ORDER Harsha Devani, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.D. Vyas, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent. Rule. Mr. Abhishek Mehta, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present petition and more particularly the urgency of the case, with the consent of the learned counsel of the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs: "20. The petitioner, therefore, humbly prays that: (A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by directing the respondent to reconsider the eligibility of the shortlisted candidates declared in provisional list and further exclude from consideration the candidature of persons claiming to be NRI Wards or whose NRI/Children status is not supported by Government Certification. (AA) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the eligibility criteria in rules for admission to be illegal and bad, so far it provides eligibility to candidates whose guardian is Non-Residential India." 3. The petitioner herein cleared his 10th Grade from Indian School Muscat, Oman in the year 2006 and passed the higher secondary certificate examination in February 2008 of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune. The petitioner was granted admission in the K.J. Somaiya Medical College and Research Centre, which is affiliated with Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nasik, for the M.B.B.S. course. The petitioner has cleared M.B.B.S. and has completed internship as certified by the institution on 02.04.2014. 4. The respondent is a Municipal Medical College established by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and is affiliated with the Gujarat University. For the academic year 2013-14 and 2014-15, the respondent institution had issued "Rules & Application Form" for admission to post-graduate courses which inter alia defined the expression "NRI" and "NRI dependent" and also prescribed the eligibility criteria for admission to the 15% Non-Resident Indian Seats. For the academic year 2014-15, the petitioner has applied for the post graduate course on a "Non-Resident Indian Seat" and has paid Rs. 15,000/- as processing and scrutiny fee (non-refundable). For the academic year 2014-15, the petitioner has applied for the post graduate course on a "Non-Resident Indian Seat" and has paid Rs. 15,000/- as processing and scrutiny fee (non-refundable). As per information of the petitioner, the provisional merit list has been declared on or about 19.04.2014 wherein he is ranked at serial No. 34 and the counselling was scheduled on 28.04.2014. However, the counselling has been postponed till further intimation. According to the petitioner a perusal of the provisional merit list indicates that some of the shortlisted candidates appear to have claimed to be NRI wards whereas the minimum age provided for applying for a post graduate course is 21. Evidently, therefore, such candidate would be a major and hence, there is no question of appointment of any person as a guardian of such candidate. Consequently, such candidates cannot claim to be the wards of a guardian who is a Non-Resident Indian. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that there are many instances where NRI status is artificially created with intent to qualify either as NRI or NRI children, despite the fact that such candidate is neither shown to have domiciled in a foreign country nor has been issued certification by the Embassy or Government authorities confirming such status. According to the petitioner, to curb such impermissible efforts, some States/Institutions do not recognize Non-Resident Indian status of candidates unless the travel to the foreign country is more than 4 to 7 years. It is the case of the petitioner that he has not been provided with the information as to whether there are any such instances where the candidates have applied on the basis of any private certificates of nationality/status. According to the petitioner, such candidates are not eligible and clearly excluded from being considered for NRI seats in the post graduate courses. 6. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, that the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the reliefs noted hereinabove. 7. In response to the averments made in the petition, the respondent College has filed an affidavit-in-reply, wherein it has been categorically stated that in the provisional list, there is not a single candidate/student who is an NRI ward and hence, the question of excluding any person claiming to be an NRI ward would not arise. 7. In response to the averments made in the petition, the respondent College has filed an affidavit-in-reply, wherein it has been categorically stated that in the provisional list, there is not a single candidate/student who is an NRI ward and hence, the question of excluding any person claiming to be an NRI ward would not arise. It is further stated that the definition of NRI is considered as defined under the Income-tax Act, 1961/Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and that an eligible Non-Resident Indian, his children or his ward can be given admission in this quota. As regards the contention of the petitioner mat there may be instances where the Non-Resident Indian status is artificially created with an intent to qualify either as Non-Resident Indian or Non-Resident Indian children, it is stated that the authorities verify the status of a Non-Resident Indian as per the Income-tax Act/FEMA Act before giving admission in the category of Non-Resident Indian. After considering the same, the student is given admission if he belongs to the category of NRI/NRI children/NRI ward. If there are seats left in the NRI quota after the above consideration, then those seats are given to NRI dependents. 8. Subsequently, an additional affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it has been stated that for the purpose of granting admission to the applicants in the NRI category, the respondent college follows the rules and procedure as attached to the application form which is issued to the applicants seeking admission in the NRI category. For the purpose of considering as to who is an "NRI" or falls within the purview of an "NRI" for granting admission under the NRI category, the respondent college follows the definition of "NRI" as provided under the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). It is further averred that the respondent college is bound by the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the judgments of this court (as mentioned in the definition of "NRI" stated in the rules for admission). It is further averred that the respondent college is bound by the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the judgments of this court (as mentioned in the definition of "NRI" stated in the rules for admission). It is also averred that apart from considering the status of "NRI" in terms of the definition provided under the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, the respondent college also considers the fact of an "NRI" having either citizenship of foreign country or permanent residency or equivalent to it to ensure the genuineness of the NRI status. Any person claiming "NRI" status on the basis of tourist visa or visitor's visa (having stayed outside the country for more than 182 days) is also not considered for the purpose of grant of admission under the "NRI" category. It is stated that the respondent college follows the following procedure for scrutiny of the applications: (i) Invitation of application by advertisement in four newspapers. (ii) Primary checking of application before accepting it by the designated officers/professor. Primary checking for necessary documents, mark sheets, degree certificate, MBBS registration in Medical Council, Passport, Undertaking for fee. Etc. (iii) Detailed checking of marks, Internship completion, reorganization of college etc. by the designated committee comprising of professors. (iv) Detailed checking of Visa types, Passport entries for calculating days for stay outside/inside India, Place of Issue of Passport, Date of Issue of Passport, Passport country, Place of study, etc. by the Chartered Accountant firm appointed by the college. (v) Scrutiny at the level of PG Admission & Scrutiny Committee comprising of following: a. Municipal Commissioner & Chairman, AMC Medical Education Trust b. Deputy Municipal Commissioner & Chairman, AMC Medical Education Trust c. Dean, NHL Municipal Medical College d. Dean, B.J. Medical College e. Professor of Pathology, B.J. Medical College f. Professor of Forensic Medicine, NHL Municipal Medical College g. Professor of Bio Chemistry, NHL Municipal Medical College (vi) Declaration of Provisional Merit List, inviting application for any objection(s) in prescribed time limit in accordance with merit. (vii) Considering objection(s) if any received. (viii) Declaration of Final Merit List by the PG Admission & Scrutiny Committee. (ix) Provisional Admission by the PG Admission & Scrutiny Committee through Counselling in presence of all candidates/parent who choose to remain present. (vii) Considering objection(s) if any received. (viii) Declaration of Final Merit List by the PG Admission & Scrutiny Committee. (ix) Provisional Admission by the PG Admission & Scrutiny Committee through Counselling in presence of all candidates/parent who choose to remain present. It is further stated that the respondent college has prepared provisional merit list which is under consideration in the present petition and the same is required to be finalized at the earliest after holding counselling of the students. It is further averred that the entire procedure is carried out by the PG Admission and Scrutiny Committee headed by the Municipal Commissioner and Chairman, AMC Medical Education Trust and it is only after being satisfied about the status of the candidate that the name of the candidate is included in the list of NRI/Children/Ward or NRI dependent, as the case may be. 9. It appears that on account of certain queries raised by the court during the course of hearing of the matter, the respondent had sought certain information from the students who had applied in the NRI category including the petitioner herein. To bring the said on record fact, the petitioner has filed a reply to the additional affidavit-in-reply placing on record a communication dated 12th June, 2014 of the respondent calling upon him to produce certain information as detailed therein. 10. Mr. D.D. Vyas, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply, namely that there is no candidate in the merit list who falls within the category of "NRI ward", the relief claimed in the petition to exclude from consideration candidates claiming to be NRI wards no longer survives. However, the principal relief prayed for, viz. to reconsider the eligibility of the shortlisted candidates still survives. It was submitted that procedure followed by the respondent in scrutinizing the status of NRI's is not clear. It was submitted that if one goes simply by the definition of NRI as defined under the Income-tax Act and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, it would be possible for a candidate or his parent/guardian to go abroad temporarily for a period of one or two years prior to the initiation of the admission process just to gain NRI status in accordance with the provisions of the above enactments. It was submitted that therefore, the best thing to be considered is the Certificate of Embassy showing the status of the person claiming to be a Non-Resident Indian. It was argued that though the petitioner had sought for information from the respondent authority, the same was not furnished to him. Therefore, the petitioner was required to approach this court seeking a direction against the respondent institution to re-scrutinize and re-inquire into the eligibility of the candidates. 10.1 The attention of the court was invited to paragraph 16 of the memorandum of petition, to submit that there is no categorical denial to the averments made therein, in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent. Referring to the additional affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner along with which the petitioner has annexed a communication dated 12th June, 2014 calling upon the petitioner to furnish details mentioned therein, it was submitted that the said communication which has been addressed to all the students who have applied under the NRI category, clearly shows that the respondent did not have sufficient details when the merit list in the NRI category came to be prepared and hence, petitioner is wholly justified in seeking reconsideration of the eligibility of the shortlisted candidates. Reference was made to the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Vrushali Hiren Shah v. NHL Municipal Medical College, rendered on 05.07.2011 in Special Civil Application No. 7445 of 2011, wherein the court after referring to the definition of "nonresident" as defined under section 2(3) of the Income-tax Act, has held that it does not flow from section 6(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, that if the petitioner was out of India for a total number of 186 days, she would fall within the definition of "non-resident" as defined under the Income-tax Act. The court observed that section 6(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act only speaks about "residence in India" for the purposes of Income-tax Act and is totally silent as regards the term "Non-Resident Indian". The court was of the view that the logical corollary flowing from section 6(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act cannot be adopted or taken into consideration for the purpose of understanding the meaning of "Non-Resident Indian". The court was of the view that the logical corollary flowing from section 6(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act cannot be adopted or taken into consideration for the purpose of understanding the meaning of "Non-Resident Indian". The court observed that if a person goes abroad but at that time, he does not know for how long he is going to stay abroad, that would indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period. A citizen of India may go abroad for many reasons. For example, a citizen of India may go abroad to look after his or her ailing friend or relative with the intention to return to India only after recovery of such ailing person, and in case return to India after three months when that person has recovered, these persons are not entitled to the status of an "Non-Resident Indian". The period for which the visa is issued by the country to be visited is also not relevant. It was argued that the Division Bench in the above decision has held that merely because a person has stayed out of India for more than 186 days in a year, would not clothe him with the status of Non-Resident Indian. It was urged that the petitioner apprehends that the parent of a candidate may have obtained residency solely for the purpose of securing admission of his/her child in the Non-Resident Indian category. Therefore, the scrutiny should be made in a manner so as to exclude all such persons who seek to obtain Non-Resident Indian status solely for the purpose of gaining admission of his/her child in the Non-Resident Indian category. It was urged that as the respondent has not carried out necessary inquiry, the petition deserves to be allowed by directing the respondent to reconsider the eligibility of the shortlisted candidates declared in the provisional list. 10.2 Reliance was also placed upon an unreported decision of this Court in the case of Bhavin Satyanarayan Mandowara v. NHL Municipal Medical College rendered on 22.07.2013 in Special Civil Application No. 9003 of 2013 and cognate matters, wherein the petitioners had claimed the status of Non-Resident Indian on their own and not as children/wards or dependents of Non-Resident Indians. 10.2 Reliance was also placed upon an unreported decision of this Court in the case of Bhavin Satyanarayan Mandowara v. NHL Municipal Medical College rendered on 22.07.2013 in Special Civil Application No. 9003 of 2013 and cognate matters, wherein the petitioners had claimed the status of Non-Resident Indian on their own and not as children/wards or dependents of Non-Resident Indians. The court observed that the petitioners therein had done their graduation in India and had thereafter gone abroad and obtained employment for a short period of 186 days and thereafter, returned to India and claimed status of Non-Resident Indian. The court upheld the decision of non-inclusion of the petitioners therein in the final merit list and was of the opinion that the respondent college in such cases should go to the root of the matter and should also inquire whether claim of such person that he had obtained a job and had entered into a contract with the company situated outside India are genuine or not and that the respondent College has to find out whether the concerned student is a bona fide NRI or not. 11. Vehemently opposing the petition, Mr. Kamal Trivedi, Senior Advocate, learned counsel with Mr. Abhishek Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent College submitted that the respondent authorities have duly scrutinized the documents which have been received from the candidates who have applied under the Non-Resident Indian category in consonance with the rules. It was submitted that after receipt of the documents, the same have been scrutinized by the Chartered Accountant to verify as to whether the requirements of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 are satisfied and it is only thereafter, that the list has been prepared. The attention of the court was drawn to the provisional merit list (Annexure "G" to the petition), to point out that the same clearly calls upon the candidates to submit their written objections (if any) against the provisional merit list to the PG Admission & Scrutiny Committee, by mail upto 22.04.2014. It was submitted that in case the petitioner had any objection to the merit list, it was for the petitioner to raise such objection at the relevant time. It was submitted that in case the petitioner had any objection to the merit list, it was for the petitioner to raise such objection at the relevant time. However, the petitioner has not raised any objection as provided therein and hence, it is now not open for him to challenge the entire merit list after the period for lodging objections has expired. It was submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to point out any specific case where any irregularity or illegality has been committed by the respondent and that, in effect and substance, what the petitioner seeks is a roving and fishing inquiry. 11.1 The attention of the court was drawn to the decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Parth Keyur Parikh v. Smt. NHL Municipal Medical College rendered on 22.09.2008 in Special Civil Application No. 8747 of 2008 : (AIR 2009 (NOC) 410 (Guj)) and other cognate matters, wherein the court was considering a case where there was a challenge to the inclusion of dependents of Non-Resident Indian in the category of Non-Resident Indian seats. Reference was also made to another unreported decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Khushboo Naginbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and others rendered on 26.09.2008 in Special Civil Application No. 8785 of 2008, wherein the reservation of seats in the Non-Resident Indian category was subject-matter of challenge. Reference was also made to an unreported decision of this court in the case of Bhavi Vipulkumar Shah v. State of Gujarat and others rendered on 27.09.2010 in Special Civil Application No. 9079 of 2010. The attention of the court was invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2005) 6 SCC 537 : ( AIR 2005 SC 3226 , para 128) and more particularly, paragraph 131 thereof, to submit that the principles laid down in the said decisions were also duly taken into consideration while preparing the merit list. 11.2 Reference was made to the definition of "NRI" as defined in the Rules for Admission, to point out that the same means a Non-Resident Indian as defined under the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. 11.2 Reference was made to the definition of "NRI" as defined in the Rules for Admission, to point out that the same means a Non-Resident Indian as defined under the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. It was pointed out that the decisions enumerated under the said definition in the rules, have also been kept in mind while preparing the provisional merit list. It was submitted that the respondent authorities have duly examined the eligibility of the candidates in the NRI category with reference to the definition of NRI under the Rules for Admission and hence, there is no warrant for interference by this court. As regards the details called for during the pendency of the petition, it was submitted that calling for some additional details does not mean that proper scrutiny was not carried out at the time of preparation of the provisional merit list. It was urged that the provisional merit list was prepared after scrutinizing the documents submitted by the candidates as required under the rules and that in the absence of any infirmity or illegality in the scrutiny carried out by the respondent college, this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere with the admission process. 11.3 During the course of the hearing of the matter, the court had drawn the attention of the learned counsel to the provisions of section 2(i) of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the ACT") to explain as to whether the same would also take within its fold an NRI who was neither a child or ward or dependant for the education purpose of an NRI because on a plain reading of the said provision, the same appears to contemplate only children/ward/dependents for the education purpose of a Non-Resident Indian. In response thereto, the learned counsel drew the attention of the court to the eligibility criteria provided under clause (a) of rule 3 of the Admission Rules to point out that the same specifically includes a candidate who is a Non-Resident Indian. In response thereto, the learned counsel drew the attention of the court to the eligibility criteria provided under clause (a) of rule 3 of the Admission Rules to point out that the same specifically includes a candidate who is a Non-Resident Indian. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of section 2(i) of the Act with clause (a) of rule 3 of the Admission Rules, a Non-Resident Indian candidate who may not be the child, ward or dependent for the education purpose would also be entitled to claim admission in the NRI category. It was urged that a purposive interpretation is required to be given to the section 2(i) of the Act to bring within its ambit students who themselves are Non-Resident Indians. 12. In the backdrop of the facts and contentions noted hereinabove, the sole question that arises for consideration is as to whether there is any infirmity or illegality in the provisional merit list prepared by the respondent so as to call for reconsideration of the eligibility of the shortlisted candidates declared in the provisional list. 13. Before adverting to the merits of the rival contentions of the respective parties, it may be germane to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. 14. To make special provision for regulation of admission in the professional medical educational colleges or institutions in the State and fixation of fees in such colleges and institutions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, the Gujarat Legislature has enacted the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007. Section 2 thereof is the definition section and clause (i) thereof defines "Non-Resident Indian Seats" to mean fifteen per cent seats reserved for children or wards or the dependents for the education purpose, of the Non-Resident Indian, to whom admission is to be given in the professional educational colleges or institutions. Therefore, Non-Resident Indian seats, are the fifteen per cent seats reserved for: (i) Children, or (ii) Wards, or (iii) Dependents for the education purpose, of a Non-Resident Indian. On a plain reading of the above provision, it is amply clear that for admission on a "Non-Resident Indian seat", a basic requirement is that the parent, guardian or the person on whom the student is dependent for education purpose has to be a Non-Resident Indian. On a plain reading of the above provision, it is amply clear that for admission on a "Non-Resident Indian seat", a basic requirement is that the parent, guardian or the person on whom the student is dependent for education purpose has to be a Non-Resident Indian. Therefore, for the purpose of being eligible for admission on a Non-Resident Indian seat, it is the parent, guardian or the person on whom the student is dependent for education purpose who has to be a Non-Resident Indian and not just the student himself/herself. Therefore, while examining applications for admission on "Non-Resident Indian seats", the concerned authorities are required to be satisfied that the parent, guardian or person on whom the student is dependent for the purpose of education is a Non-Resident Indian. 15. The expression "NRI" as defined under the Admission Rules reads thus: "NRI" means a Non-Resident Indian as define under the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. Please also refer: (i) Supreme Court Judgment in Appeal (Civil) 5041/2005 dated 12.8.2005 : AIR 2005 SC 3226 and others (ii) High Court of Gujarat Order in SPA No. 7445/2011 D/- 5.7.2011 (iii) High Court of Gujarat Order in SPA No. 9003/2013 D/- 22.7.2013 (iv) High Court of Gujarat Order in SPA No. 9007/2013 D/- 22.7.2013 (v) High Court of Gujarat Order in SPA No. 9008/2013 D/- 22.7.2013." On a conjoint reading of section 2(i) of the Act, read with the definition of "NRI" as defined under the Admission Rules, it is clear that for the purpose of getting admission on a "Non-Resident Indian seat" the parent, guardian or person on whom the student is dependent for the purpose of education should be a "Non-Resident Indian" within the meaning of the said expression as defined under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and should conform to the requirements laid down by the Supreme Court and this High Court in the above referred decisions. It is only then that the student concerned would be eligible to get admission on a seat so reserved. It is only then that the student concerned would be eligible to get admission on a seat so reserved. In other words, the qualification for eligibility to get admission on a "Non-Resident Indian seat" is not that the concerned student who desires to get admission has to be a Non-Resident Indian, but it is the parent, guardian or person on whom the student is dependent for education purpose, who is required to be a Non-Resident Indian. It may be that the student himself/herself may be a Non-Resident Indian and the parent, guardian and the person on whom he/she is dependent may also be a Non-Resident Indian, in which case such student would fulfill the eligibility criteria in terms of section 2(i) of the Act. However, if the student alone is a Non-Resident Indian and the parent, guardian or person on whom he/she is dependant for the education purpose is not a Non-Resident Indian, from the language employed in section 2(i) of the Act, such student would not be eligible for admission on a Non-Resident Indian seat. 16. Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or authority or in any agreement, all the admissions to the professional courses in the professional educational colleges or institutions shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that any admission made in contravention of the provisions of the Act shall be invalid. Therefore, the provisions of the Act are required to be strictly complied with and any admission granted in contravention of the provisions thereof, shall be invalid. 17. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties would, therefore, be required to be examined in the light of the above statutory provisions. 18. It may now be necessary to refer to the Post-graduate Course 2014-15 - N.R.I. Seats Rules for Admission for the Smt. NHL Municipal Medical College (hereinafter referred to as "the Admission Rules"). Rule 3 of the said rules makes provision for eligibility criteria, and reads as under: "3. 18. It may now be necessary to refer to the Post-graduate Course 2014-15 - N.R.I. Seats Rules for Admission for the Smt. NHL Municipal Medical College (hereinafter referred to as "the Admission Rules"). Rule 3 of the said rules makes provision for eligibility criteria, and reads as under: "3. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: (a)(i) A candidate shall be Non-Resident Indian, or (ii) his/her parents or in absence of his/her parents, his/her legal guardian shall be Non-Resident India, or (iii) he/she shall be dependent of Non-Resident Indian for the educational purposes and shall have necessary proof/evidence in support of his dependent. (b) For bona fide NRI students, residing abroad, the qualifying examination for admission to the P.G. Course will be M.B.B.S. Degree of the respective country which is recognized by Medical Council of India. The candidate should have secured minimum 50% marks as per Medical Council of India norms. (c) "Professional Eligibility Certificate" should be obtained from Gujarat University within one month of the admission. (d) "Migration Certificate" should be obtained from University by the student (sic) who have passed M.B.B.S. Degree from other than Gujarat University within one month of the admission. (e) The candidate whose guardian is Non-Resident Indian shall have to produce necessary proof to the satisfaction of the concerned College or Institution establishing that in the absence of his/her parents, the concerned person has been legally appointed as his/her guardian. (f) The candidate who is dependent of Non-Resident Indian shall have to submit an affidavit as per given format done before Executive Magistrate only. In absence of the affidavit as per format or done before Executive Magistrate, the application will be treated as cancelled. Please refer High Court of Gujarat Order dated 27.09.2010 in Special Civil Application No. 9079/2010. (g) The candidate must have completed the recognized M.B.B.S. or equivalent course. He must have completed compulsory rotating internship before the date of Provisional interview for provisional admission. Please refer High Court of Gujarat Order dated 27.09.2010 in Special Civil Application No. 9079/2010. (g) The candidate must have completed the recognized M.B.B.S. or equivalent course. He must have completed compulsory rotating internship before the date of Provisional interview for provisional admission. All candidates shall have to submit the certificate from the dean of college regarding completion of internship, failing which, candidate will not be eligible for admission." Thus, rule 3 of the Admission Rules provides that for a candidate to be eligible for admission in the Non-Resident Indian category shall be: (i) Non-Resident Indian, (ii) his/her parents, or in the absence of his/her parents, his/her legal guardian shall be a Non-Resident Indian, or (iii) he/she shall be dependent of a Non-Resident Indian for the educational purposes and shall have necessary proof/evidence in support thereof. 19. Examining the provisions of clause (a) of rule 3 of the Admission Rules in the light of the definition of "Non-Resident Indian seats" as defined under section 2(i) of the Act, what emerges is that in the rule, in addition to the categories specified in section 2(i) of the Act, a new category, viz., a candidate who is a Non-Resident Indian has been introduced. Thus, though the Act does not contemplate admission of a candidate who is simpliciter a Non-Resident Indian, without his her parent/guardian or person on whom he is dependant for the education purpose being a Non-Resident Indian to be eligible for admission to a Non-Resident Indian seat, in the rules, such candidate is made eligible. Therefore, rule 3(a)(i) of the Admission Rules is clearly contrary to the provisions of section 2(i) of the Act and would, therefore, be hit by section 3 of the Act which mandates that all admissions to the professional courses in the professional educational colleges or institutions shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and any admission made in contravention of the provisions of the Act would be invalid. 20. A perusal of the details of the candidates who have been included in the provisional merit list reveals that some of them are not children/wards or dependents for the educational purpose of Non-Resident Indians, but are Non-Resident Indian themselves. In some cases, nationality of the candidate is of a different country, and in some cases, the documents relating to proof of Non-Resident Indian status is of F1 visa. In some cases, nationality of the candidate is of a different country, and in some cases, the documents relating to proof of Non-Resident Indian status is of F1 visa. Thus, the inclusion of these candidates in the merit list would be required to be reconsidered. 21. At this juncture reference may be made to the decisions on which the learned counsel for the respective parties, have placed reliance. In Parth Keyur Parikh v. SMT NHL Municipal Medical College (AIR 2009 (NOC) 410 (Guj)) (supra), the Division Bench was dealing with a case where the challenge was to the inclusion of dependents of Non-Resident Indians in the definition of "Non-Resident Indian seats". The court, inter alia, held thus: "24. It is certainly for the Legislature to consider what weightage or priority should be accorded to the factors which are already considered as relevant by the Apex Court. On an analysis of the relevant statutory provisions, it appears that the State Legislature and the Rule making authority has arranged the relevant factors in the following order:- (i) Substantially higher fees are determined by the Fees Regulation Committee for NRI seats i.e. 15% seats out of the total intake in the concerned private unaided college. This enables such institution to generate funds to strengthen their level of education and also to enlarge their educational activities which would have otherwise required the institution to charge higher fees from the students admitted to the remaining 85% seats in the concerned institution. (ii) Merit is the sole criterion for granting admissions to NRI seats and, therefore, no mini classification is made amongst the applicants eligible for admission to NRI seats. (iii) Enlarging the definition of persons eligible for NRI seats enlarges the number of students and merit being the only criterion for admissions from out of such eligible candidates, the Legislature has given higher weightage to merit rather than giving preference to students whose parents or guardians are residing abroad. (iv) Just as children or wards of NRIs, having studied in schools in India, are eligible for admission to NRI seats, there would be no justification for keeping out students who have studied in schools in India and are dependents on NRIs for the purpose of higher education which is becoming very expensive. Children or wards of NRIs are presumed to be dependents on NRIs for financing the expenses of higher education. 25. Children or wards of NRIs are presumed to be dependents on NRIs for financing the expenses of higher education. 25. It is for the Legislature to decide in its wisdom as to which class/es of candidates should be made eligible for admission to NRI seats. So long as the classification made by the Legislature is founded on an intelligible differentia and the same has rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statute, the legislative provision cannot be faulted with. The legislative object is to permit the private unaided institutions to generate more funds by taking higher fees from students whose higher education is being financed by NRIs, provided the students are children of NRIs or wards of NRIs or are dependents of NRIs for education purpose. Therefore, only students who have some rational connection with the NRIs are considered eligible. In case of children and wards of NRIs, there would always be a presumption that they are dependents of NRIs for education purpose. In case of others, where the students are able to show that they are dependents of NRIs for education purpose, they are considered as eligible. Thus dependence on NRIs for education purpose is a common running thread amongst all the categories of students who are considered by the Legislature as eligible for admission to NRI seats. We are, therefore, not in a position to accept the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that legislative provision including in the definition dependents of NRIs for education purpose has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved." 22. Thus, the court in the above decision has held the legislative object is to permit the private unaided institutions to generate more funds by taking higher fees from students whose higher education is being financed by NRIs, provided the students are children of NRIs or wards of NRIs or are dependents of NRIs for education purpose. Therefore, only students who have some rational connection with the NRIs are considered eligible. In case of children and wards of NRIs, there would always be a presumption that they are dependents of NRIs for education purpose. In case of others, where the students are able to show that they are dependents of NRIs for education purpose, they are considered as eligible. 23. In case of children and wards of NRIs, there would always be a presumption that they are dependents of NRIs for education purpose. In case of others, where the students are able to show that they are dependents of NRIs for education purpose, they are considered as eligible. 23. In Khushboo Naginbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and others (supra), a Division Bench of this court was dealing with a case where the reservation of 15% seats in the Non-Resident Indian category was subject-matter of challenge. The court, after considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 2005 SC 3226 ) (supra), held that allocation of 15% seats for admission of Non-Resident Indian cannot be and should not be branded as reservation at par with communal reservation or constitutional reservation in favour of the backward classes like SC/ST/SEBC. The court turned down the contention of the petitioner that reservation of seats for Non-Resident Indians and its classification is violative of Articles 14 and 15(5) of the Constitution of India. 24. In Bhavi Vipulkumar Shah v. State of Gujarat and others (supra), a Division Bench of this court held thus: "7. Question of admission of NRI quota seats is recurring question and rearing it's head every now and then. We have, therefore, decided to tackle the issue in the present petition though as already noted the petition is opposed by the respondents on some other grounds. 8. The Act was enacted to make special provision for regulation of admission in professional medical educational colleges or institutions in the State and fixation of fees in such colleges or institutions. As already noted, Section 2(i) of the Act defines the term Non-Resident Indian seats. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 further provides that any admission made in contravention of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid. Section 6 of the Act pertains to admission to Government seats and management seats and makes provision for granting admission to such quota of seats. In particular, it is provided that where any Non-Resident Indian seat remains vacant, such seat shall be filled in from the management seats and that if any management seat remains vacant, such seat shall be filled in from the Government seats. 9. In particular, it is provided that where any Non-Resident Indian seat remains vacant, such seat shall be filled in from the management seats and that if any management seat remains vacant, such seat shall be filled in from the Government seats. 9. Insofar as the definition of term Non-Resident Indian Seats contained in Section 2(i) of the Act is concerned, same poses no difficulty. The State Legislature has provided for the definition which we have already reproduced earlier. As noted, said provision came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court wherein the Constitutional validity of the provision was called in question. The Division Bench upheld its vires making following observations: "23. When a student having done schooling in India, whose parents or guardians are residing abroad, is eligible for admission to an NRI seat, there is no question of his being reunited with the Indian culture because he is already a part of the Indian culture while studying in a school in India. No grievance can, therefore, be made against inclusion of the third category of students who are dependents on NRIs for education purpose, merely on the ground that such dependents have done their schooling in India. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 8747 of 2008 himself has passed the qualifying exam conducted by the Gujarat Board. 25. It is for the Legislature to decide in its wisdom as to which class/es of candidates should be made eligible for admission to NRI seats. So long as the classification made by the Legislature is founded on an intelligible differentia and the same has rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statute, the legislative provision cannot be faulted with. The legislative object is to permit the private unaided institutions to generate more funds by taking higher fees from students whose higher education is being financed by NRIs provided the students are children of NRIs or wards of NRIs or are dependents of NRIs for education purpose. Therefore, only students who have some rational connection with the NRIs are considered eligible. In case of children and wards of NRIs, there would always be a presumption that they are dependents of NRIs for education purpose. In case of others, where the students are able to show that they are dependents of NRIs for education purpose, they are considered as eligible. In case of children and wards of NRIs, there would always be a presumption that they are dependents of NRIs for education purpose. In case of others, where the students are able to show that they are dependents of NRIs for education purpose, they are considered as eligible. Thus dependence on NRIs for education purpose is a common running thread amongst all the categories of students who are considered by the Legislature as eligible for admission to NRI seats. We are, therefore, not in a position to accept the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that legislative provision including in the definition dependents of NRIs for education purpose has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved." 10. In the present case, however, we are not concerned with the validity of the Section 2(i) of the said Act but we are concerned with the interpretation of the said provision and the question whether in the facts of the present case and in such similar cases, students can seek admission in Non-Resident Indian seats. As can be seen from the said provision, 15% of the available seats are reserved as Non-Resident Indian seats and are to be filled up from amongst the children or wards if Non-Resident Indians or persons dependent for education purpose on the Non-Resident Indians. Insofar as the expression children or ward of Non-Resident India is concerned, same poses no difficulty. Contentious issue is who can be called dependent for the education purpose of NRI. 11. It is true that prescribing separate quota reserved for Non-Resident Indian students has been recognized by the Apex Court. However, the entire purpose was to make such benefit available to genuine NRI students and not to enlarge the scope to such an extent that even non-genuine students could claim such benefit. In the case of P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 537 : ( AIR 2005 SC 3226 , para 128), the Apex Court observed 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 higher amount of fee. In fact, the term NRI in relation to admissions is a misnomer. It is common knowledge that some of the institutions grant admissions to a certain number of students under such quota by charging 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 limited number of such seats should be made available as the money brought by such students admitted against the NRI quota enables the educational institution to strengthen their level of education and also to enlarge their educational activities. It was also pointed out that people of Indian origin, who have migrated to other countries, have a desire to bring back their children to their own country as they not only get education but also get re-united with the Indian culture 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 mother land. Limited reservation of such seats not exceeding 15%, in our opinion, may be made available to NRIs depending upon the discretion of the management subject to two conditions. First, such seats should be utilized bona fide by NRIs only and for their children or wards. Secondly, within this quota, merits should not be given a complete go-by. The amount of money, in whatever form, collected from such NRIs, should be utilized for benefiting students such as from economically weaker sections of the society, whom well defined criteria, the educational institutions may admit on subsidized payment of their fee. To prevent mis-utilization 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 Islamic Academy to regulate. 12. From the above portion of the decision of the Apex Court, it can be seen that the purpose of permitting NRI quota seats was not to permit educational institutions to grant admission to less meritorious students by charging higher fees. 12. From the above portion of the decision of the Apex Court, it can be seen that the purpose of permitting NRI quota seats was not to permit educational institutions to grant admission to less meritorious students by charging higher fees. The purpose was to permit the limited quota of seats under this category to enable the educational institutions to strengthen their level of education and also to enlarge their educational activities and simultaneously, to enable the people of Indian origin who have migrated to other countries and who have desire to bring back their children to their own country to get education and also get re-united with the Indian cultural ethos. This has been permitted subject to following two conditions: (I) That such seats should be utilized bona fide by NRI's only and for their children or wards and; (II) Even in this quota, the merit should not be given complete go-by. It was further provided that the money in whatever form collected from such NRI's should be utilized for benefiting students such as socially and economically weaker sections of the society. The Apex Court also directed that to prevent mis-utilization of such quota, suitable legislation or regulations be framed." (Emphasis on underlined portion) 25. Thus, this court in the context of the provisions of section 2(i) of the Act has observed that 15% of the available seats are reserved as Non-Resident Indian seats and are to be filled up from amongst the children or wards of Non-Resident Indian or persons dependents for the education purpose on the Non-Resident Indians. Thus, the Division Benches in the above referred two decisions have also construed section 2(i) of the act to mean that Non-Resident Indian Seats are to be filled up by children or wards of Non-Resident Indians, or students who are dependent for the education purpose on Non-Resident Indians. 26. As noticed earlier, rule 3 of the Admission Rules is clearly contrary to section 2(i) of the Act, inasmuch as, the same introduces a new category of persons who would be eligible to get admission on Non-Resident Indian seats which is not contemplated by the legislature while enacting the provisions of section 2(i) of the Act. 26. As noticed earlier, rule 3 of the Admission Rules is clearly contrary to section 2(i) of the Act, inasmuch as, the same introduces a new category of persons who would be eligible to get admission on Non-Resident Indian seats which is not contemplated by the legislature while enacting the provisions of section 2(i) of the Act. Under the circumstances, sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of rule 3 of the Admission Rules which provides that a candidate shall be Non-Resident Indian is contrary to the provisions of section 2(i) of the Act and any admission given to a person who belongs to the said category and whose parent or guardian or the person on whom he/she is dependent for the educational purpose is not a non-resident Indian, would be hit by section 3 of the Act and would be invalid. In other words, a candidate who simpliciter is a Non-Resident Indian is not eligible to get admission in the Post-graduate Course on a "Non-Resident Indian seat". However, if the said candidate satisfies the requirement of being a child, ward or a dependent for the education purpose of a Non-Resident Indian, he/she would be eligible to get admission to the post-graduate medical course. 27. At this juncture, it may be noted that the Supreme Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 2005 SC 3226 ) (supra) has observed that a limited number of such seats should be made available as the money brought by such students admitted against the Non-Resident Indian quota enables the educational institution to strengthen their level of education and also to enlarge their educational activities. It was also pointed out that people of Indian origin, who have migrated to other countries, have a desire to bring back their children to their own country as they not only get education but also get re-united with the Indian culture 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 mother land. They also wish the money which they would be spending elsewhere on education of their children should rather reach their own mother land. Therefore, the object behind providing "Non-Resident Indian seats" is for enabling the people of Indian origin who have migrated to other countries to bring their children back to their own country for education as well as to ensure that the money spent by them on the education of their children is spent in their own mother land. Therefore, the object behind providing "Non-Resident Indian seats" is to ensure that Non-Resident Indians who are residing outside India spend for the education of their children in India. In case where the candidate's parent, guardian or the person on whom he or she is dependent for education purpose is not a Non-Indian Resident, the above object would not be satisfied as the education of the candidate is not funded by an NRI. The Supreme Court in paragraph 155 of the said decision (SCC version) has observed that it is for the Central Government, or for the State Governments, in the absence of a Central legislation, to come out with a detailed well-though out legislation on the subject. Such a legislation is long awaited. The States must act towards this direction. 28. The above decision came to be rendered on 12th August, 2005. Thereafter, the State of Gujarat has come out with the long awaited legislation by enacting the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007. In consonance with the observations made by the Supreme Court in the above decision and the object behind providing Non-Resident Indian seats, the Legislature has defined "Non-Resident Indian seats" to mean fifteen per cent seats reserved for children or wards or the dependents for the education purpose, of the Non-Resident Indian, to whom admission is to be given in the professional educational colleges or institutions. The said provision fulfills the object behind providing "Non-Resident Indian seats" because if the parent/guardian/person on whom the student is dependent for the education purpose, is a non-resident Indian, the money which would have been spent on such candidate outside India would be spent in India. In other words, the education of the candidate would be funded by a Non-Resident Indian who also should fulfill the other requirements of section 2(i) of the Act. In other words, the education of the candidate would be funded by a Non-Resident Indian who also should fulfill the other requirements of section 2(i) of the Act. If the candidate is a "Non-Resident Indian" but her parents/guardian/person on whom he/she is dependent for education purpose, is not a non-resident Indian, the education of such candidate is not funded by a Non-Resident Indian, which defeats the very purpose behind the enactment. A "Non-Resident Indian seat" is not a seat reserved for Non-Resident Indians, but a seat reserved for a child/ward/dependent for the education purpose of a Non-Resident Indian". Under the circumstances, any candidate who does not fall within the ambit of clause (i) of section 2 of the Act cannot be said to be eligible to get admission in the professional educational colleges or institutions in the State of Gujarat on a Non-Resident Indian seat. The provisional merit list to the extent, candidates not falling within the ambit of section 2 of the Act are included therein, is, therefore, hit by section 3 of the Act and is invalid. 29. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also assailed the merit list on the ground mat the respondent authorities have not properly scrutinized as to whether the parent of the candidate is a Non-Resident Indian. It has been submitted that a parent may have gone abroad merely with the intention of acquiring Non-Resident Indian status so as to enable his son or daughter to obtain admission on a Non-Resident Indian seat. It was, accordingly, urged that the criteria for establishing Non-Resident Indian status is required to be scrutinized thoroughly and documents like the certificate from the concerned Embassy should be made mandatory. 30. In this regard, it may be noted mat as per the Admission Rules, the expression "NRI" has been defined to mean "Non-Resident Indian" as defined under the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. As per the rules, reference is also to be made to the decisions enumerated thereunder. In the present year, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the list neither includes any ward of an NRI nor does it include any person dependent on an NRI for the purpose of education. The list therefore, includes only candidates who are themselves non-resident Indians or are children of non-resident Indians. The first category of candidates, viz. In the present year, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the list neither includes any ward of an NRI nor does it include any person dependent on an NRI for the purpose of education. The list therefore, includes only candidates who are themselves non-resident Indians or are children of non-resident Indians. The first category of candidates, viz. candidates who are themselves non-resident Indians, if they do not satisfy the requirements of section 2(i) of the Act would not be eligible for admission to the Post-graduate Medical Courses on Non-Resident Indian seats. Insofar as verification of the NRI status of the parent of the candidate is concerned, each of the candidates has furnished the necessary documents which they had been called upon to produce under the rules. The respondent authorities have duly examined the NRI status of the parent on the basis of the documents produced by the candidates, viz. residence card, employment card, certificate of naturalization, etc. and after obtaining the opinion of the Chartered Accountant regarding the NRI status of such person. The Committee for Admission cannot be expected to undertake any further exercise to ascertain the intention behind the parent of the candidate migrating to another country for the purpose of employment. Therefore, the contention that the concerned parent might have migrated abroad solely for the purpose of enabling his/her son or daughter to secure admission on a Non-Resident Indian seat, and mat such fact is also required to be ascertained, does not merit acceptance. What the respondent authorities are required to examine is as to whether the Non-Resident Indian concerned, meets with the requirements of "Non-Resident Indian" as defined under the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and the decisions in this regard. Once the said requirements are met with, it cannot be expected of the respondent authorities to make any further inquiry into the intention of the concerned Non-Resident Indian for the purpose of obtaining employment elsewhere. 31. Once the said requirements are met with, it cannot be expected of the respondent authorities to make any further inquiry into the intention of the concerned Non-Resident Indian for the purpose of obtaining employment elsewhere. 31. Insofar as the decisions of the Division Benches of this court in the cases of Vrushali Hiren Shah v. NHL Municipal Medical College (supra) and Bhavin Satyanarayan Mandowara v. NHL Municipal Medical College (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, in the said cases, it was the students themselves who had gone abroad for a period beyond 186 days in the previous year merely to get the status of Non-Resident Indian, which is not so in the present case. In the present case, all that is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner is that it is possible that parents of some of the candidates may have acquired NRI status only for the purpose of helping their children to secure admission on a "Non-Resident Indian seat" without pinpointing any specific case. In effect and substance, the petitioner seeks a fishing inquiry into the NRI status of the parents of all the candidates without pointing out any specific case of a parent not meeting with the requirements. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that insistence should be made on documents like certificate of the concerned Embassy which may not be available in all cases and which was not stipulated under the Admission Rules, does not merit acceptance. 32. A perusal of the list of candidates reveals that some of the candidates are shown to be Non-Resident Indians. However, it may be that in view of the fact that under rule 3(a) of the Admission Rules the first category of candidates is a Non-Resident Indian, even if the parent or guardian or the person on whom such candidate is dependent for the purpose of education is also a Non-Resident Indian, such details may not have been produced on record as the candidate himself/herself was satisfying the requirements of rule 3(a)(i) of the Admission Rules. Therefore, before declaring such candidate to be ineligible, the respondent shall call upon such candidate to produce the proof of his/her parent/guardian/person on whom such candidate is dependent for the education purpose, being a Non-Resident Indian as envisaged under the Act and the rules. Therefore, before declaring such candidate to be ineligible, the respondent shall call upon such candidate to produce the proof of his/her parent/guardian/person on whom such candidate is dependent for the education purpose, being a Non-Resident Indian as envisaged under the Act and the rules. Needless to state that if such proof is furnished, such candidate shall be entitled to be included in the merit list. It is further clarified that this judgment shall operate prospectively and shall not affect any admissions made in the previous years. 33. In the light of the above discussion, the petition partly succeeds and is allowed to the following extent: The respondent is directed to reconsider the eligibility of the shortlisted candidates declared in the provisional merit list strictly in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) section 2 of the Act and exclude from consideration any candidate whose parent, guardian or person on whom he/she is dependent for the education purpose is not a Non-Resident Indian. However, before declaring such candidate to be ineligible, the respondent shall call upon such candidate to produce the proof of his/her parent/guardian/person on whom such candidate is dependent for the education purpose, being a Non-Resident Indian as envisaged under the Act and the Admission Rules. Needless to state that if such proof is furnished, such candidate shall be entitled to be included in the merit list. Rule is made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs. Petition Partly Allowed