it is not mandatory for a PG medical course aspirant to have blood relationship with an NRI for taking benefit of NRI quota.
JAIPUR: In a major relief to MBBS students seeking admission in Post Graduate (PG) medical courses on 15% Non-resident Indian (NRI) quota, the Rajasthan High Court has held that admission in NRI quota for PG medical and dental courses would be governed by the prevalent rule. This, however, the court implied would be subject to the supreme court directions and if the apex court gives any directions in this regard, then that would be applicable.
The order came in response to a case filed by a private university of medical sciences and technology Jaipur against the State of Rajasthan, office of the chairman, NEET PG medical and Dental Admission / Counselling Board -2018
After hearing the case, the double bench of Justice Banwari Lal Sharma and MN Bhandari of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur bench ordered, “Admission in NRI quota for PG medical and dental courses would be governed by the prevalent rule.”
The bench further ordered, “If any direction is given by the Apex Court in regard to such admission even for the university created by the state legislation, then it would be applicable to it.”
Breaking the meaning of the court decision, Chairman of the medical university, Dr ML Swarankar informed TOI, “The court’s judgement can be seen as a major relief for students as it is not mandatory for a PG medical course aspirant to have blood relationship with an NRI for taking benefit of NRI quota.”
“The prevalent rule was issued by the medical education department on August 24, 2011, stating that an NRI who undertakes to sponsor a student for admission as guardian, need not be a blood relation, hence the ‘ward’ in case of NRI admission means a candidate whose guardian is a bonafide NRI. ‘Ward’ does not mean related by blood.” added Swarankar.
Prior to this, the judgement of a deemed universities in Karnataka versus Union of India quoted, “Submission of learned senior counsel is that the word ‘Ward’ used in the said paragraph should be understood in a broader compass and be applied in a wider spectrum.”
Earlier, the order passed in the SB Civil writ petition on May 10, 2018, by the single judge had disposed of the petition. The petition was filed by a student. The court disposed of the plea while observing the principles laid down by the Apex court in writ petition titled as consortium of deemed universities in Karnataka versus Union of India, be applicable to all admissions including PG (medicine).
However, at the current juncture, the division bench of high court has set aside the order passed on May 2018. The division bench ordered, “We find that litigation before the Apex Court is still pending in the case of consortium of deemed universities in Karnataka. The last para of the interim order is quoted hereunder for ready reference: It needs no special emphasis to state that the present order is only applicable to the deemed universities and no other category of institution.”
The Supreme Court had passed interim order, “As presently advised, the principles set out in Anshul Tomar (supra), shall be followed this year for the purpose of filling up of 15% NRI quota. Be it clarified, the NRI quota shall include overseas citizens of India (OCI) and persons of Indian origin (PIO).”
In the Anshul Tomar case, the candidates’ admission was cancelled on the ground that they were not entitled to be admitted under the Non-resident Indian (NRI) quota.
For the above case, the court held, “the petitioners have taken admission in the respondent-College in respect of 15% NRI quota on the foundation that they have been sponsored by the NRI. It is contended that the College was satisfied with regard to the status of NRI sponsorship of the students/candidates but the Committee took up the matter and cancelled the admission on the ground that they are neither the children of NRIs nor the wards. It is averred in the petition that the petitioners come within the concept of students sponsored by NRIs and meet the requirement in that regard and hence, the finding of the Committee is totally illegal, unjust and improper.”