Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 573 (MP)

Abhigyan Singh v. State of M. P.

2018-07-02

MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR, R.S.JHA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bramhadatt Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Shri Amit Khatri, learned counsel for the respondents/AICTE. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to grant admission to the petitioner in the B.E. Course under the NRI quota in either of the three private aided colleges for which he had applied. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had appeared in the Class 12th examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education and had obtained 75.2% marks. It is submitted that as per the Rules relating to admission to private aided institutions, the petitioner applied for admission in the NRI quota on the basis of a sponsorship certificate issued by his maternal uncle but his candidature as an NRI candidate has been rejected by the authorities stating that he does not fulfill the eligibility for admission as an NRI candidate as 5% seats reserved for NRI candidates can be allotted only to such candidates who are either children of NRI i.e. whose mother or father is an NRI or the candidate himself is an NRI. It is submitted that as the petitioner's candidature has been sponsored by his maternal uncle, the authorities have declared him to be ineligible for admission in the NRI quota. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is per se illegal in view of the fact that the State Government has notified the Rules on 8-2-2018 framed under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavasayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 relating to medical education in which the State has prescribed and expanded the definition of candidates who can be granted admission in the NRI quota to include not just children of NRIs and the NRI candidates themselves but also such candidates who are sponsored by blood relatives who are NRIs. 5. 5. It is submitted that as the State has already notified the Rules on 8-2- 2018 prescribing and expanding the definition, the same should also be made applicable to the admissions being granted by the respondent authorities in the private aided institutions and the petitioner's sponsorship certificate as an NRI candidate issued by his maternal uncle should be directed to be accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State cannot be permitted to adopt different standards for determining NRI candidates and in such circumstances, the directions as prayed for be issued. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, at length. 7. At the very inception, it is necessary to state that the Rules notified by the State on 8-2-2018 relates to medical education and not to the engineering courses. This distinguishing fact is material as medical education is governed by the Medical Council of India and the regulations framed by it. Technical, education like engineering is governed by All India Council for Technical Education and the regulations framed thereunder. It is also clear that the Rules of 8-2-2018 framed by the State for admission in medical courses are restricted in their applicability to private unaided medical colleges and institutions and are not applicable to either Government, Autonomous or aided private colleges. 8. Quite apart from the above, a bare perusal of the Executive Instructions named as the M.P. Autonomous, Aided Private and Self-financing Institutions, B.E. First Year Admission Rules, 2018-19, governing admission to Engineering courses, makes it apparent that the State Government has clearly specified therein in Clause 2.4.2.2 that the provisions of the Admission (Reservation to Non- Resident Indians in the All India Council for Technical Education approved courses) Regulations, 2011, shall also apply to admissions in Government, Autonomous and Aided private colleges. Similar stipulation has also been made in Rule 2.5.2 of the Rules of 2018-19 notified by the State Government. 9. According to the provisions of Regulation 3 of the aforesaid Regulations of 2011, admissions in the NRI quota can be granted only to those candidates whose mother or father is an NRI or the candidate himself is an NRI. The said regulation does not provide for granting admissions in the NRI quota to those who are sponsored by blood relatives. 10. The said regulation does not provide for granting admissions in the NRI quota to those who are sponsored by blood relatives. 10. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has also placed before this Court the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2016 framed by the All India Council for Technical Education in exercise of powers conferred under section 23(1) read with section 10 and section 11 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has taken this Court through Regulation 2.28 which defines Non-Resident Indians as well as Regulation 4.2(f) which provides for introduction/continuation of seats for sons/daughters of NRIs. 11. The provisions of these regulations have been incorporated and published by the All India Council for Technical Education in the All India Council for Technical Education Approval Process Handbook 2018-19 with a specific stipulation that the Handbook is a legal document as per the provisions of section 4.11 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and the Regulations of 2016 notified on 30-11-2016 referred to above and published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary on the same date, as amended on 14-12-2017. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the AICTE, on advance copy, points out that in the aforesaid Handbook issued by the All India Council for Technical Education Approval Process Handbook 2018-19, Clause 2.16 clearly restricts grant of admission in the NRI quota to sons/daughters of NRIs or to a candidate who is himself an NRI. 13. We have carefully examined the Regulations of 2016 framed by the AICTE as well as the regulations relating to NRI reservations of 2011 notified under the provisions of the Private Professional Education Act of 2007 framed by the State which has been made applicable to admissions in aided private Engineering colleges by the Executive Instructions issued in the form of Rules for the year 2018-19. From a perusal of these provisions of law specifically those that have been relied upon by the counsel for the respondents, it is clear that only sons/daughters of NRIs or NRIs themselves are entitled to admission in the NRI quota. 14. From a perusal of these provisions of law specifically those that have been relied upon by the counsel for the respondents, it is clear that only sons/daughters of NRIs or NRIs themselves are entitled to admission in the NRI quota. 14. It is therefore apparent that as far as admissions in NRI quota in the private aided engineering colleges are concerned, the same is restricted only to such candidates who are either themselves NRIs or their father or mother is an NRI. 15. Apparently, in the instant case, the petitioner has sought admission in the NRI quota on the basis of a sponsorship certificate of his maternal uncle which does not fall within the eligible category prescribed in the All India Council for Technical Education guidelines or the Regulations of 2011, which have been adopted by the State by the 2018-19 Admissions Rules/Instructions that have been placed before this Court. 16. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for admission under the NRI quota, on the basis of sponsorship by his maternal uncle. 17. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner, being meritless, is accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.