ORDER Prakash Shrivastava, J. 1. This order will also govern the disposal of Writ Petition No. 759 of 2010, Koran s/o Sanjeev Gagrani v. State of M.P. and Ors. The main order is being passed in Writ Petition No. 760 of 2010 2. In this writ petition the communications even dated 20-8-2009 (Annexure P-15 and P-16) and the letter dated 9-9-2009 (Annexure P-18) by which the petitioners were informed that they were ineligible for admission under Non-Resident Indian (NRI) quota in B.E. courses are under challenge. 3. The brief facts are that the respondent No. 5, which is an autonomous institute duly affiliated with respondent No. 3 Rajeev Gandhi Technical University had issued an advertisement for admission in B.E. course in NRI quota on 27-5-2009. The last date for submission of application was extended upto 12-8-2009. The petitioners had applied for admission in pursuant to advertisement. They had also submitted letters/undertaking from their respective NRI sponsors to claim admission against the NRI seats. After the Counselling, on 13-8-2009, provisional list of selected candidates under the NRI/NRI sponsors category was published containing the names of 27 candidates including the names of the present petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that on the publication of the provisional list, they deposited some amount and were issued admissions slips and had also completed the other formalities. 4. The respondent No. 5 Institute had initially prepared a list of 27 candidates found eligible for admission against NRI quota but later on vide impugned communication dated 20-8-2009 (Annexure P-15) respondent No. 5 forwarded the names of 11 candidates excluding the names of the petitioners by mentioning that only 11 candidates satisfy the criteria of NRI sponsored. Thereafter a fax (Annexure P-16) to the same effect was sent by the Coordinator stating that only 11 candidates were found to be eligible by ECCA and 19 remaining vacant seats to be included in the general pool quota. 5. On the representation by the respondent No. 5 - College, the Engineering Course Counselling Authority (ECCA) sent communication dated 9-9-2009 (Annexure P-18) stating that individual case of each candidate was scrutinized and 11 candidates were found fulfilling the requirements and remaining 19 vacant seats were merged into general pool seats. Aggrieved with these communications, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present writ petitions. 6. Aggrieved with these communications, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present writ petitions. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have wrongly been held ineligible for admission against the NRI quota, whereas they are covered within the meaning of NRI category students. He submitted that the case of the petitioners is covered by the judgment of this Court in the matter of Anshul Tomar v. State of M.P. and Ors. reported in 2008 (2) MPLJ 450 . He has also placed reliance upon the order dated 12-8-2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9390 of 2008 in the matter of Prateek Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. and submitted that the power to cancel admission lies with the Fee Regulation Committee. In support of his submissions, he also placed reliance upon the order dated 7-8-2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5852 of 2009 in the matter of Nitin Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted that the petitioners do not fulfill the eligibility conditions for admission against the NRI quota inasmuch as they have not been sponsored by NRI covered for the said purpose. He further submitted that since only the provisional admission was granted to the petitioners, therefore, no right accrued to the petitioners. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the Regulations and the Instructions which have been issued from time to time in this regard. 8. The respondent No. 5 in its reply before this Court has taken the stand that on the verbal instructions of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, only names of 11 students were sent and that all 27 candidates are eligible for admission against the NRI quota. 9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the NRI sponsors of the present petitioners are covered within the eligible NRI relations ? 11. At the outset we may state that the petitioners in the writ petitions have placed that the respondent No. 5 - College is an Autonomous Institute. This fact has not been disputed by any of the respondents. 12. 11. At the outset we may state that the petitioners in the writ petitions have placed that the respondent No. 5 - College is an Autonomous Institute. This fact has not been disputed by any of the respondents. 12. The State Legislature has enacted Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 ("Adhiniyam, 2007" hereafter). This Adhiniyam is applicable to deemed universities or constituent units thereto, imparting professional education, other than those promoted and maintained by the Central or State Government; and the private unaided professional educational institutions affiliated to a university established under the Central or Madhya Pradesh Act. So far as the Adhiniyam, 2007 is concerned, it only provide that Non-Resident Indian for the purpose of Adhiniyam will have the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 115-C(c) of the Income Tax Act but it does not provide the relationship which and NRI sponsor should have with the candidate. The Admission Rules, 2008 provide for 15% quota for NRI candidates in accordance with the regulations notified for the purpose. 13. Under Section 13 of the Adhiniyam, 2007, the State has framed Regulations called Admission (Reservation to Non-Resident Indian) Regulations, 2009. The Issue of applicability of NRI Regulation, 2009 for academic session 2009-10 had come up before this Court in Writ Petition No. 5852 of 2009 in the matter of Nitin Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 7-8-2009 rejected the contention that these regulations will not apply to academic sessions 2009-10. 14. By the order dated 11-8-2009 issued by the State, the NRI Regulations, 2009 have been made applicable to the autonomous (declared by the State), aided private, autonomous and self finance university institutes. This order is not under challenge. 15. The NRI Regulations, 2009 provides for the conditions which a candidate is required to fulfill for taking admission against NRI quota. The Regulation 3 in this regard provides as under: 3. This order is not under challenge. 15. The NRI Regulations, 2009 provides for the conditions which a candidate is required to fulfill for taking admission against NRI quota. The Regulation 3 in this regard provides as under: 3. Applicability.- These regulations shall be applicable to students who are seeking admissions against 15% seats reserved for Non-Resident Indian subject to the following conditions: (a) At least one of the parents of such students should be Non-Resident Indian and shall ordinarily by residing abroad as Non-Resident Indian; (b) The persons who sponsors the student for admission should be a first degree relation of the student and should be ordinarily residing abroad as a Non-Resident Indian; (c) If the student has no parents or near relatives or taken as a ward by some other nearest relative such students also may be considered for admission provided the guardian has bonafide treated the student as a ward and such guardian shall file an affidavit indicating the interest shown in the education affairs of the students and also his relationship with the student and such person also should be a Non-Resident Indian and ordinarily residing abroad. 16. Under the Regulation 3 (b) of the NRI Regulations, 2009, the person sponsoring the student for admission is required to be "a first degree relation of the student". The first degree relation of the student has not been explained under the Regulations. This Court by order dated 19-1 -2010 passed in the connected Writ Petition No. 6915 of 2009, Hanish Kukreja v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2010(2) M.P.H.T. 522 (DB), had referred the matter to the State to interpret the word "first degree relation of the student". 17. In pursuance to the aforesaid directions of this Court, a committee was constituted. reported in 2010(2) M.P.H.T. 522 (DB), had referred the matter to the State to interpret the word "first degree relation of the student". 17. In pursuance to the aforesaid directions of this Court, a committee was constituted. The committee defined the first degree relationship as under: izFke fMxzh ukrsnkjh ds laca/k esa ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k Fkk fd vH;FkhZ ds ekrk] firk] lxs HkkbZ@cgu ,oa vH;FkhZ ds ekrk@firk ds ekrk&firk] lxs HkkbZ@cgu dh izFke fMxzh dh ukrsnkjh gsrq ekU; gksaxs A vFkkZr~ vH;FkhZ ds nknk] nknh] ukuk] ukuh] ekrk] firk] lxs HkkbZ@cgu] pkpk@rk;k] cqvk] ekek ,oa ekSlh gh vH;FkhZ ds izFke fMxzh ukrsnkj ds :i esa ekU; gksaxs A izFke fMxzh ukrsnkjh lacaf/krksa dh vadlwph@ikliksVZ@oksVj igpkui= vkfn ds ek/;e ls LFkkfir dh tk ldrh gSA The Directorate of Technical Education of the State thereafter, passed the order dated 2-2-2010, accepting the aforesaid definition of first degree relationship given by the committee. 18. In view of the definition of first degree relationship given by the committee and accepted by the State following relations are covered under the "first degree relationship": (a) Father and Mother of the candidate. (b) Real brother and sister of the candidate. (c) Father and Mother of father/mother of the candidate. (d) Real brother and sister of father/mother of the candidate. 19. In the present matter, the candidates are either niece, nephew or cousin (uncle's son) of the sponsors, therefore, sponsors of the petitioners are not covered under "first degree relation" of the student. It is also not their case that they are covered by Regulation 3(a) or 3(c) of NRI Regulations, 2009. Therefore, the petitioners do not satisfy the requisite conditions for admission against NRI quota in terms of the NRI Regulations, 2009. 20. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised the argument that the NRI Regulations, 2009 will not be applicable since the regulations were notified on 15-7-2009; whereas the advertisement for admission in the present case was issued on 27-5-2009. Even if such a contention is accepted, then also the case of the petitioners does not become better because the process of admission had commenced under the Conduct of Examination and Admission Rules, 2009 (for short "Admission Rules, 2009") issued by the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board applicable to declared autonomous, private aided, autonomous and self finance institute. Even if such a contention is accepted, then also the case of the petitioners does not become better because the process of admission had commenced under the Conduct of Examination and Admission Rules, 2009 (for short "Admission Rules, 2009") issued by the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board applicable to declared autonomous, private aided, autonomous and self finance institute. The respondent No. 5 institute is stated to be an autonomous institute and the Admission Rules, 2009 are applicable to the autonomous institute. Under these rules which are in the nature of instructions, for admission against NRI seat the candidate himself or his father/mother should be NRI. The criteria adopted in the Admission Rules, 2009 was much more stringent. This criteria was later on relaxed by applying the NRI Regulations Rules, 2009 to institutions covered by Admission Rules, 2009 by order dated 11-8-2009. 21. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Anshul Tomar (supra), but that judgment has no application for the admissions in the B.E. Course for academic sessions 2009-2010 because when that judgment was delivered on 8-4-2009 the NRI Regulations, 2009 were not framed. After framing of NRI Regulations and after they have been made applicable to respondent No. 5-Institute, the admission is governed by the conditions provided in the Regulations. Therefore, in the present case, which is for this academic sessions, the judgment of Division Bench in the matter of Anshul Tomar (supra), will have no application. Even otherwise the said judgment was based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of P.A. Inamdar (supra), wherein the Supreme Court has clearly held that firstly, the NRI seats should be utilized bonafide by NRIs and for their children or wards only; and secondly, within this quota, merit should not be given a complete go-bye. The Supreme Court had further directed that to prevent misutilisation of such quota or any malpractice referable to NRI quota seats suitable legislation or regulation needs to be formulated and the Committees constituted pursuant to the direction in Islamic Academy was to regulate till the regulations are framed. 22. It is worth mentioning that in the present case the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in their reply have given a chart showing the rank of the petitioners in PEPT, 2009. 22. It is worth mentioning that in the present case the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in their reply have given a chart showing the rank of the petitioners in PEPT, 2009. The chart indicates that the rank of all these petitioners in the merit list was much below the last candidate admitted in the respective branch. 23. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed on 7-8-2009 in Writ Petition No. 5852 of 2009, in the matter of Nitin Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. wherein this Court while dealing the case of a private unaided professional college had directed the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee constituted under the Adhiniyam, 2007 to scrutinize the admission of NRI quota. But in the present case, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners could not point out that the Adhiniyam, 2007 is applicable to the respondent No. 5 institute. The respondent No. 5 is undisputedly an autonomous institute; whereas the Adhiniyam, 2007 is applicable to deemed universities or constituent units thereto other than those promoted and maintained by the Central or State Government and also to private unaided professional educational institutions affiliated to a university established under the Central or Madhya Pradesh Act. 24. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners referring to the judgments in the matter of Rajendra Prasad v. Karnataka University AIR 1986 SC 1448 and A. Sudha v. University of Mysore and Anr. AIR 1987 SC 2305 , submitted that since the petitioners have already completed their First Semester, therefore, they should be allowed to complete the course. 25. The aforesaid judgments relied upon by the petitioners have no application in the facts of the present case. In the present case, the petitioners had participated in the Counselling held on 13-8-2009 but the respondent No. 5-College while forwarding the names of the candidates by letter dated 20-8-2009 (Annexure P-15) had sent only names of 11 candidates who had satisfied the criteria under the NRI sponsored as per guidelines. The names of the petitioners were not sent as they were not found eligible. The petitioners were allowed to attend the classes as interim measure by order dated 16-9-2009 passed by this Court but on 13-10-2009 this Court had clarified that the petitioners will not claim any equity because of the interim order passed by this Court. 26. The names of the petitioners were not sent as they were not found eligible. The petitioners were allowed to attend the classes as interim measure by order dated 16-9-2009 passed by this Court but on 13-10-2009 this Court had clarified that the petitioners will not claim any equity because of the interim order passed by this Court. 26. In the matter of Rajendra Prasad (supra), the students were allowed to continue their studies because the students were pursuing course for about four years under the orders of the High Court and Supreme Court and colleges giving admission were found responsible for wrongful admission but that is not the position in the present case. In the matter of A. Sudha (supra), the candidate had completed First MBBS, he was found to be innocent having acted upon the representation of the college authorities that he was eligible for admission. But in the present case, the college itself had not recommended the names of the petitioners for admission and immediately after the Counselling the petitioners had come to know about their ineligibility under the requisite guidelines. 27. Thus, in view of the analysis, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs. 28. A copy of this order be placed in the record of connected writ petition, as particularized above, for ready reference.