New Delhi: With the implementation of NEET becoming the qualifying criterion for MBBS admissions, students belonging to the NRI quota and admitted to various unaided private medical institutions in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh for the current academic year have redressed the Supreme Court in an appeal for justice. The students have filed an SLP asking whether NEET regulations are applicable on admissions in the NRI quota seats in unaided institutions. The matter is to be heard on January 30th, by a bench headed by Justice Deepak Mishra.
These NRI quota students, who sought admission into various private unaided medical colleges in the two states for the academic year 2016-17, on the basis of their intermediate(10+2) marks and requisite merit in the NRI category, were later denied admission. They were asked to undergo national eligibility-cum-entrance test (NEET) for admission.
Their future became at stake as the Telengana and Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the colleges to consider the admissions for MBBS course, only when they clear NEET.
The SC has agreed to look into their grievance, however, it has asked their counsel, Amit Kumar,to provide a copy of their petition to the Medical Council of the concerned states.
The students have challenged the order passed in September 2016 by the High Court, dismissing their plea for a direction to unaided private colleges in the states to give them admission in the NRI quota.
The plea of the student petitioners contended that “applying NEET regulations on admissions to NRI quota seats in unaided private medical colleges, is contrary to the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of Seven Hon’ble Judges of this Hon’ble Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2005)…
“The impugned order is sustainable in light of observations made by the Constitution Bench that had permitted private entities to admit students in NRI quota by fulfilling two requirements, i.e., person should be bona-fide NRI and in that said category inter-se merit should not be compromised it further added.
The High Court on September 29 had in a directive asked the colleges to admit the students subject to the condition that they had obtained at least 50 per cent of marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the intermediate (10+2) qualifying examination and that they be admitted as per their rank in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test
In compliance to the apex court’s directive, the Central government brought the NEET regulation through an ordinance on May 24, 2016, by amending the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
The amended Section 10D of the Act, made it implicitly clear that a uniform entrance examination was required to be given to determine the merit in different categories, cancelling the minimum percentile marks criteria, incorporated earlier.
The NRI student petition argues that since the ‘order of discharge of the petitioners on the basis of NEET regulation by the university is legally misconceived as on the date of admission,’ Section 10D of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956, continues to govern the field and therefore, the admissions cannot be invalidated /cancelled on the grounds that the candidates have not secured qualifying marks in NEET as reported by Live Law.in.
Through the SLP, the students have raised the following eight questions of law for consideration by the Honorable Court:
1.Whether the NEET Regulations are applicable on admissions to NRI quota seats in Unaided Private Medical College?
2. Whether applying NEET Regulations on admissions to NRI quota seats in Unaided Private Medical College is contrary to the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of Seven Hon’ble Judges of this Hon’ble Court in the case of A. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537 at Para 131?
3.Whether the impugned order is sustainable in light of observations made by the Constitution Bench of Seven Hon’ble Judges of this Hon’ble Court in the case of A. Inamdar (supra) that permitted the private entities to admit students in NRI Quota by fulfilling the two requirements, i.e. person should be bona-fide NRI and in that said category inter-se merit should not be compromised?
4.Whether the Hon’ble High Court was correct in relying upon the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 11.05.2016 in the case of Vigyan Bharti Trust Vs. UOI?
5.Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred in ignoring that even Section 10D of the IMC Act, 1956, introduced by way of Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2016 which governed the field of medical admissions in the country, for all other categories for session 2016-2017, provided only for a competitive entrance examination (NEET) to determine inter-se merit of the candidates and nowhere provided for securing of any minimum percentile marks in that examination?
6.Whether the Hon’ble High Court was correct in relying upon a clause in Information Brochure published by CBSE to say that securing minimum percentile marks were mandatory for admission to NRI quota seats of private unaided medical colleges without there being any statutory backing of such condition and the same being contrary to law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar (supra)?
7.Whether Hon’ble High Court was correct in granting admission to the Petitioners by way of in interim order and then cancelling their admission subsequently by the impugned order ignoring that the students/petitioners have continued their studies for so long and now their entire year would be wasted?
8. Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred in not considering that till the academic session 2015-2016 the Medical Council of India had accepted admissions in NRI quota by private unaided medical colleges without any competitive entrance examinations and only on the basis of their inter-se merit drawn on the basis on intermediate (10+2) marks?