MBBS admissions: Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds exclusion of kin from foreign student quota

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today upheld a clause in the prospectus issued by the Chandigarh Administration for admission to MBBS course, wherein the definition and scope of the Foreign Indian Students (FIS) was restricted to exclude the relations of Non-Resident Indians (NRI).

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal asserted that the Supreme Court had observed admission under the NRI category was more often than not a misnomer. The reservation under the category was amenable to abuse by less meritorious students who could afford to pay ‘a huge fee’.

The Bench observed: “In this case, for the purpose of admission to MBBS course, a policy decision has been taken by the Chandigarh Administration to restrict the entry of the candidates while laying down a narrow eligibility criteria for FIS. The decision of the government to exclude the blood relations of the NRIs is to allow entry of those FIS who have genuinely resided in the country other than India.”

The Bench added that it was a conscious decision taken by the Administration in the form of a policy. The scope of interference in such a policy decision in exercise of judicial review powers was extremely limited.

The Bench was hearing a petition filed against the Chandigarh Administration and others respondents by a candidate. Among other things, the candidate contended that the Chandigarh Administration lacked power to exclude the NRI wards from the definition of FIS.

The Bench was told that there was discrimination among students to be admitted under 15 per cent reservation for the NRI candidates in MBBS and BDS. There was no plausible justification for providing ‘different requirements for admission to MBBS course and BDS course in the NRI category’.

The petitioner added that wards of the NRIs were eligible to be admitted to the BDS course, but were excluded in the MBBS course, though ‘both colleges are being run by the Administration’.

The Bench asserted that the petitioner had failed to draw the court’s attention to the violation of any provision of the Constitution or the statute. “Hence, this Bench also does not find that the distinction between the FIS for the purpose of admission to MBBS course and FIS/NRI students for the purpose of admission to BDS course is discriminatory as both colleges are not only separate, but even the courses taught in the colleges are distinct,” it said.

Dismissing the petition, the Bench asserted that no ground was made out to quash Clause A(6) of the prospectus issued by the UT.

The Chandigarh Administration in the matter was represented by senior standing counsel Amit Jhanji, additional standing counsel Sumeet Jain and advocates Himanshu Arora and Eliza Gupta. Other respondents were represented by advocates Abhilaksh Grover, Nandini Gupta and Arun K Bakshi.