Back
2014 Supreme(J&K) 337
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Janak Raj Kotwal, J.
Omer Bashir Itoo -Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. -Resopndent
OWP No. 572-2014 c-w OWP No. 575 -2014 & CMA No. 764-2014
Decided On : 16-09-2014
S.K. Shukla, Sunil Sethi, Veenu Gupta, M. A. Goni, Ajay Singh Kotwal, Pranav Kohli, P.N. Raina, J.A. Hamal, Sindhu Sharma.
The benefit of NRI quota was available to a candidate who was dependent upon an NRI for the purpose of education or for whose education an NRI was responsible, besides the NRI himself or his children. The Court also held that the petitioner, being the son of an NRI, was eligible for admission under the NRI quota and had been arbitrarily deprived of admission.
Headnote:
NRI Quota - Admission Criteria - Eligibility Criteria - NRI Seats - Wards of NRIs - Financial Support - Admission Notice - Admission Quota - Professional Education Institution - Admission Criteria - NRI Quota - Admission Criteria - Eligibility Criteria - NRI Seats - Wards of NRIs - Financial Support - Admission Notice - Admission Quota - Professional Education Institution
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a candidate seeking admission under the NRI quota, challenged the admission of other candidates under the NRI quota alleging that they did not meet the eligibility criteria. The College had initially granted admission to the respondents, but the petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that the respondents were not eligible under the NRI quota. The College later amended the eligibility criteria, and the petitioner filed another writ petition challenging the admission of another candidate under the amended criteria.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the respondents did not meet the eligibility criteria for admission under the NRI quota. The Court also found that the College had expanded the scope of the NRI quota beyond the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in P. A. Inamdar. The Court held that the benefit of NRI quota was available to a candidate who was dependent upon an NRI for the purpose of education or for whose education an NRI was responsible, besides the NRI himself or his children. The Court also found that the petitioner, being the son of an NRI, was eligible for admission under the NRI quota and had been arbitrarily deprived of admission.
Issues: The issues raised for consideration were whether the respondents were eligible for admission under the NRI quota, whether the College had expanded the scope of the NRI quota beyond the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court, and whether the petitioner had been arbitrarily deprived of admission.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the benefit of NRI quota was available to a candidate who was dependent upon an NRI for the purpose of education or for whose education an NRI was responsible, besides the NRI himself or his children. The Court also held that the petitioner, being the son of an NRI, was eligible for admission under the NRI quota and had been arbitrarily deprived of admission.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the admission of the respondents under the NRI quota, directed the College to grant admission to the petitioner under the NRI quota, and dismissed the writ petition in relation to the admission of another candidate. The Court also quashed the eligibility criteria amendment made by the College.
2. The College vide its No. Assoc/CET/M&D/205 dated 11.02.2014 issued Admission Notice calling applications from eligible candidates for admission to two seats under the NRI quota in MS/MD courses, one each in General Surgery and Anaesthesia, for Academic Session, 2014-2015. The College uploaded the application form alongwith brochure laying down the conditions for the `NRI/NRI Wards seats'. Last date of receipt of applications was fixed as 07.03.2014. Clause 4 of the brochure laid down the eligibility for admission under the NRI quota.
3. The Advertisement Notice/brochure also provided that selection under the NRI quota will be based on merit obtained in a Common Entrance Test to be conducted by Association of Private Unaided Medical and Dental Colleges of Jammu and Kashmir and that applicants will have to appear in and qualify the test with aggregate 50 per cent marks to be eligible for selection in order of merit.
4. Petitioner submitted his application form claiming to be the son of NRI father, Dr. Bashir Ahmad Itoo, working at the Royal Hospital/Muscat/Sultanate of Oman. Besides the petitioner, seven other candidates, including Shagun Mahajan and Jeevitesh Khoda (respondent Nos. 3 and 4 of OWP No. 572/2014) and Misbah Tabassum (respondent No. 4 of OWP No. 575/2014), submitted their application forms.
5. After the Common Entrance Test, the College published its result notifying the four candidates who succeeded in securing more than 50 per cent marks. Respondent, Shagun Mahajan, with 116 merit points, ranked 1st Jeevitesh Khoda, with 107 merit points, ranked 2nd and respondent, Misbah Tabassum, with 105 merit points, ranked 3rd. Petitioner, having obtained 102 merit points, ranked 4th. The College in the first instance vide Admission Notification No. ASCOMS/FS/NRI/501 dated 18.04.2014, while notifying the names of the four candidates having secured the qualifying marks, granted admission to respondents, Shagun Mahajan and Jeevitesh Khoda figuring at serial Nos. 1 and 2 and called them for joining the course. Shagun Mahajan was allotted MS, Surgery and Jeevitesh Khoda MD, Anaesthesia.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the grant of admission to respondents, Shagun Mahajan and Jeevitesh Khoda, petitioner filed OWP No. 572/2014 alleging mainly and inter alia that neither of them was eligible to seek consideration under NRI/ NRI Wards quota. He alleged that the father of respondent, Shagun Mahajan, is a Doctor in Medicines, presently posted as Professor and Head, Department of Medicines, Government Medical College, Jammu. He also contended that she has not annexed with her application form any order of a competent court appointing an NRI as her guardian. As regards respondent, Jeevitesh Khoda, petitioner alleged that he is son of the Ex-Director General of Police, presently the Chief Vigilance Commissioner of Jammu and Kashmir State and was neither an NRI nor a ward of an NRI. Petitioner also alleged that even Misbah Tabassum, figuring at rank position 3rd is neither daughter of any NRI nor any NRI is appointed her guardian. Petitioner thus contended that he was the only eligible candidate having qualified under the NRI quota but has been denied admission to illegally accommodate the private respondents.
7. When OWP No. 572/2014 came up before the Court on 25.04.2014, respondent, Jeevitesh Khoda, voluntarily appeared before the Court and stated that he was not interested in taking admission in the College and has moved application to the Director, Principal of the College that seat may be gi
