Supreme Court Criticises HC For Refusing BAMS Degree To Student After Allowing Him To Complete Course Through Interim Orders

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 18) provided relief to a BAMS (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) student to whom degree was denied on the ground that he did not meet the eligibility criteria of having studied English in 10+2 class at the time of the admission to the Course.

The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice A.G. Masih ordered the issuance of the BAMS course degree to the student, noting that the initial deficiency of failing to study English as a subject in his higher secondary examination at the time of admission was later rectified when he successfully cleared the English test subsequently, as required by the college.

“The appellant shall be permitted to complete his course and internship in Shaskiya Swasashi Dhanwantari Ayurvedic Medical College, Ujjain, and the authorities concerned shall thereafter issue him his B.A.M.S. Degree in accordance with due procedure.”, the Court ordered.

The appellant Zaid Sheikh, joined the BAMS course in 2008. However, after his first year, the college was de-recognized. The students of that college were shifted to another college in July 2012. However, the appellant was not given this benefit on the ground that he was actually ineligible to be admitted to B.A.M.S. Degree Course as he had not taken and passed 'English' as a subject in his 10+2 examination.

He then filed a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court passed an interim order in December 2012 permitting him to continue his course.  Meanwhile, the appellant re-appeared in the 12th exam and passed with English as a subject.

Though he completed his BAMS course on the protection of the interim order, the High Court ultimately dismissed his petition, on the ground that his initial admission did not meet the eligibility criteria.

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for disregarding the appellant's six years of effort, undertaken in compliance with its interim order, to complete his course and fulfil part of his mandatory internship program.

The judgment authored by Justice Kumar invoked the principle of "actus curiae neminem gravabit" (an act of the court shall prejudice no one). 

"Though, the interim order granted by the High Court on 30.10.2012 recorded that the appellant would not be entitled to claim equities, the fact that he was permitted to complete the entire course and had also finished part of his mandatory internship ought not to have been brushed aside lightly. Be it noted that the appellant had put in nearly 6 years by then in pursuing B.A.M.S. Degree Course and the end result of the High Court's order was to decimate his entire labour of all those years. An act of the Court should, ordinarily, not prejudice anyone (Actus curiae neminem gravabit). This is a fundamental principle of justice, but it was disregarded by the High Court while considering the case of the appellant."

“Be it noted that the appellant had put in nearly 6 years by then in pursuing B.A.M.S. Degree Course and the end result of the High Court's order was to decimate his entire labour of all those years. An act of the Court should, ordinarily, not prejudice anyone (Actus curiae neminem gravabit). This is a fundamental principle of justice, but it was disregarded by the High Court while considering the case of the appellant. In any event, the appellant's so-called ineligibility, which was not essential in the context of the course that he had taken, was cured by him thereafter owing to the liberty given by the College itself while provisionally admitting him to the course in September, 2012. Given these peculiar facts, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case for interference so that the appellant is not left out in the cold after completing almost the entire course.”, the Court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal.

Case Title: Zaid Sheikh Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others

Citation :  2025 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.C. Patne, Adv. Mr. Raghav Pandey, Adv. Ms. Sharmistha Choudhary, Adv. Mrs. Rekha Pandey, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Chaitanya, Adv. Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Adv.