Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Medical Admission - NRI Quota Not Compulsory; Private Colleges Have Discretion To Abolish It: SC [Read Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
9 Oct 2020 12:30 PM GMT
Medical Admission - NRI Quota Not Compulsory; Private Colleges Have Discretion To Abolish It: SC [Read Judgment]
x

The Supreme Court has held that it is not compulsory for the private medical colleges to provide for 15% NRI quota.Private colleges and institutions which offer such professional and technical courses can decide whether, and to what extent, they wish to offer NRI or management quotas, subject to limits set by judicial precedents, enacted law or subordinate legislation.In this case, NEET...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court has held that it is not compulsory for the private medical colleges to provide for 15% NRI quota.

Private colleges and institutions which offer such professional and technical courses can decide whether, and to what extent, they wish to offer NRI or management quotas, subject to limits set by judicial precedents, enacted law or subordinate legislation.

In this case, NEET PG Medical & Dental Admission/Counseling Board issued a notice stating their decision to do away with the NRI quota. The notice further stated that the candidates who have applied for allotment on NRI seats will accordingly be considered based on their remaining eligibility criteria. Two candidates challenged this decision before the High Court of Rajasthan.  Single Judge of the High Court, relying upon the seven judges' bench judgment of the SC in P.A. Inamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra ,held that after having appeared in the NEET PG examination and qualifying it, and after having approached the colleges (including MGMC) for the NRI seats, the appellants could not be deprived of their choice of admission in NRI seats by the respondents through the process of deletion of the NRI quota seats altogether. The single judge also directed that the writ petitioners before the High Court should be given admission forthwith. 

The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the Single Bench direction. The Division Bench held that the private institution has the choice of earmarking an NRI quota or not doing so, and proceeding to fill the management quota by considering NRI students as part of the general management seats quota. It agreed with the contention that private educational institutions including medical colleges, are not obliged to set apart such a quota, and that the observations in Inamdar only enable the colleges or universities to avail of that quota to the extent of 15%.

Challenging the Division Bench order, some candidates approached the SC.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat observed that a provision for 15% NRI quota was not compulsory; it was only potential, as per Inamdar. It said:

The four crucial elements in the NRI quota, per Inamdar are: one, the discretion of the management (whether to have the quota or not); two, the limit (15%); three, that seats should be available for genuine and bona fide NRI students, and lastly that the quota was to be filled based on merit.

 The court agreed with the division bench of the High Court that the single judge could not have directed admission of the candidates before him. It observed:

Given that the decision in TMA Pai Foundation was by a larger bench of 11 judges, and PA Inamdar was a judgment delivered by seven judges, this court is clear that precedentially, those and other previous judgements of this court, only declared that as a part of the private colleges' autonomous decision making, they could set apart some percentage of seats for admission to students of their choice. The Inamdar decision is important, inasmuch as it declared that the set apart (or quota, so to say) for NRIs should be about 15% of the overall intake. Other decisions of this court19 have underlined the paramountcy of the NEET requirement as a common standard regulating medical courses' admissions in India, irrespective whether the courses are offered in publicly owned, state owned or privately owned or managed institutions. A combined effect of the provisions of the Medical Council of India Act and regulations with respect to admissions (which have been progressively amended in respect of eligibility for admission to courses, procedure for admission, etc.) and the decisions of this court, is that private colleges and institutions which offer such professional and technical courses, have some elbow room: they can decide whether, and to what extent, they wish to offer NRI or management quotas (the limits of which are again defined by either judicial precedents, enacted law or subordinate legislation). In these circumstances, it is held that the respondent management (of MGMC) possessed the discretion to indicate whether, and to what extent, NRI reservations could be provided. As is evident, there is nothing in PA Inamdar to say that a 15% NRI quota is an unqualified and unalterable part of the admission process in post graduate medical courses. It was, and remains within the discretionary authority of the management of private medical colleges, within their internal policy making domain.

While allowing appeal, the bench further observed

It is evident that the NRI quota is neither sacrosanct, not inviolable in terms of existence in any given year, or its extent. However, if a medical college or institution or, for that matter, the state regulating authority, such as the board in the present case, decide to do away with it, reasonable notice of such a decision should be given to enable those aspiring to such seats to choose elsewhere, having regard to the prevailing conditions.

Taking note of the special circumstances in this case, the bench directed that a special counselling session should be carried out by the board, confined or restricted to the seats in respect of which admissions were made pursuant to the single judge's directions.

Case name: NILAY GUPTA vs. CHAIRMAN NEET PG MEDICAL AND DENTAL ADMISSION/COUNSELLING BOARD 2020 
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3345/2020 
Coram: Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat 


Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Read Judgment







Next Story
Share it