Dr.Gowri Raj vs State Of Kerala on 30 May, 2012

[Cites 12, Cited by 2]

Kerala High Court

Dr.Gowri Raj vs State Of Kerala on 30 May, 2012

The third respondent, namely the Kerala Private Medical College Management Association (hereinafter referred to as the Association) has respondents 4 to 6 and respondent No.8 colleges as its constituent members. Ext.P1 is the prospectus issued by it for the purpose of carrying out admissions to the management seats in its colleges and an All India Entrance Test was held pursuant to the same. The test was originally scheduled to be held on 15.4.2012. It was adjourned and it was finally held on 26.5.2012. The examination was in fact conducted by the Kerala University of Health Sciences under the supervision of the second respondent, namely the Admissions Supervisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee). Petitioner, who participated in the examination secured the fourth rank. According to petitioner, as WP(C).NO.14708/12K 2 no details about the counseling were announced, even though she contacted the Association and member colleges, they were not willing to divulge any details about the counseling or admission procedure. Petitioner filed Ext.P2 complaint before the Committee. It is her further case that on coming to know that options could be submitted online, at about 6 PM on 30.5.2012, petitioner attempted to log in to the web site. There was a technical error, she contends. She contacted the web site maintenance staff of the Association and according to her, she was told to submit her options via. E. Mail. She submitted Ext.P5 options. The Association allotted the petitioner to the fourth respondent college on 31.5.2012 for DCH (Diploma in Child Health), a two year PG Diploma Course vide Ext.P6.

2. As per Ext.P5, the options submitted by the petitioner are as follows:

"1. MD General Medicine in Sri Gokulam Medical College Trust & Research Foundation, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. MD Paediatrics in Sri Gokulam Medical College Trust & Research Foundation, WP(C).NO.14708/12K 3 Thiruvananthapuram.

3. MD General Medicine in MES Medical College, Perinthalmanna.

4. MD Paediatrics in MES Medical College, Perinthalmanna.

5. MD Radiodiagnosis in Dr. Somervel Memorial CSI Hospital & Medical College.

6. MD Paediatrics in Dr. Somervel Memorial CSI Hospital & Medical College.

7. MD Obstetrics & Gynaecology in Sri Gokulam medical College Trust & Research Foundation, Thiruvananthapuram.

8. DCH in Sri Gokulam Medical College Trust & Research Foundation, Thiruvananthapuram.

9. DMRD Sri Gokulam Medical College Trust & Research Foundation, Thiruvananthapuram."

3. Originally, the Writ Petition was filed on 22.6.2012 and it came up before the Court on 25.6.2012 on which day this Court admitted the matter and issued notice. The prayers in the Writ Petition were as follows:

"i. Declare that the counseling, allotment and admission to the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma WP(C).NO.14708/12K 4 Courses, 2012 in Management and NRI seats of the member medical colleges of the 3rd respondent is vitiated by unfairness and non transparency and declare the same as invalid to the extent to which meritorious candidates were denied admission in the deserving seats in the order of merit.

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to conduct fresh counseling, allotment and admission based on Exhibit P2 Rank List to the Management seats in Post-Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses, 2012 in the member medical colleges of the 3rd respondent under the effective supervision of 2nd respondent consequent to relief No.i.

Or in the alternative iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding respondents 3 to 6 to admit petitioner based on the options made by petitioner in Exhibit P5 in accordance with the order of merit in Exhibit P2."

We had passed an order dated 02.7.2012. It reads as follows:

"There will be a direction to the third respondent to furnish to this Court the name and WP(C).NO.14708/12K 5 address of the candidates who were admitted to the management quota (excluding the NRI seats for the time being) in the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses, 2012 in the respondents 4, 5, 6 and 8 Colleges along with their respective rank in the entrance test, their respective roll numbers, marks and the course and college to which they were admitted." Thereafter, we had further passed an order dated 23.7.2012 which reads as follows:

"We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We were also taken through Ext.R3(a) produced by the third respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that in many of the cases it would appear that the candidates who secured admission under the Management Quota did not even write examination. He also pointed out that number of candidates have been admitted under the NRI Quota, in fact, exceeding the limit placed by the Apex Court. Apart from these arguments, it is submitted that there is no mention about the admission to the NRIs in the prospectus. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that relevant materials are necessary. Accordingly, we direct the third respondent to furnish WP(C).NO.14708/12K 6 to the court name and address of the candidates who were admitted in the NRI seats in the Post Graduate Degree Course and Diploma Course 2012 in the respondents 4,5,6 and 8 Colleges along with their respective rank in the entrance test, and the colleges to which they were admitted. This information will be submitted by 27/7/2012."

It is thereafter that we permitted the petitioner to amend the Writ Petition by order dated 01.8.2012. Pursuant to the amendment, the petitioner has added the following relief:

"iv. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any another writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P10 and quash the same."

Certain facts and new grounds were introduced by the amendment.

4. Parties have filed Counter Affidavits, Additional Counter Affidavits, Reply Affidavits and Additional Reply Affidavits.

5. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 5, the sixth respondent, the seventh respondent, the eleventh respondent, WP(C).NO.14708/12K 7 besides the learned Government Pleader.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the denial of admission to the petitioner which she was entitled to based on the higher options, is clearly illegal. Petitioner secured the fourth rank. As per her options, she had sought for admission to MD in General Medicine and MD in Paediatrics in the fourth respondent college as her first and second options. Then, she had sought for admission to MD in General Medicine and MD in Paediatrics in the fifth respondent College. Her fifth and sixth choice were MD in Radio-Diagnosis and MD in Paediatrics in the sixth respondent college. She had further opted for MD Obstetrics and Gynecology in the fourth respondent college. The option which was allowed, however, was her eighth choice in the fourth respondent college, namely DCH. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the process adopted by the third respondent was unfair and not transparent. The entire admissions to the NRIs quota are arbitrary. He complains that merit has been sacrificed. Expatiating his first point, he would submit that the WP(C).NO.14708/12K 8 details of the seats and the specialties were not given in the prospectus. The Courses were not notified. Sending of the options were difficult. Prior approval of the Admissions Supervisory Committee was not obtained. There was no counseling done. He refers to the Judgment of this Court in Fathima Haneena P. v. State of Kerala & Others (2008 (3) KHC 544).

7. Next, he would point out that there is no mention about any reservation for NRIs in Ext.P1 prospectus. He pointed out that the Apex Court in paragraph 131 of its Judgment in P.A.Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra ((2005) 6 SCC 537) only permitted the institutions to make admissions from genuine NRIs, and that too in respect of their children or wards. For doing so, it is his contention that provision must be made in the prospectus. There was none in Ext.P1. He would point out that Ext.R3(a) would show that twentyseven candidates were allotted by the third respondent Association and of whom, twenty joined, whereas Ext.R3(b) would show that thirtyone candidates were admitted. Out of the same, he points out, eleven candidates were given spot admission. Still WP(C).NO.14708/12K 9 further, he complains that four did not even take the examination. Since there were sixtytwo seats in the management quota, he points out that the details of the remaining thirtyone are not known. He would point out that presently the petitioner is being denied admission on the basis that the seats have been ear-marked for the NRIs. He would submit that the party respondents have ear- marked the most important Courses, like MD in General Medicine, MD in Paediatrics and MD in Radio-Diagnosis for the NRIs. He relied on the MCI Regulations. According to him, the claimants under the NRI quota, even if it is permissible, must indeed take the entrance examination. In this regard, he drew our attention to the following decisions:

1) Dr. Preethi Srivasthava & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors.

((1999) 7 SCC 120).

2) Harish Verma & Ors. v. Ajay Srivastava & Anr.

((2003) 8 SCC 69).

3) T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.((2002) 8 SCC 481).

He would submit that the Apex Court has declared that admission must be on the basis of inter se academic merit. He also invited WP(C).NO.14708/12K 10 our attention to the pleadings of the Medical Council of India, to contend that academic merit must be looked into for the purpose of admission to the Post Graduate Courses. As far as the seventh respondent is concerned, who has been admitted to the fourth respondent college for the Course in MD Paediatrics, he would contend that the seventh respondent cannot claim as a NRI. It is pointed out that the father of the seventh respondent is a contractor in Thiruvananthapuram and mother, a Government servant. He would point out that in Ext.P12 which is a letter written by the Dean of the college, the seventh respondent is included as a candidate coming under the management quota. He would submit that going by the decision of the Apex Court in Inamdar's case, the benefit of NRI quota can be availed of only by a child or ward of the NRI and the seventh respondent cannot claim as a NRI. He would further point out that in so far as the students of both MD in Paediatrics and DCH are virtually taught the same syllabus for the first few months, if the petitioner is given admission to MD (paediatrics) in place of the seventh respondent and the seventh WP(C).NO.14708/12K 11 respondent is allowed to continue in the DCH Course, there would be no dislocation as such. He relied on the decision in Asha v. PT. BD. Sharma University of Health Science & Ors. ((2012) 7 SCC

389) for the proposition that even if the cut off date for admission, namely 31.5.2012 has been crossed, in the facts of this case, in view of the clear illegality, the petitioner may be granted relief.

8. Learned counsel for respondents 3 and 5 would submit that the constituent colleges have entered into a seat sharing agreement with the Government. Fifty per cent of the seats are ear- marked for allottees from the Government. The examination which was held related to the management seats and the Association was not concerned about the NRI seats. It so happened that the Association which had made arrangements for the conduct of the examination well in advance was, however, faced with the interference by the Committee which admittedly through the University could hold the examination only on 26.5.2012. The Committee communicated its approval only on 29.5.2012 and it permitted the Association to go ahead. There WP(C).NO.14708/12K 12 were only two days left. On the 30th itself, the Association notified the matter on its web site. Options were called for. Actually, the petitioner had originally sought only one option (DCH). Subsequently, however, on the basis of request, the management fairly permitted options to be exercised not only by the petitioner, but also by other candidates. It is accordingly that Ext.P5 options were made.

9. As far as the first five options of the petitioner were concerned, it is submitted that all the options were in respect of Courses which were reserved by the respective colleges for NRIs. He submits that as far as admissions to the NRI quota are concerned, they are made by the respective colleges, and the Association has nothing to do with it. Since the Association was informed about the Courses being reserved for NRIs, the first option which could be given to the petitioner, was given to the petitioner. He further submits that as far as appropriation of the Courses to the NRIs being done, there is no law or binding direction and, therefore, it is entirely at the discretion of the WP(C).NO.14708/12K 13 concerned colleges to ear-mark the Courses for the NRIs. He further invited our attention to Ext.P8 complaint filed by the petitioner before the Supervisory Committee. He pointed out that the contentions which have been raised in the Writ Petition have not been raised before the Committee and the complaint of the petitioner was that the seats were not displayed as notified by the DME. He would submit that as far as the third respondent Association is concerned, the allotments were made in respect of management seats, which would not include the NRI seats. He would further submit that as far as the question of taking prior approval of the Committee is concerned, the time factor may be kept in mind. The examinations were conducted under the auspices of the Committee. The Committee declared the results. Thereafter, he would also point out that there was a communication dated 29.5.2012 from the Committee to go ahead with the admissions and to report the matter before the Committee. In the circumstances, he would submit that the said communication would be sufficient compliance of the requirement of prior WP(C).NO.14708/12K 14 approval of the Committee at all stages. He would point out that in the circumstances of the case, having regard to the very limited time available at the disposal of the Association and colleges, what was done, is unassailable. As regards spot admissions are concerned, he would submit that in circumstances in which there are no candidates available from among the allotted candidates who have participated in the examination held, there can be nothing illegal in giving admission to students who may not have taken part in the examination conducted by the third respondent Association and as long as they have participated in some examination conducted, either the All India Test or the Test held by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations. He would point out that otherwise, the result would be that if there is nobody, a precious seat would go unfilled. He pointed out that in Ext.P7 there is indication that there will be spot admission. He would further submit that only one person has challenged the selection and allotment conducted by the respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not a NRI and she can have no complaint. WP(C).NO.14708/12K 15 There is no case for the petitioner that NRIs have been allotted seats in excess of what is permitted by the Supreme Court. He would submit that admissions to NRIs were permitted by the Apex Court in the year 1993. He would submit that there is no requirement enforced till this year that the claimants under the NRI quota, must take the examinations.

10. Learned counsel for the seventh respondent would submit that the petitioner is not a NRI. She is not entitled to challenge the filling up of the seats in NRI quota. Seventh respondent is a NRI. There is no criterion as to what Courses are to be allotted to the NRI quota. He would further rely on the following decisions:

1) Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr. ((1998) 4 SCC 409).

2) Sadananda Halo & Ors. v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh & Ors.

((2008) 4 SCC 619.

He would further submit that the decision of the Apex Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. ((2005) 2 WP(C).NO.14708/12K 16 SCC 65). It is pointed out that the last date for admission prescribed being 31.5.2012, no case is made out for the petitioner to breach the said outer time limit. He would submit that the principle enunciated in Asha v. PT. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences & Ors. (2012) 6 Scale 287) may not be applicable. This case cannot be brought within the ambit of the said decision. The admission of the seventh respondent cannot be held to be palpably illegal. The Judgment in Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.((2005) 2 SCC 65) is rendered by three Judges. The Judgment in Asha's case (supra) is rendered by two Judges. There is no relief sought as against the seventh respondent and her admission is not specifically questioned.

11. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent college in which the seventh respondent is admitted, would submit as follows:

He drew our attention to the reliefs sought. He would point out that going by her options, the petitioner ought to have sought relief in regard to the persons who have been allotted to the WP(C).NO.14708/12K 17 Courses as against the higher options opted by the petitioner. Having failed to do so, it is not open to the petitioner to question the admission of the seventh respondent. Of the fortythree seats, the college has made over twentyone seats to the Government and the college is to rest content with twentytwo seats. The college had addressed Ext.R4(a) dated 19.5.2012 to the Association pointing out that the reservation is intended in respect of certain seats under the NRI quota. He would point out that there is no indication by any law or otherwise as to how the Courses are to be allocated between the management candidates and the NRI candidates. He would point out that under the 2004 Act which was repealed by the 2006 Act by the State Legislature, children/wards and dependants of NRIs. can claim as NRIs. He would point out that there has been a system and practice till date in the matter of admission to NRI and the admission to the seventh respondent was given in keeping with the system and practice.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not know as to who were the candidates admitted in WP(C).NO.14708/12K 18 regard to the Courses in respect of which the petitioner had given the options higher than the one for which the seventh respondent was admitted. He would point out Ext.P12 in this regard. He would further point out the pleadings of the fourth respondent and of the seventh respondent and would submit that going by the pleadings of the seventh respondent, it would appear that the seventh respondent claims that she was admitted on 31.5.2012 as against a seat which was remaining unfilled and he would in this regard rely upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Modern Dental College & Research Centre & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors. ((2012) 4 SCC 707). He would submit that the seventh respondent cannot be treated as a candidate admitted under the NRI quota. He would submit that the prayers are sufficient and in Article 226, the Court can mould the reliefs.

13. In answer to the same, learned counsel for the seventh respondent would point out regulation 9 (3) (ii) of the MCI Regulations which reads as follows:

WP(C).NO.14708/12K 19

"9. Selection of post-graduate students.- (3)(ii): There shall be no admission of students in respect of any academic session beyond 31st May for post-graduate courses and 30th September for super speciality courses, under any circumstances. The Universities shall not register any student admitted beyond the said date."

He would submit that this feature is not present in the case of MBBS Course and, therefore, it is impermissible for the Court to direct admission to be made to the Post Graduate Courses which would necessarily involve violation of the MCI Regulations. He would further rely on the decision of the Apex Court in Ranbir Singh v. Executive Engineer ((2011) 1 SCR 587) and contend that there was no prayer as against the seventh respondent. He would also submit that the petitioner may not be justified in relying on the decision in Modern Colleges' case (supra). Petitioner, it pointed out, was not present on 31.5.2012. Petitioner, it is reiterated, cannot pick and choose from among the candidates and only target the seventh respondent.

WP(C).NO.14708/12K 20

I. Whether the earmarking of the Courses to the NRI quota is illegal ?

14. It may be true that the respondent colleges had chosen to earmark the much sought after Courses, like MD (Medicine), MD (Paediatrics) and MD (Radio-Diagnosis) to the NRI quota. However, the question is whether there is any law or guideline by the Admissions Supervisory Committee which has been violated by the respondent colleges in this regard ? No law or directive by the Admissions Supervisory Committee is shown to exist which has been violated by the colleges in this regard. If that be so, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot contend that the cornering of the plum courses as alleged by the NRI candidates on their being so allocated by the respondent colleges, can be said to be a matter warranting interference in judicial review proceedings by this Court.

II. Whether the selection process by the Association can be said to be flawed and in particular, is it bad for lack of counseling ?

WP(C).NO.14708/12K 21

15. The third respondent Association had fixed up a schedule of dates for conducting selection by the holding of an All India Examination. Prospectus was issued. Going by the schedule of the dates, we are of the view that the Association had fixed up the dates in such a manner that there would have been ample time for the filling up of the vacancies in a proper manner and after counseling as is contemplated in law. However, the Committee decided to interfere and it is an admitted fact that the Entrance Examination was held as late as on 26.5.2012, instead of more than a month earlier as scheduled by the Association. The examination was conducted through the Kerala Medical University under the supervision of the Committee. A perusal of the Exhibit produced by the Association dated 29.5.2012 shows as follows:

"29.05.2012.

The Admission Supervisory Committee as per the proceedings dated 08-05-2012 approved the conduct of the entrance examination for P.G. Medical Course 2012-13 by the Kerala University of Health Sciences for Kerala Private Medical College WP(C).NO.14708/12K 22 Management Association and to prepare the rank list. Accordingly, the University conducted the entrance examination and submitted the following documents before the Committee in a sealed cover on 28-05-2012:

1. Result (Roll Number wise and mark wise).

2. The original Answer Sheets (OMR) and Roll Number portion.

3. Question paper and Answer Key.

The sealed cover is opened today morning by the Chairman. After perusing the documents it is decided to publish the merit-wise rank list submitted by the University. Accordingly, the publication is made in the Committees website www.asckeral.org today.

Rest of the documents submitted by the University are kept under the safe custody.

After considering all the aspects the above rank list submitted by the `KUHAS' is provisionally approved subject to further order by the Admission WP(C).NO.14708/12K 23 Supervisory Committee as may be found necessary.

Accordingly, the Committee directs the Association and Member Colleges to complete the admission process as per the above rank list published today. The Committee further directs that the entire procedure for admission of students shall be completed in a fair, transparent, merit based and non-exploitative manner. The Managements are also directed to submit the report regarding the steps taken by them at different stages of the above admission process including list of students admitted. The file may be placed before the next meeting of the Committee for further orders."

Thus, a perusal of Ext.R3(d) would show that the merit-wise rank list was published by the Committee only on 29.5.2012. Still further more, we would think that the requirement of prior counseling as declared by this Court, as being necessary in Fathima Haneena P. v. State of Kerala (2008 (3) KHC 544), must be treated as fulfilled in the facts of this case by virtue of the order passed as Ext.R3(d) above and as the Committee directed the WP(C).NO.14708/12K 24 procedure to be completed in a fair, transparent, merit-based and in a non-exploitative manner and the managements were directed to submit the report and to put up the file before the next meeting of the Committee for further orders. The crucial aspect which is not to be overlooked in this aspect, is the time factor. The colleges were duty bound by law as declared by the Apex Court to complete the admissions by 31.5.2012. Thus, there was just about two days and, therefore, to require counseling which could be held if there was time available as normally contemplated and as in fact the Association itself has contemplated under its schedule of dates, may not having being available. We reject the contentions of the petitioner in this regard. We cannot ignore the submission of the learned counsel for the Association that the reason why the Courses could not be notified was that the University has not granted its affiliation and without affiliation, the college could not make admissions. It was only on 31.5.2012 and that too on telephone, the University had intimated its assent and therefore it is contended that the details could not be published earlier. We find WP(C).NO.14708/12K 25 merit in the said submission.

III. Whether the allocation of the seats to the NRIs without providing for the same in the prospectus is illegal and whether participating in the examination is necessary ?

16. It is true that there is no indication about any seats being filled up by allocating the same to NRIs. No doubt, it is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the Medical Council of India that if the managements intended to fill up any seats from out of the management seats, they had to indicate the same in the prospectus. They would contend that having regard to paragraph 131 of Inamdar's case (supra), the Supreme Court has only enabled the managements to set apart not more than fifteen per cent of the seats to be filled up by genuine NRIs. Having failed to avail of the benefit of the same by projecting any such intention in the prospectus, it is not open to the managements to allocate fifteen per cent of the seats to the NRIs, it is contended. Learned counsel for the Association would, on the other hand, point out that the prospectus was issued for WP(C).NO.14708/12K 26 holding the examination for filling up the management seats which would not take in the NRI seats. In other words, after allocating fifty per cent to the Government, the balance fifty per cent is broadly classified as the seats available to be filled up by the managements. Out of that fifty per cent, thirtyfive per cent alone was intended to be filled up by holding the examination. Therefore, the total seats which were intended to be filled up by the holding of the examination under Ext.P1 prospectus, was only thirtyfive per cent. As regards fifteen per cent, the managements were left free to fill up those seats by admitting NRIs. This was permissible.

17. In this context, we must deal with the other allied issues also and that is whether admission can be made to the Post Graduate Course without the candidate coming under the NRI quota participating in the written examination.

18. The basis of the argument of the petitioner and the Medical Council of India is the Regulations made by the Medical Council of India. Regulation 9 of the MCI (PG Medical WP(C).NO.14708/12K 27 Education) Regulations, 2000, it is pointed out, provides for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Courses on the basis of their academic merit. It is further submitted that the extant Regulations provide that academic merit must be determined either on the basis of a competitive test conducted by the State Government or competent authority appointed by the State or by the University or Group of Universities in the same State. It may also be determined on the basis of merit as determined by a centralised competitive test held at the National level. It further provides for determination of academic merit on the basis of individual cumulative performance at the first, second and third MBBS Examinations, provided, admissions are University-wise. Finally, a combination of the first two is mentioned. As far as non- Governmental institutions are concerned, it is pointed out that the Regulations contemplate filling up of fifty per cent seats by the managements on the basis of inter se academic merit. It is further pointed out that from 2013, the Regulations contemplated the holding of a National Eligibility -cum- Entrance Test throughout WP(C).NO.14708/12K 28 the country.

19. The response to the said contention by the party respondents is that as far as NRIs are concerned, so far nobody has insisted the holding of examinations. The matter has been considered based on paragraph 131 of Inamdar's case, it is pointed out.

20. It is no doubt true that inter se academic merit is shown as the sole criterion for admission to Post Graduate Medical Course and the manner of determining the same is also indicated, as we have referred to already. In fact, it is submitted on behalf of the Medical Council that NRIs were given the quota as it were on the strength of the decision of the Apex Court in the year 1993. Regulations were framed by the MCI. It related to the MBBS Course. It is pointed out that the said Regulations itself came to be struck down as unconstitutional by the Apex Court in TMA Pai's case. The Regulations relating to admission for Post Graduate Medical Courses were made in the year 2000. They remain on the Statute book and they do not provide for a NRI quota and the WP(C).NO.14708/12K 29 question is also posed as to how admissions can be made to NRI quota in the Post Graduate stream overlooking statutory Regulations. It is pertinent to refer at this juncture to paragraph 131 of the decision in Inamdar's case, which reads as follows:

"131. Here itself we are inclined to deal with the question as to seats allocated for Non-Resident Indians ("NRI" for short) or NRI seats. It is common knowledge that some of the institutions grant admissions to a certain number of students under such quota by charging a higher amount of fee. In fact, the term "NRI" in relation to admissions is a misnomer. By and large, we have noticed in cases after cases coming to this Court, neither the students who get admissions under this category nor their parents are NRIs. In effect and reality, under this category, less meritorious students, but who can afford to bring more money, get admission. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out that a limited number of such seats should be made available as th money brought by such students admitted against NRI quota enables the educational institutions to strengthen their level of education and also to enlarge their educational activities. It was also pointed out that the people of WP(C).NO.14708/12K 30 Indian origin, who have migrated to to other countries, have a desire to bring back their children to their own country as they not only get education but also get reunited with the Indian cultural ethos by virtue of being here. They also wish the money which they would be spending elsewhere on education of their children should rather reach their own motherland. A limited reservation of such seats, not exceeding 15%, in our opinion, may be made available to NRIs depending on the discretion of the management subject to two conditions. First, such seats should be utilised bona fide by NRIs only and for their children or wards. Secondly, within this quota, merit should not be given a complete go-by. The amount of money, in whatever form collected from such NRIs, should be utilised for benefiting students such as from economically weaker sections of the society, whom, on well-defined criteria, the educational institution may admit on subsidised payment of their fee. To prevent misutilisation of such quota or any malpractice referable to NRI quota seats, suitable legislation or regulation needs to be framed. So long as the State does not do it, it will be for the Committees constituted pursuant to the direction in WP(C).NO.14708/12K 31 Islamic Academy to regulate."

The Regulations were made in 2000. It is subsequent to the same that the Supreme Court pronounced its Judgment in Inamdar's case. It is thereunder that the Supreme Court has allowed admissions to be made in favour of NRIs. It was subjected to the condition, namely that the admissions must be in favour of genuine NRIs and the children/wards. The further condition is that as far as the admission to the NRI quota is concerned, merit should not be completely ignored. We notice that the Apex Court further directed that suitable legislation or Regulations need be framed and so long as the State does not do it, it will be for the Committees constituted to regulate. In this regard, we may notice that the law made by the State as now in force, is the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Explorative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence in Professional Education) Act, 2006 Act (Act 19 of 2006). Therein, Section 2(o) defines a non-resident Indian seat as a seat reserved for children or WP(C).NO.14708/12K 32 wards or dependants of non-resident Indians to whom admission is given by a management in a fair, transparent and a non- exploitative manner on the basis of fees as may be prescribed. Section 3 of the Act provides for method of admission in the professional colleges or institution. It provides that admissions of students in a professional college or institution to all seats except NRI seats are to be made through a common entrance test conducted by the State. No doubt, Section 3 has been declared as unconstitutional by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Lisie Medical & Educational Institution v. State (2007 (1) KLT 409). From the aforesaid provisions, we notice that as far as NRI seats are concerned, the State Legislature has widened the scope of NRI seats by including the dependants of NRIs also. This is apart from providing for children or wards as contemplated in the decision of the Apex Court. We are not called upon to pronounce on the validity of the Act on the score that it is not in tune with what the Apex Court has laid down. As things stand, therefore, NRIs include children or wards and dependants of WP(C).NO.14708/12K 33 NRIs. NRIs were exempted from taking part in the test. Therefore, the law made by the State presumably drawing inspiration from the decisions of the Apex Court does not contemplate the holding of any examination. We are not informed of any case of any college where NRIs had to take examination.

21. No doubt, it could be said that when the Apex Court held that the NRI seats should be utilised by NRIs only and for their children/wards, that for a Post Graduate Course, there cannot be a ward as contemplated as they would be majors having undergone the MBBS Course.

22. In this connection, we may take note of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh And Others (2012 (4) SCC 707). In the said case, a Bench of three Judges was dealing with the manner of filling up of fifteen per cent of the unfilled NRI seats in the Unaided Private Medical/Dental Colleges. The Court disposed of the matter by interim directions to hold good till the disposal of the matter pending before the Constitution Bench. WP(C).NO.14708/12K 34 Therein, the Court, inter alia, has extracted the interim order passed which is reported in Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. v. State of M.P.((2009) 7 SCC 751). The operative portion reads as follows:

"We, therefore, direct that the admission in the private unaided medical/dental colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh will be done by first excluding 15% NRI seats (which can be filled up by the private institutions as per para 131 of Inamdar case), and allotting half of the 85% seats for admission to the undergraduate and postgraduate courses to be filled in by an open competitive examination by the State Government, and the remaining half by the Association of the Private Medical and Dental Colleges. Both the State Government as well as the Association of Private Medical and Dental Colleges will hold their own separate entrance examination for this purpose. As regards the `NRI seats', they will be filled as provided under the Act and the Rules, in the manner they were done earlier"

(Emphasis supplied) WP(C).NO.14708/12K 35 We queried the learned counsel for the MCI as to whether the MCI was a party to the said proceedings, to which the answer of the MCI was that it was a party. Therefore, with the MCI on the party array, the Apex Court has passed the said order whereunder the seats in respect of Post Graduate Medical Courses could be held up in respect of NRI seats in terms of what was laid down in paragraph 131 of Inamdar's case. Therefore, we would think that going by the practice which has grown up over the years and continues further till this date, none of the authorities have really insisted upon taking part in the examination as contemplated in the Regulation by the students claiming under the NRI quota. Therefore, we are of the view that it may not be open to the petitioner and the MCI to render vulnerable the admissions to the NRIs for this year on the strength that the students have not passed the entrance examination. In fact, we were also informed about the Judgment by another Bench of this Court wherein the Bench has only recorded the stand of the MCI that from next year onwards they would enforce the Regulations which contemplated the WP(C).NO.14708/12K 36 holding of the National Eligibility Test. As far as the absence of Notification in the prospectus about the reservation for NRIs is concerned, we have already found that there is no need for the students coming under the NRI quota to take the examination and the prospectus was issued apparently for filling up the 35% of the students which constitute the management quota as such. No doubt, in a larger sense, the NRI quota of 15% of the total seats would fall within the management quota. But, for holding the examination, there was no need to notify about the 15% seats being reserved for NRIs in a strict sense. It is true that the Apex Court has in paragraph 131 of the Inamdar's case enabled the self- financing institutions to give admissions in the NRI quota. It is a right which is capable of being waived. Unless we hold that by issuing the prospectus, the self-financing institutions have waived their right to make admissions to the 15% for NRIs, we cannot hold that they have given up the right or that they cannot exercise their right to fill up students in the NRI quota. No doubt, it is also true that as the facts of this case illustrate, the calculations and the WP(C).NO.14708/12K 37 options of the students who had appeared in the examination are vetoed and impaired by the self-financing institutions resorting to NRI admissions without giving notice of the same in the prospectus. Therefore, it would be better if the managements make it clear in the prospectus that they intend to fill up 15% of the seats for NRIs. But, as things stand, we do not think that for the failure of the management to do so, we should interfere.

IV. Whether the seventh respondent can claim to be appointed under the NRI quota and if the seventh respondent is not a NRI, then is the petitioner entitled to relief ?

23. The averment of the petitioner in the amended Writ Petition in this regard is to be found in paragraph 12B. Therein, it is, inter alia, stated that it is reliably understood that no bonafide candidates from the NRIs were admitted in the seats/specialities opted by the petitioner by respondents 3 to 6. It is further averred that parents of the 7th respondent are permanently settled in India, her father is a professional contractor based in Kerala and her WP(C).NO.14708/12K 38 mother is a Government servant in Kerala. It is also stated that in the year 2011 also, she obtained admission in the fourth respondent college in the management quota and later due to Court's intervention, she had to discontinue the studies. It is also stated that much of the initial course work and studies of both MD (Paediatrics) and DCH are overlapping.

24. There is no Counter Affidavit as such filed by the fourth respondent. The 7th respondent has filed a Counter Affidavit. Therein, it is, inter alia, stated that the averment made in paragraph 12B is the result of mis-conception of the entitlement for admission under the NRI quota and the averment otherwise regarding the entitlement of the 7th respondent for admission under the NRI quota is denied, as it is against facts. It is also stated as to what transpired in the previous year. No doubt, it is stated that the 7th respondent was given admission on 31.5.2012 at about 5 PM. since the said seat remained vacant without the same being filled up by any other candidate who had opted for MD (Paediatrics).

25. In the Additional Reply Affidavit filed by the petitioner, WP(C).NO.14708/12K 39 it is, inter alia, stated that the 7th respondent has been illegally admitted. The claim that the 7th respondent was given admission to MD (Paediatrics) as the seat remained unfilled, is denied as false. It is pointed out that the said Course is a much sought after one, and that the petitioner who had the fourth rank has given MD (Paediatrics) as her second option and was available at the fourth respondent college on 31.5.2012 from about 4 PM to 9/30 PM. The fourth respondent did not publish any notification regarding the alleged unfilled vacancy in MD (Paediatrics) Course on 31.5.2012. The admission given is illegal. Petitioner has filed application to implead persons upon coming to know about the details. The 7th respondent has no case that she is a NRI or a child/ward of NRI.

26. An Affidavit is filed by the fourth respondent dated 15.9.2012. It is stated that all admissions to management quota including NRI seats were made on 31.5.2012 which was the last permissible day and this has created some confusion also. The total number of candidates admitted in the management quota WP(C).NO.14708/12K 40 including NRI was twenty. Explaining, showing the name of the 7th respondent in Ext.P12 as admitted in the management quota, it is stated that the Dean on verification of the document has sent a note to the Head of the Department informing that the students admitted in the management quota, were directed to report. It is stated that the verification of the other candidates was not complete and that is why Ext.P12 contained only fifteen names. The Dean had committed an inadvertent error/mistake. When one Dr. Parvathy had taken admission in the NRI quota and had paid the fee, late in the afternoon on that day, she cancelled the admission and took back the fee, one Dr. Shany J. was admitted on the very same day and this has escaped the attention of the Dean when he issued Ext.P12. Ext.R4(f) purports to be the consolidated statement given by the Dean. Petitioner was never allotted to MD (Paediatrics) and it was at that juncture, the parents of 7th respondent sought admission. It is stated that they were informed that the seat is set apart as a NRI seat and the same would be given only if the parents or his first degree relatives were working abroad WP(C).NO.14708/12K 41 sponsor the candidature. Necessary Certificates and Declaration should be attested from the foreign embassy and given. It is stated that they agreed and she was offered the admission. It is, however, stated that the management gave her time to produce the same and the necessary certificates were awaited. In the meantime, the University issued Ext.R4(g) circular informing the Principals to register students admitted to PG Course before 27.8.2012. It is stated that before the said day, all admissions were registered. The University, it is stated, will notify the dates for verification of the credentials. It is at that time the University will verify the details of the NRI candidates. The Dean had put a notice on the notice board as Ext.R4(h) informing the NRI candidates to produce the original documents. There was no deliberate foul play in the matter of admissions under the NRI quota.

27. Petitioner has filed Reply to the said Affidavit. Therein, she has, inter alia, stated as follows:

The admissions are made without following any criterion. It is stated that a perusal of Exts. P12, R4(e) and R4(f) and the WP(C).NO.14708/12K 42 averments in the Counter Affidavit admitting that some of the candidates have paid the fees only after 31.5.2012 would show that belated admissions were being made disregarding the time schedule. Ext.R4(f) is not a genuine document.

28. We must deal with the contention that the petitioner not being NRI may not be entitled to challenge the filling up of the Courses with NRI students. Petitioner has secured the fourth rank. She has made nine options. She has been denied admission to most of her options on the score that those seats have been filled up by filling up with NRI candidates. In respect of others, the case is that persons with higher rank were allotted. We have already held that there is no law which interferes with the discretion of the managements to allocate various Courses to the NRI quota. Therefore, we proceed on the basis that the fourth respondent is entitled to allocate MD (Paediatrics) to the NRI quota and the petitioner cannot question the same, in the absence of any regulation either by law or directive of the Admission Committee. There is no case for the petitioner also that the managements have WP(C).NO.14708/12K 43 made admissions in excess of the limit of fifteen per cent imposed by the Apex Court and also by the Statute.

29. Then the petitioner would draw our attention to the Judgment of the Apex Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh And Others ((2012) 4 SCC 707). Therein, in paragraph 19, it is stated as follows:

"19. We are, therefore, inclined to allow both the applications and overrule the direction given by the two learned Judges of this Court in R.D. Gardi Medical College and hold that it is open to the unaided professional educational institutions to fill up the unfilled NRI seats for the year 2012-2013 and for the succeeding years through the entrance test conducted by them till the disposal of the appeal, subject to the conditions laid down in Inamdar case strictly on the basis of merit."

In fact, the learned senior counsel for the fourth respondent also does not dispute the proposition that if it is a case of filling up of a seat allocated to the NRIs which remains unfilled on account of lack of NRI candidates, then necessarily it can be done only on the WP(C).NO.14708/12K 44 basis of merit. There cannot be much dispute that MD (Paediatrics) was shown as a Course by the fourth respondent management to be filled up by admitting NRIs. This is clear from Ext.R4(a) dated 19.5.2012 sent by the Dean of the fourth respondent college to the Secretary of the Association. It is apparently on the said basis that the Association also ignored the option of the petitioner for allotment to the fourth respondent college to the Course of MD (Paediatrics). Therefore, we can proceed on the basis that the seat of MD (Paediatrics) was earmarked for NRI quota. Then the next question would be whether the 7th respondent can claim as a NRI candidate. Admittedly, the seat in MD (Paediatrics) has been filled up by admitting the 7th respondent. If the 7th respondent cannot claim as a NRI candidate, then it would be a case of a seat which was earmarked for NRI candidate being vacant on 31.5.2012 and it being filled up contrary to the law as laid down in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh And Others ((2012) 4 SCC 707) and consequently it WP(C).NO.14708/12K 45 being illegal. If the petitioner was indeed available at the college to which college she was in fact allotted and to the college she was admitted to the DCH Course and if we proceed on the basis that the management was aware that she had secured the fourth rank and if the 7th respondent who is not a NRI, cannot claim as a NRI, then certainly it was the petitioner who should have been admitted. We cannot, therefore, hold that the petitioner has no locus standi at all to question the admission given to the 7th respondent.

30. No doubt, the answer to the question would necessarily depend upon whether the 7th respondent can claim as a NRI candidate. Going by the unrebutted allegations, the father of the 7th respondent is a professional contractor based in Kerala and her mother is a Government servant working in Kerala. She cannot, therefore, claim as a child of a NRI. She has no case that she is a NRI in her own right. We refer to this, as the learned senior counsel for the fourth respondent pointed out before us that when the Supreme Court permitted admissions in the NRI quota to genuine NRIs and their children and wards and the State WP(C).NO.14708/12K 46 Legislature has in Section 2(o) of the Professional Colleges Act permitted admissions in the NRI quota to be given to dependants, the dependants need not be persons who are themselves NRIs living abroad and they can be based in Kerala also.

31. It may be difficult to describe the 7th respondent who is 28 years of age as a ward of NRI. Learned counsel for the 7th respondent would point out that documents are being produced and that there is a relative in the Gulf who is her sponsor and it will be done within the time limit as indicated in Ext.R4(h), namely 30.9.2012.

32. A Statement is filed by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent wherein, it is, inter alia, stated that the seventh respondent who was admitted in the college in the NRI quota, has produced two documents to prove her claim under the NRI quota. She has claimed dependency of her first cousin. It is further stated that Annexure I is the certificate issued by the Consulate at Oman, and that the cousin has also submitted an Affidavit to the effect that he is sponsoring the candidature of the seventh respondent. It WP(C).NO.14708/12K 47 is further stated that the college has also collected a copy of the passport of the sponsor and both these documents have been forwarded to the University. To this Statement, the petitioner has filed a reply. Therein, it is, inter alia, stated that the seventh respondent belongs to an affluent upper class family and she did not depend on anyone. Moreover, it is stated that she is a married woman and her husband also is well employed and belongs to an affluent family. The claim that the admission has been made in the NRI quota, is denied. The fourth respondent in collusion with the seventh respondent and the person named, Brijeshkumar who is referred to in Annexures I and II documents is merely trying to mislead this Court and to over-read and to defeat the guidelines etc. at this highly belated stage. It is also pointed out that as per clause 3.2 of the prospectus, payment of the first year tuition fee together bank guarantee for tuition fee for the entire course is a condition precedent and the fourth respondent had insisted for such payment from the petitioner and she paid `.12 Lakhs along with bank guarantee for another `.12 lakhs on 31.5.2012. There is no WP(C).NO.14708/12K 48 mention of the amount which the sponsor has already spent, is willing to spend.

33. As per paragraph 131 of the decision in Inamdar's case (supra), a quota for NRI was contemplated in order to provide finance for the self-financing institutions and at the same time, to cater to the aspirations of genuine NRIs, so that their children and wards could be provided for. Merit was directed to be not altogether ignored. It is thereafter that the State of Kerala has enacted the law which we have already referred to. Thereunder, the scope of NRIs appears to be enlarged to include dependents also. Thus, a person who can be given admission must be a child/ward or dependant of the NRI. In this case, admittedly the seventh respondent is not the child of the alleged NRI. It is difficult also to characterise her as the ward of the NRI. The seventh respondent, in fact, is 28 years old and the wife of one M.P.Shinod who is alleged, in fact, to be an affluent person. Then, could it be said that she is the dependent of her alleged first cousin. Annexure I certificate issued by the Assistant Consulate Officer WP(C).NO.14708/12K 49 would tend to show that Shri Brijeshkumar is a NRI staying in Oman and he has a valid Omani Employment Visa dated 13.2.2012 valid upto 15.5.2014 issued at Muscat. Annexure II purports to be an Affidavit. There is no verification done. All that it says is as follows:

"I, Kayalath Brijesh Kumar, holder of Indian Passport F4258104, employed in Muscat. Dr. Anju Krishnan studying for MD Paediatrics at Gokulam Medical College & Research Foundation is my first cousin and I do hereby undertake to sponsor Dr. Anju Krishnan for her study of this course."

34. We may note that this Affidavit is dated 24.9.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that clause 3.2 categorically provides for the payment of fees in respect of Degree Courses and it, inter alia, provides that the fee for the first year shall be paid at the time of admission. The candidate must give bank guarantee for the subsequent years at the time of admission. No doubt, it does not specifically deal with NRIs as such. In fact, the learned senior counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that a Demand Draft was given on 31.5.2012. He was not able to WP(C).NO.14708/12K 50 point out as to who has paid the amount as such. There is no indication in the so called Affidavit (Annexure II) that the alleged sponsor has paid the amount. In fact, it is not specifically argued before us that he has paid the amount by D/D on 31.05.2012.

35. Regulation 9(3)(ii) of the Medical Council of India Regulations provides that there shall be no admission for students in respect of any academic session beyond 31st May for Post Graduate Courses, inter alia, under any circumstances and more importantly, it states that the University shall not register any student admitted beyond the said date. It is submitted that the latter prohibition directed against the Universities is not there in respect of the MBBS Course. It is further submitted that the decision of the Apex court in Asha v. PT. B. D. Sharma University of Health Sciences & Ors. (2012(6) Scale 287) related to the MBBS Course besides of course submitting that this was a Judgment rendered by two Judges and that no case is made out for applying the principle, at any rate, to the facts of this case. It is also pointed out that there is no prayer to unseat the 7th respondent. WP(C).NO.14708/12K 51 It is next pointed out by the learned counsel for the 7th respondent that under the Post Graduate Medical Education Rules, 2000, it is declared that under no circumstance migration/transfer of student undergoing any Post Graduate Degree/Diploma/Super Speciality Course shall be permitted by any University/Authority. This was in substitution of the earlier provision which was under the heading "Migration/Transfer of Post Graduate Students from one Medical College or Institution to another". It is, therefore, contended that under the Regulations it is impermissible to direct that the petitioner be admitted to the MD (Paediatrics) in place of the 7th respondent and to direct that the 7th respondent be directed to undergo the Course in DCH which is being currently undergone by the petitioner.

36. The Apex Court has in Asha's case (supra) has, no doubt, held that Courts may grant relief by directing admission even after the cut off date in case of palpable illegality and also after considering the conduct of the party including as to whether the party has approached the Court with due diligence. WP(C).NO.14708/12K 52

37. In this case, the Writ Petition was filed on 22.6.2012, that is three weeks after 31.5.2012. Petitioner had apparently gone to the Committee. The Committee rejected the petitioner's complaint. At that stage, no doubt, the complaint of the petitioner is not what is now ultimately projected before us. But, can we blame the petitioner for that ? Can we attribute knowledge to the petitioner of the facts relating to the 7th respondent as to who her parents are and whether she can claim as NRI ?

38. But, even if we proceed on the basis that the petitioner has come to this Court within a reasonable time and we proceed on the basis that we can ignore the time limit, learned counsel for the seventh respondent points out the operation of Regulation 9(2) which we have adverted to, in that, it prohibits the University from registering a candidate admitted after 31.5.2012 for a Post Graduate Course. However, even for the MBBS Course, the Regulations provide for prohibition against the University registering a student admitted after the cut off date. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that it relates to an WP(C).NO.14708/12K 53 admission made by the college and it may not bar the Court in the course of setting right an injustice to direct admission to be made. The 7th respondent has been admitted and she has been continuing and in the teeth of the provisions prohibiting migration, we may have to countenance violation of the said provision also, when we direct that the 7th respondent should be admitted in the DCH Course after directing the petitioner admission to MD (Paediatrics) Course. We would think that in such circumstances, this Writ Petition may not be an appropriate case for us to interfere.

39. It is clear from the submissions which have been made before us that there has been considerable vagueness and ambiguity regarding the manner in which the admissions to the NRI quota were made. In fact, it is submitted by Shri Kurian George Kannanthanam, learned senior counsel that all that has been required is that there must be somebody to sponsor and even it is not being insisted that the NRIs should make the payment.

40. Petitioner is not the child of the NRI. Admittedly, she is his first cousin. We cannot also hold that she is the ward of the WP(C).NO.14708/12K 54 NRI. All that remains is whether she is a dependant ? What is the ambit of the word "dependant" as contemplated under the Act. Is it confined only to financial dependant ? As far as payment of money is concerned, apparently the fees has been paid on 31.5.2012. The Certificate issued by the Embassy and the so- called Affidavit are seen dated in September, 2012. Apparently, the understanding was that the University would insist on production of such documents. Thus, it appears that admitting students in the NRI quota, has been apparently going on with considerable laxity attending the same. Apparently, what was being done was that the student has to procure documents to show that he had a first degree relation as NRI who would agree to sponsor him and in such a case, to deprive the seventh respondent of the admission and that too, when it involves violation of the cut off date, appears to us to be inappropriate.

41. We must remember ourselves that on going by the Judgment of the Apex Court in Asha's case (supra) that only in rare cases can the Court direct admissions need be made after the WP(C).NO.14708/12K 55 cut off date. In this case, the request of the petitioner would appear to be that in view of the fact that for both the MD (Paediatrics) and DCH Courses, the syllabus for the First Year is the same, not much prejudice will be caused to the seventh respondent, if the petitioner is directed to be admitted to the MD (Paediatrics) Course and the seventh respondent can continue in DCH. In this context, quite apart from the fact that we are not convinced that this is one of the rare cases falling within the scope of Asha's case, we are also faced with the prospect that any such direction would be in the teeth of not only on the cut off date but also the provisions relating to prohibition against migration which we have already adverted to. Therefore, we would think that we may not be justified in interfering in this matter.

42. However, we are constrained to make the following observations and directions:

The NRI quota was permitted by the Apex Court on the basis of the understanding of the peculiar position of the NRIs and also the need for funds from the NRIs to augment the income of WP(C).NO.14708/12K 56 the self-financing institutions. But, we would think that we are concerned with higher education being conducted in self-financing institutions. Even though it is true that exception is carved out, that does not mean that admissions can be made in respect of such seats which would render the process of admissions itself unfair. We would think that it may not be fair to allow the Medical Colleges to set apart the plum Courses perennially in the NRI quota. But, this is a matter which we hope that the Government will seriously consider and evolve an appropriate formula. We would hence make the following directions:

(i) The Government of Kerala will look into the issue relating to what is meant by "dependants" under Section 2 (o)of the Professional Colleges Act, so that clarity is obtained. This the Government will do at the earliest and, in any event, before the next academic year.

(ii) The Government will ensure that the entire process relating to the sponsorship by a NRI shall be completed with supporting documents before the cut off date for admission.

(iii) The Government of Kerala will consider taking appropriate steps to ensure that the management will indicate in the prospectus issued to fill up management seats, the seats which are WP(C).NO.14708/12K 57 to be filled up by admitting NRI students.

Subject to the same, the Writ Petition shall stand dismissed. Registry will communicate a copy of this Judgment to the Principal Secretary to the Government in the Health & Family Welfare Department and also to the Secretary of the Committee.

Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= K. HARILAL, JUDGE kbk.

//True Copy//

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court