JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. The petitioner is a resident of village Alipur, Tehsil and District Roop Nagar, Punjab. He has qualified for All India Senior School Certificate Examination, 2014, vide Annexure P-3, which is equivalent to plus two. Respondent No.2 University is running various courses, including Bachelor in Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry, B.V. Sc & AH in short, in its campus at Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. In Chapter II under the heading “Admission and Enrolment” of Information Brochure-cum-Prospectus for the Academic Session 2016-17, provision qua reservation of seats for various categories was made. Amongst other categories, two seats were reserved for NRIs (non-resident Indians, residing abroad) and two seats for foreign nationals for admission in B.V. Sc. & AH. Although the term “NRI” has not been defined in the prospectus, yet as per the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.432 of 2006 and CWP No.1104 of 2007, Annexure R-V to the reply, an NRI candidate is one, who does not reside in India and is a non-resident Indian residing abroad. In Chapter II of the prospectus, there is a provision for reservation of seats, not exceeding 15% of the sanctioned seats for admission to B.V. Sc.& AH course, for non-resident Indians. The method to fill up the same is merit and on fulfillment of the eligibility criteria. An NRI candidate is required to furnish the certificates with the application, as provided in the Check List, Annexure IX to the prospectus, which is re-produced here-as-under:- “CHECK LIST OF CERTIFICATES ETC. TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE APAPLICATION BY NRIs/FOREIGN NATIONALS 1. Photocopy of Passport (duly self attested); 2. Photocopy of parent’s Passport; 3. Certificate in evidence of being NRI; 4. Affidavit by the NRI candidate/s parent/guardian on prescribed proforma (Annexure X); 5. Self attested photocopy of certificate in evidence of date of birth; 6. Self attested photocopies of degrees, diplomas and certificates for the examinations passed including qualifying examination; 7. Self attested photocopies of detailed marks certificates of all the examinations passed; 8. Self attested photocopy of character certificate from the school/college/institution last attended. 9. Two copies of the recent passport size photograph of the candidates. 10. Self attested supporting documents for conversion of OGPA/OCPA; 11. Self attested copy of the syllabi of courses studied at 10+1 & 10+2 standard along with website address (only for admission to an undergraduate programme). Self attested photocopy of character certificate from the school/college/institution last attended. 9. Two copies of the recent passport size photograph of the candidates. 10. Self attested supporting documents for conversion of OGPA/OCPA; 11. Self attested copy of the syllabi of courses studied at 10+1 & 10+2 standard along with website address (only for admission to an undergraduate programme). Note: Original degrees, diplomas, certificates etc. attested copies of which have been enclosed with the application form shall have to be produced at the time of Registration, otherwise, the claim of the candidate for the seat will stand forfeited.” 2. Besides, NRI candidate’s parent/guardian is also required to furnish an affidavit on the format as at Annexure-X to the prospectus, which for the sake of convenience is also reproduced here-as-under: “AFFIDAVIT BY NRI CANDIDATE’S PARENT/GURADIAN I, Sh./Smt.____________S/O.D/O,W/O___________and parent of_____________who is applying for admission under NRI category in the ______________(write the name of programme) programme at Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That my State of origin in India is _________, where I am having ancestral and inheritable property. My ancestral address in India is_____________________________ ______________________________ 2. That, I migrated to _______________(country) on _____________________ as a resident of _______________(country). My permanent alien Registration Card/Non-residential Card No.is___________ (if applicable). 3. That my ward is an NRI. 4. That, I undertake to make full payment of the prescribed tuition fee and other charges for the entire duration of the programme in the manner as may be fixed by the University. 5. That, if any of the information furnished is found to be incorrect at any stage, the admission of my child/ward be cancelled and fee deposited by me be forfeited and proceedings, as permissible under the law of the land, be initiated against me. Deponent Verification: I solemnly declare that the above contents of para 1 to 5 of mine are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein. Deponent Dated: __________ Place: ___________ Sworn to and appeared before me at_____(Place of country) On this________________(date) Signature and seal (Notary Public/Magistrate Class I)” 3. There is provision for admission in B.V. Sc. & AH course to be the child/ward of NRIs. The petitioner claims himself to be the ward of one Devinder Karray, who is a non-resident Indian, residing in USA. His Passport is Annexure P-3. There is provision for admission in B.V. Sc. & AH course to be the child/ward of NRIs. The petitioner claims himself to be the ward of one Devinder Karray, who is a non-resident Indian, residing in USA. His Passport is Annexure P-3. The inquiry conducted by respondent No.2, while scrutinizing the application and the documents annexed therewith by the petitioner for seeking admission in the course, reveals that Shri Devinder Karray, aforesaid is maternal uncle of the petitioner. Petitioner claims himself eligible for seeking admission against one of the two seats which were reserved for the category of NRIs under B.V. Sc. & AH programme. As per his further claim in the event of suitable candidate could have not been found available against the seats meant for the category of foreign nationals, the seats meant for this category were also to be filled up from amongst the category of NRIs. Since no one applied for seeking admission from the category of foreign nationals, therefore, as per his further case, there were four seats available for being filled up from the category of NRIs. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted his application for seeking admission in the course within the time schedule prescribed therefore under the prospectus. He has also submitted his educational qualification certificate and also a bank draft in the sum of 500 US dollar towards admission fee. The Passport of Shri Devinder Karray, his so called guardian, is Annexure P-3, whereas his affidavit on the format of Annexure P-X to the prospectus is Annexure P-6. In order to answer the query made by the respondents, said Shri Devinder Karray has also sworn in an affidavit in the form of declaration of adoption, stating therein that he has adopted the petitioner for the purpose of his entire educational expenses and it is he, who will pay full fee qua his higher education. As per the Check List Annexure P-IX to the prospectus, the petitioner, amongst other documents, was required to have submitted the photocopy of his own passport to show that he is a non-resident Indian and also a certificate in proof of he being an NRI. As per the Check List Annexure P-IX to the prospectus, the petitioner, amongst other documents, was required to have submitted the photocopy of his own passport to show that he is a non-resident Indian and also a certificate in proof of he being an NRI. Since he is permanent resident of village Alipur, Tehsil and District Roop Nagar, Punjab and is not an NRI residing abroad, therefore, he could have not submitted the photocopy of his passport and also the requisite certificate to show that he is an NRI, residing abroad. 5. The 2nd respondent during the course of scrutiny of the application of the petitioner and the documents he submitted therewith omitted to take note of the factum of non-furnishing of the aforesaid two documents and only asked for the adoption deed whereby the petitioner was adopted by his maternal uncle Shri Devinder Karray aforesaid. In order to answer such query Shri Devinder Carry has sworn in his affidavit Annexure P-6 to the writ petition and the petitioner has submitted the same to the respondent- University. Respondent No.2, however, was not satisfied that this affidavit brings the petitioner under the category of NRI and as such has recommended the rejection of his candidature for admission to the course vide Annexure R-2 to the reply filed on behalf of the respondents. The proceedings of respondent No.2- Committee are Annexure R-2 (Colly). The petitioner, as such, has been denied the admission in the Course. 6. Aggrieved by such action on the part of the respondents, this writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: “(i) That in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned here-above in this writ petition, the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to deposit the admission fee and to grant him admission in the course of B.V. Sc. & AH in the interest of justice and fair play.” 7. The response of the respondent-University, in a nutshell, is that against two seats of NRI quota, only two applications, including that of the petitioner were received for admission to B.V. Sc.&AH Course. Respondent No.2 on scrutiny of the applications recommended the name of one of the candidates, i.e. Ms. & AH in the interest of justice and fair play.” 7. The response of the respondent-University, in a nutshell, is that against two seats of NRI quota, only two applications, including that of the petitioner were received for admission to B.V. Sc.&AH Course. Respondent No.2 on scrutiny of the applications recommended the name of one of the candidates, i.e. Ms. Himani Kundlas, who otherwise was also found eligible for admission in the Course and rejected the candidature of the petitioner as he was not found eligible for seeking admission under NRI quota. Reliance on behalf of the respondents has been placed on the judgment dated 20.8.2007 of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.1104 of 2007, titled Abhinav Verma Vs. State of H.P. and others, Annexure R-V to the reply. 8. Shri R.K. Gautam, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Gaurav Gautam and Ms. Megha Kapur Gautam, Advocates, has urged that the petitioner was never informed by the respondents that he is not eligible for seeking admission against the seats reserved for NRI candidates. The only query, as raised, was answered by tendering the affidavit Annexure P-7, sworn in by the guardian of the petitioner Shri Devinder Karray, who is an NRI, residing in USA. According to Mr. Gautam, the petitioner has been denied admission in the course arbitrarily. It has also been urged that since a seat meant for NRI category is lying unfilled, therefore, as a special case and by way of indulgence, the respondents may be directed to grant admission to the petitioner so that such seat does not go waste. 9. On the other hand, Shri B.M. Chauhan, Advocate, learned Standing Counsel, while drawing the attention of this Court to the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment Annexure R-V, has urged that the petitioner who is residing in India is not NRI candidate and as such not eligible for the grant of admission against the seats meant for NRI category. According to Mr. Chauhan, the petitioner at the most can be said to be an NRI sponsored candidate, however, the practice to grant admission to NRI sponsored candidates has been deprecated by this Court vide the judgment (Annexure R-V) in Abhinav Vernma’s case supra. According to Mr. Chauhan, the petitioner at the most can be said to be an NRI sponsored candidate, however, the practice to grant admission to NRI sponsored candidates has been deprecated by this Court vide the judgment (Annexure R-V) in Abhinav Vernma’s case supra. While answering a query as to whether the seat lying unfilled under NRI category can be given to the petitioner or any other candidate on merits, Mr. Chauhan, on instructions, has stated that the seats reserved under this category cannot be interchanged with a candidate of any other category, as according to him there is no such provision in the prospectus. 10. The provisions of the prospectus, as have been noticed supra, make it crystal clear that two seats in B.V. Sc. &AH programme were reserved for the candidates belonging to NRI category. Who is an NRI has been defined by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 20.8.2007 in CWP No.1104 of 2007 titled Abhinav Verma Vs. State of H.P. and others (Annexure R-V). As per the ratio of this judgment, a non-resident Indian candidate is one who though belongs to India, however, resides in abroad. The object sought to be achieved by making such reservation, as explained in the judgment supra, is the integration of non-resident Indian living abroad into Indian mainstream and making available to them the facilities in existence in the country of their origin. We may refer the relevant part of this judgment which reads as follows: “The distinction between NRI candidates and NRI sponsored candidates is quite clear. There is no vagueness in so far as definition as well as description of these two categories are concerned. Whereas NRI candidates are such persons who do not reside in India and who are Non Resident Indians (residing abroad), NRI sponsored candidates are such Indians who do not reside abroad, but actually and physically reside in India, and who, for the purposes of their admissions have been or might be sponsored by NRIs. The sponsorship of course, as everyone understands, is limited only with respect to the funding of their admissions. The sponsorship of course, as everyone understands, is limited only with respect to the funding of their admissions. In the case of P.A.Inamdar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2005(6) SCC 537 dealing with the aforesaid aspect, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed and held as under: “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 the 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 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 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 utilized 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 utilized for benefiting students such as from economically weaker sections of the society, whom, on welldefined criteria, the educational institution may admit on subsidized 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. 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 Islamic Academy to regulate.” This Court, therefore, in the aforesaid judgment dated 1st June, 2006 had clearly, un-ambiguously and in no uncertain terms had mandated that it was not open to the State Government to create a category of NRI sponsored candidates because in the considered opinion of this Court doing so would mean, in effect and substance selling admissions on commercial basis, pure and simple by practicing patent discrimination against other Indian nationals who would be selected only on the basis of their merit and would not be in a position to obtain sponsorships from NRIs for the purpose of funding their admissions by receiving finances from abroad. We are pained to observe that the aforesaid judgment of this Court has been observed in total breach by the respondents. In flagrant violation of the ratio as well as the mandate contained in the aforesaid judgment of this Court, respondents No. 1 & 2 proceeded to create a category of candidates which actually was a step even beyond the NRI sponsored candidates. In a blatant act of total violation and disobedience of the judgment of this Court, respondents No. 1 & 2 went whole hog in creating a situation whereby by creating a category of Ordinary Indians under the of NRI candidates it simply created a devious mechanism of selling seats on commercial basis, that too perhaps in a clandestine manner. Let us notice the facts now” 11. It is seen that in Abhinav Verma’s case supra, admission in medical college was granted to the private respondents, who had applied for seeking admission to the course, as general category candidates and also from the NRI as well as NRI sponsored categories. The Division Bench had noticed with all anguish and pain that in total violation of an earlier judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court on 1.6.2006 in CWP No.432 of 2006, an NRI sponsored candidates category was created. It was observed that to grant admission to an NRI sponsored candidate would tantamount to selling admission on commercial basis at the cost of the meritorious candidates. It was observed that to grant admission to an NRI sponsored candidate would tantamount to selling admission on commercial basis at the cost of the meritorious candidates. The admission to the private respondents in that case, who were ordinarily residing in India and had claimed themselves NRI sponsored candidates, was therefore, quashed. 12. The petitioner herein is also a similarly situate person to that private respondents in Abhinav Verma’s case supra, because he is not a non-resident Indian, residing in abroad and rather permanent resident of village Alipur, Tehsil and District Roop Nagar, Punjab. He has qualified for All India Senior Secondary School Certificate examination in the year 2014 from Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi. Merely that his maternal uncle Shri Devinder Karray is a non-resident Indian, residing in USA and ready to bear all educational expenses qua education of petitioner cannot be taken to determine the eligibility of the petitioner for being considered from NRI category. As a mater of fact, only a candidate belonging to India, however, residing in abroad and having studied there alone, is eligible for being considered against the seat reserved for NRI category. 13. The petitioner was not found eligible as he did not produce the photocopy of his Passport and also the certificate to show that he belongs to NRI category and rightly so, as he is not residing in abroad. He even cannot be termed to be ward of an NRI for the reason that no deed could be produced by the petitioner showing that he was adopted by said Shri Devinder Karray in accordance with law. The petitioner as such has rightly been refused admission to the course by the respondent-University. 14. This Court in Abhinav Verma’s case supra has declared granting admission to a candidate ordinarily residing in India having no link or connection with NRIs, except for that their relations were residing in abroad, in complete departure to the merit in the entrance test not only being violative of the judgment of the Apex Court in P.A. Inamdar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2005(6) SCC 537 , referred to in para supra but also that of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. State of Maharashtra and others, 2005(6) SCC 537 , referred to in para supra but also that of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This part of the judgment reads as follows: “Ultimately, it was decided to grant admissions to respondents No. 3 & 4 in the NRI category, treating them as belonging to para 9 (ii) and (iii) supra. Apart from the fact that the aforesaid action of respondents No. 1 & 2 clearly tantamounts to violating and breaching the judgment of this Court dated 1st June, 2006, passed in CWP No. 432 of 2006 which having assumed finality in law was binding upon respondents No. 1 & 2 and everyone else in the State of Himachal Pradesh, by creating the aforesaid category of so called NRI sponsored candidates, respondents No. 1 & 2 have violated the mandate contained in the Supreme Court judgment in the case of P.A.Inamdar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) as well as Article 14 of the Constitution of India because the merit in the entrance test has been given a complete go bye and seats have been sold on commercial basis to such students who were, pure and simple, ordinary, resident Indians residing in India and who had no link or connection with NRIs except perhaps that their relations were residing abroad who also might have financed their admissions in India. Actually, we are not sure about the source of funding also. The fact remains that two seats in MBBS course in the Medical Colleges of Himachal Pradesh, both the Colleges belonging to the State Government were allotted purely on commercial basis even though a large number of candidates superior and higher in merit than respondents No. 3 & 4 could not be admitted only because perhaps they could not afford to pay the exorbitant amount which respondents No. 3 & 4 were and are ready and willing to pay. Under the cloak of either “NRI candidates” or “NRI sponsored candidates”, a devious method has been adopted for granting admission to normal, ordinarily residing Indians on payment of charges being equivalent to and which are fixed and prescribed for NRI students. Normal ordinarily resident Indians cannot be equated with NRI students who constitute a different category altogether and who deserve to be treated differently. Normal ordinarily resident Indians cannot be equated with NRI students who constitute a different category altogether and who deserve to be treated differently. The aforesaid action of respondents No. 1 & 2 is patently unconstitutional as well as illegal, violating the judgment of this Court, the mandate of the Supreme Court in the case of P.A. Inam Dass vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), as well as Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This action of respondents No. 1 & 2 accordingly is quashed and set aside with all consequences with a clear and binding direction upon respondents No. 1 & 2 to be absolutely careful in future while drawing up the list of categories for admission in the Colleges. Admissions granted to respondents No. 3 & 4 accordingly are hereby quashed and set aside with all consequences.” 15. In view of the ratio of the judgment hereinabove, the respondent-University has rightly refused to consider the candidature of the petitioner for admission against the seats reserved for NRI category, because to do so would certainly be in violation of the judgment of this Court in Abhinav Verma’s case supra. 16. The submission that a seat under B. V. Sc. and AH programme is still available and that as a special case and by way of indulgence, the respondent-University may be directed to grant admission to the petitioner against the said seat cannot be accepted for the reason that to do so would be nothing, but merely a misplaced sympathy which has no place in law. Above all, allowing the petitioner to be admitted against the available seat would also amount to selling admission, which in terms of the judgment in Abhinav Verma’s case supra, is not legally permissible. 17. We are not oblivious to the fact that one seat meant for the NRI category would go waste and feel that there should have been provision in the prospectus to divert the seat meant for this category or for that matter the category of foreign nationals in favour of the candidates, belonging to general/reserved categorys, who are next in merit, of course subject to their agreeing to pay the requisite admission fee and other charges throughout at par the candidates belonging to NRI category and the category of foreign nationals. Although we are not issuing any direction in this regard, yet leave it open to the respondent-University to consider this aspect of the matter and chalk out the possibility of diverting the seats, if left vacant, after the admission as per the time schedule under various programmes is over, to other categorys, of course having regard to the merits and on fulfillment of the eligibility criteria by the candidates to be considered for admission against such seats. 18. With the observations hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.