Education/Educational Institutions: Medical admissions – NEET-UG in unaided private medical colleges in the State of Kerala – Grant of time for fresh registration in the Non-resident Indian quota – Reservation of seats for the NRI quota in private medical colleges in the State of Kerala, if could be transferred to the unreserved category – On facts, out of the 358 NRI seats in the unaided private medical colleges in the State of Kerala, 300 seats were filled up before the second allotment – About 57 seats in the NRI quota vacant – Writ petition filed seeking direction to grant time for fresh registration in the NRI quota seats before the commencement of the mop-up counselling – Direction by the Single Judge of the High Court to the Commissioner for Entrance Examination-CEE to consider the representation filed by the respondent association – On consideration thereof, the CEE held that no further extension of time could be provided since candidates had already been given sufficient time to apply for the NRI quota – Thereafter, few more students exercised their options and 47 NRI quota seats became vacant – Transfer of said 47 vacant NRI seats in private medical institutions by CEE to the general State quota for the mop up round – Subsequently, dismissal of writ petition by the Single Judge – Writ appeal there against also dismissed – Appeal before this Court by the candidates, who qualified NEET exam and had applied under the NRI category, but were not parties before the High Court – Held: Phrase ‘special reservation’ cannot be read to include the NRI quota when the prospectus does not stipulate the NRI quota as a category of reservation under Clause 4 – Even if it is accepted that the NRI quota is a special reservation, the unoccupied seats can only be transferred to the mandatory quotaSEBC and EWS reservation seats – However, the CEE transferred the unoccupied NRI quota seats to State merit – Reasoning of the High Court that the respondent could transfer the unoccupied NRI quota seats to State merit by virtue of clause 5.5.4 is erroneous – However, since the appellants have not challenged the provisions of the Information Bulletin which stipulate that the vacant NRI seats shall be converted to unreserved seats during the mop-up round, the legality of such a conversion of seats cannot be decided – Also, the appellants have not contended that the rejection of the representation seeking extension of time to apply for the NRI quota seats was malafide or arbitrary – In view thereof, the matter is dismissed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Clause 4.1.4 of the Prospectus defines ‘Special Reservation’ as seats reserved for ‘specific categories, for certain specific courses’. Clause 5.2 provides a list of special category reservations which include Ex-servicemen Quota, dependent of Defence personnel killed/missing/disabled in action, serving Defence Personnel, CAPF, and Jewish quota. Furthermore, quotas specific to courses are also termed ‘special reservations’. Clause 4.1.5 which stipulates the breakup of reservation makes it evident that only vertical reservation as mandated by Article 15, that is for the socially and educationally backward classes and economically weaker section of the unreserved category are brought within the phrase ‘mandatory reservation’. Clause 5.5.4 is broadly worded. Though the reservation for persons with disabilities does not find a place in Clause 5.2 of the proposal, Clause 5.5.2 states that, unavailed seats of special reservation ‘including PwD’ would be transferred to mandatory reservation quota. [Para 9][101-E-G; 102-A]
1.2 The Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court held that CEE can transfer the unavailed seats of the NRI quota to the State merit quota under Clause 5.5.4. The High Court held that Clause 5.5.4 was broadly worded to include the NRI quota within the meaning of ‘special reservation’. Clause 2.2 states that the categorization of seats in self-financing colleges run by institutions shall be notified separately. It also stipulates that the NRI seats in self-financing medical colleges shall be allotted by common counselling. Clauses 5.7 and 7.6(1) provide information on the documents required to be submitted under the NRI quota. The phrase ‘special reservation’ cannot be read to include the NRI quota when the prospectus does not stipulate the NRI quota as a category of reservation under Clause 4. Moreover, Clause 2.2 states that the categorization of seats in self-financing colleges shall be notified separately. Even if the argument that the NRI quota is a special reservation is accepted, the unoccupied seats can only be transferred to the mandatory quota (i.e. SEBC and EWS reservation seats). However, in the present matter, the CEE has transferred the unoccupied NRI quota seats to State merit. Therefore, the reasoning of the High Court that the Respondent could transfer the unoccupied NRI quota seats to state merit by virtue of Clause 5.5.4 is erroneous. [Para 10][102-B-F]
1.3 The names of only 7 of the 37 Appellants find place in the NRI category list which was published by CEE on 31 January 2022. The Respondent has submitted that of the 7 Appellants whose names find place in the NRI category list, only 4 of them had registered options for NRI seats. However, candidates who had received a higher rank than them were allotted those seats. Further, it was also submitted by the Respondent that none of the 7 candidates registered their options for the 45 NRI seats that were later converted to unreserved seats. The Respondent submits that only because none of the 7 candidates registered their options concerning NRI seats, were the seats converted to unreserved seats to prevent the seats from lying vacant. [Para 18][108-E-G]
1.4 Since the Appellants have not challenged the provisions of the Information Bulletin which stipulate that the vacant NRI seats shall be converted to unreserved seats during the mop-up round, present Court cannot decide on the legality of such a conversion of seats. The 4 Appellants who had registered their options for NRI seats had not exercised their options with respect to any of the vacant 45 NRI seats. The Respondents merely complied with the provisions of the Information Bulletin which is not in challenge in the present proceedings. The Respondent association had only sought an extension of time for submission of documents by candidates seeking to apply for the NRI quota seats. The representation was rejected by CEE since sufficient time and extension had been given for the submission of the documents. The Appellants have not contended that the rejection of the representation was malafide or arbitrary. [Para 19][108-GH; 109-A-B]
Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of MP (2009) 7 SCC 751 : [2009] 9 SCR 845; TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 : [2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 587; PA Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 603; RD Gardi Medical College v. State of MP (2010)
10 SCC 225 : [2010] 12 SCR 692; TMA Pai
Foundation v. State of Karnataka (1995) 5 SCC 220 : [1995] 2 Suppl. SCR 608; Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 707 : [2012] 2 SCR 685; TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (1994) 4 SCC 728; AP(P)
Engineering College Management Association v. Government of AP (2000) 10 SCC 565 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.