the said letter was obtained by force and
coercion as contended by respondent No.6, no complaint of
any nature has been submitted before any authorities
raising any such complaint either by the Institution or the
Principal. Though the Institution has contended that the
document is not genuine, no attempt has been made to
establish the said contention in accordance with law. We are
therefore, of the opinion that there was justification in the
-
student having waited to see whether the assurance held
out by the chancellor would be honored by the Institution.
We therefore cannot accept the contention that there is any
undue delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this
Court.
16. We notice that the instant case was one where
the writ petitioner was not at fault and it was only on
account of the illegal demand raised by respondent No.6
that she was unable to join a MBBS Course in the Academic
Year 2017-2018. She had paid the first year fees before the
prescribed date, she had also provided the Bank Guarantee
immediately thereafter, that is, on 08.09.2017. Hence, we
are of the opinion that this is a fit case, where compensation
should be awarded to the petitioner by respondent No.6-
College for the denial of admission for the year 2017-2018.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contended that the compensation to be granted should be
referable to the entire fee she had paid for the MBBS Course
undergone by her in the subsequent year, that is, 2018-19,
we are unable to accept the said contention.
-
17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, we fix the compensation at Rs.15,00,000/-. The
said amount shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment.
Ordered accordingly.
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand
dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
cp*
