ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. 1. The matter comes up on an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of Aniket Mathur and Lippi Bhatnagar as party respondents to the petition. 2. Mr. Mahendra Shah counsel for the applicants submitted that the application for impleadment has been rendered infructuous. It is accordingly so dismissed. 3. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 4. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Senior Counsel with Mr. Saransh Saini for the petitioner and Mr. M.S. Singhvi Advocate General with Mr. Darsh Pareek for the respondents. 5. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, submitted that the impugned order dated 29.4.2019 passed by the Additional Director (Admn.) cum Dy. Secretary, Directorate of Medical Education, Government of Rajasthan entails a restriction on the right of the petitioner-University to admit students into the MBBS course 2019 following the NEET Examination, 2019 in the 15% quota for NRIs. He submitted that the right to set up educational institutions has been recognized by the Courts as a fundamental right under 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Consequently the University having set up a medical college cannot be restricted otherwise than by law from admitting students in the NRI quota to the extent of 15% of the seats for which approval has been granted for the MBBS course by the Medical Council of India (MCI). Mr. Rajendra Prasad submitted that the Apex Court in the case of N.K. Bajpai vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others [ AIR 2012 SC 1310 ] has held that the fundamental rights are incapable of being taken away or abridged except by resort to law framed with reference to legislative power. Mr. Rajendra Prasad submitted that no legislation defining the students entitled to be admitted into the NRI quota obtains in the State of Rajasthan. It was submitted that the whole purpose of the NRI quota in admission to Medical Courses permitted by the Apex Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar and Others vs. State of Maharashtra & Others [ (2005) 6 SCC 537 ] was to facilitate the generation of necessary revenues for setting up infrastructural facilities in Medical Colleges for better quality education and also to cross-subsidize the students from the poorer sections of the Society. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Rajendra Prasad then submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences & Technology vs. State of Rajasthan & Others DBSAW No. 1202/2018 decided on 29.1.2019 categorically disagreed with the judgment passed by the Single Judge on 10th May, 2018 in Dr. Sheetal Nepalia & another vs. State of Rajasthan & another SBCWP No. 10313/2018 and setting it aside held that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Consortium of Deemed University in Karnataka (CODEUNIK) and another vs. Union of India & Others WP(C) No. 689/2017 decided on 22.8.2017 was applicable only to deemed universities and not to other Medical Colleges. And hence the criterion set out therein for admission into NRI quota seats would not attract to Medical Colleges such as that of the petitioner-University, submitted Mr. Rajendra Prasad. Mr. Rajendra Prasad submitted that yet despite the clear judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences & Technology (supra) by the impugned order dated 29.4.2019 the respondent-State is seeking to bring in the same criterion for admission into NRI quota by the back door. 7. Per contra, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General submitted that the Apex Court in para 131 in the case of P.A. Inamdar (supra) has 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 its educational activities. 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 its 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 the NRIs only and for their children or wards. Secondly, within this quota, the 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 well defined 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. So long as the State does not do it, it will be for the Committees constituted pursuant to Islamic Academy direction to regulate. (underlining for emphasis by Mr. M.S. Singhvi) 8. Mr. M.S. Singhvi submitted that the aforesaid direction of the Apex Court was to ensure that the NRI quota was not misused. The direction entailed the State Governments clearly being authorized inter alia to regulate admissions in Medical Colleges in their jurisdiction inter alia by resort to defining a criteria for identification bona fide of children/wards of NRIs entitled to admission in the NRI quota. Mr. The direction entailed the State Governments clearly being authorized inter alia to regulate admissions in Medical Colleges in their jurisdiction inter alia by resort to defining a criteria for identification bona fide of children/wards of NRIs entitled to admission in the NRI quota. Mr. M.S. Singhvi submitted that the impugned order dated 29.4.2019 is not in the nature of restriction of the right of the petitioner-University or other Private Medical Colleges to avail of the 15% quota vis-a-vis with the number of their MCI approved seats for admission into the MBBS course, what the order dated 29.4.2019 seeks to do is only to define as to who can be bona fide considered a child/ward of a NRI. At its foundation is the binding judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar (supra) and the integrity in the admissions to MBBS Courses it seeks to espouse. Mr. M.S. Singhvi submitted that aside of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 29.4.2019 has been issued in the exercise of executive powers of the State Government. He submitted that in terms of entry 25 of List III of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India, the State Government has legislative power in regard to medical education in the State. The order dated 29.4.2019 can thus also relate to the executive powers of the State Government which is co-extensive with legislative power. Mr. M.S. Singhvi further pointed out that aside of the above the first and second round of counselling for admissions into the MBBS Course following the NEET Examination 2019 have already been completed and admissions into the NRI quota with reference to the order dated 29.4.2019. This Court at the stage of mop up round of counselling should not interfere with the admission process lest it is disrupted. And the fixed ironclad calendar for the commencement of MBBS Courses as notified by the MCI and approved by the Apex Court violated. 9. Heard. Considered. 10. In P.A. Inamdar (supra) the Apex Court categorically inter alia stated that the seats in the NRI quota should be utilized bona fide for NRIs only for their children or wards. The Apex Court further noted that to prevent misutilisation and malpractice referable to NRI quota seats, suitable legislation or regulation needs to be framed by the State in regard to admission in Medical Colleges within their jurisdiction. 11. The Apex Court further noted that to prevent misutilisation and malpractice referable to NRI quota seats, suitable legislation or regulation needs to be framed by the State in regard to admission in Medical Colleges within their jurisdiction. 11. I am of the considered view that the word "regulation" used by the Apex Court in para 131 of P.A. Inamdar (supra) is open ended. Therefrom an authorization can be found to the State Governments to ensure that the NRI quota with Medical Colleges within their jurisdiction is not misused. What would constitute misuse of the NRI quota can be culled out from the Para 131 itself i.e. where the seats in the NRI quota are not bona fide utilized for the children/wards of NRIs. The order dated 29.4.2019 seeks to exclude such misutilization of seats in the NRI quota. The seats in the NRI quota would surely be misutilised if admissions to the NRI quota are made as the petitioner-University would have with reference to the letter dated 24.8.2011 issued under the hand of the Assistant Secretary, Medical Education Department, Govt. of Rajasthan. The said order states that "an NRI who undertakes to sponsor a student for admission as guardian need not be a blood relation hence the "WARD" in case of NRI admission means a candidate whose guardian is a bona fide NRI. "WARD" does not mean related by blood". That description is way of the Apex Court's direction in P.A. Inamdar (supra) that the NRI quota was open only to bona fide wards/children of NRIs. The letter dated 24.8.2011 does not even require any link or relation between sponsor and the student. If the said order were to be upheld and on that basis admission in the NRI quota permitted, it would entail gross misuse of the NRI quota a situation which the Apex Court cautioned against and effectively prohibited in the case of P.A. Inamdar (supra). 12. Besides the letter dated 24.8.2011 was issued on the basis of the view of standing committee at the relevant time when admissions to private medical colleges were made by a separate examination held by their federation. That arrangement has since being rendered otiose with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Medical Council of India Vs. Christian Medical College, Vellore and Ors. That arrangement has since being rendered otiose with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Medical Council of India Vs. Christian Medical College, Vellore and Ors. [ (2016) 4 SCC 342 ] and all admission to Medical Courses are now to be based on All India NEET. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 29.4.2019 suffers neither illegality nor perversity nor constitutes an unlawful restriction on the petitioner-University's fundamental right to admit bona fide students in the NRI quota in its MBBS Course. No interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is thus warranted. 14. The petition is dismissed.