JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner alleges that, against the nine seats available with the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS) under the Non Resident India Quota (hereinafter “NRI quota” for short) they have only filled up six; and therefore, that he is entitled to apply for one among the remaining. 2. However, the contra stand for the NUALS is that, even though they have been allowed to admit students in the “NRI quota” which is a supernumerary one, upto 15% of the total student strength; as a matter of policy, they have chosen only to accept a portion of the same. The University thus repels the claim of the petitioner, arguing that he cannot obtain or even claim a vested right under the “NRI quota.” 3. I have heard Smt. P. Ushakumari - learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Pauly Mathew Muricken - learned Standing Counsel for the NUALS. 4. As recorded above, the specific stand of Sri. Pauly Mathew Muricken is that, though the NUALS could have ear marked nine seats under the “NRI quota” under the warrant offered to them by the Government, they chose - as a matter of policy, to fix it as six and that all of them have been filled up. He then added that the settled position of law - beginning from various judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court - is that “NRI quota” is not a privilege offered to the students but, in fact, to the institutions, so as to garner higher resources. He predicated that since the NUALS have taken a policy decision that they want only six seats under the “NRI quota” the petitioner cannot insist that more be admitted. 5. I must say that I find substantial force in the afore submissions of Sri. Pauly Mathew Muricken because, even going by the Prospectus - which has been placed on record as Ext.P5, the number of seats under “NRI quota” has been shown to be only six. It may be true that if 15% of the students strength is reckoned, the NUALS could have admitted up to nine in the “NRI quota” but when they consciously chose not to do so, but to limit it to six, I fail to understand how the petitioner can impel a claim that, nevertheless this, he should be admitted against one of the remaining three seats. 6. 6. As I have already said above, the position of law distilled from the various binding precedents-is that an institution can choose to admit students upto 15% of its strength under the “NRI quota” and therefore, it certainly postulates a situation where they can choose a lesser, but never more. 7. In the afore circumstances, I find no cause in favour of the petitioner to entertain this writ petition and I consequently dismiss it; however, clarifying that if the petitioner is otherwise qualified to be admitted to any other seat in the NUALS, the same shall be considered by its Competent Authority, subject to vacancy being available.