Rajasthan High Court Condones Fee Payment Delay for MBBS Admission Amid Personal Tragedy

Court Rules Against Unjust Enrichment; Allows Student Participation in Third Counseling Round

In a landmark judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Justice Sameer Jain ruled in favor of a young medical aspirant, Narendra Mahala, who faced the risk of losing his MBBS admission due to a delay in fee payment caused by compelling personal circumstances. The Court condoned the delay and directed the authorities to allow Mahala to participate in the third round of counseling, ensuring his educational pursuits are not hindered by procedural rigidity.

The case arose when Mahala, a fatherless student from a humble background, missed the deadline for depositing the remaining fee of Rs. 13.90 Lacs for his MBBS course after losing his great-grandmother, who was his guardian. Despite depositing an initial security fee of Rs. 5 Lacs, Mahala failed to complete the payment by the stipulated deadline due to public holidays and the personal bereavement.

The Rajasthan High Court emphasized the need for judicial bodies to protect the aspirations of young students against stringent procedural requirements when no substantial loss is demonstrated. The judgment criticized the State's role as a compulsive litigant, imposing unreasonable conditions such as short deadlines for fee payment.

Justice Jain highlighted the doctrine of unjust enrichment, noting that the forfeiture of Mahala's security deposit without a valid justification constitutes unlawful enrichment by the Counseling Board and the private medical college involved. The Court instructed that Mahala's security deposit should be adjusted against his fees if he is allotted a college in the third counseling round.

Acknowledging the welfare state's role under the Constitution, the Court condemned the extraction of hefty fees from students without considering their backgrounds and personal circumstances. The judgment pointed to the lack of oversight by financial authorities regarding unjust enrichment through forfeited security deposits.

The decision underscores the Court's commitment to safeguarding the future of bona fide aspirants who work diligently to secure their educational goals. The judgment, while allowing Mahala's petition, clarifies that it should not be treated as a precedent and calls for scrutiny by relevant authorities to prevent similar occurrences.

Bottom Line:

Delay in depositing fees for MBBS admission due to compelling personal circumstances, like the demise of a guardian, and procedural irregularities, can be condoned in the interest of justice, equity, and to safeguard the future of bona fide aspirants.

Statutory provision(s): Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment, Constitutional Law - Welfare State, Education Law - Medical Admission

Narendra Mahala v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2791920