The Karnataka High Court on August 20 directed the Sri Siddhartha Academy of Higher Education, a private deemed-to-be-university where Home Minister G Parameshwara is the chancellor, to pay Rs 15 lakh to a student it failed to give an MBBS seat despite her fulfilling the requirements.
The counsel for Sanjana, the student, stated that she had participated in the institute’s counseling process after securing the rank of 1,95,911 in NEET 2017. The counsel stated that she had been orally assured of admission and had paid a demand draft of Rs 15,65,750 towards first-year fees. A bank guarantee of Rs 52,50,000 was also submitted after the student was informed that it was required, but after this, she was refused admission on account of all seats supposedly having been filled and the list of students sent to the Medical Council of India.
After students ranked lower than her in NEET had secured admission, Sanjana received a letter from the institute in Tumakuru stating that she would be given a seat from the management quota. However, this was not fulfilled, and she had to seek admission in another institute.
The institute’s counsel questioned why the legal proceedings were initiated in February 2018, six months after the denial of admission. The veracity of the letter was called into question as the counsel claimed there was no record of such a document signed by the then chancellor, who passed away in July 2018 and had previously been ill. It was argued that the letter might be fabricated or the signature obtained through coercion. It was also stated that there had been a delay in submitting the bank guarantee.
A division bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Dr K Manmadha Rao stated that there were no legal provisions or binding documents mandating a bank guarantee that amounted to the fees for the course.
The bench did not accept the contention that the letter was forged.
“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… 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,” the bench said.
Story continues below this ad
Granting a compensation of Rs 15 lakh, the bench stated, “The instant case was one where the writ petitioner was not at fault …..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.”
