DB stays Writ Court judgement quashing admission for MS Surgery
JAMMU: In LPA filed by Dr. Shagun Mahajan and others against the judgment of Writ Court whereby Writ Court quashed his admission in MS Surgery, a Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice M.M Kumar and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat after hearing lawyers from both sides, admitted the appeal for hearing and meanwhile directed that the impugned judgment shall remain stayed.
Chief Justice M.M Kumar observed that the principal issue raised in this three sets of appeals revolves around the issue whether admission made to seats for NRI category in respect of post graduate courses of MS/MD suffers from any legal infirmity.
The appellant Shagun Mahajan is aggrieved by the directions issued by the Writ Court holding that sponsorship by her uncle, who is an NRI, and not covered under para 131 of the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of PA Inamdar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others.
The operative part of the para 131 is quoted is that 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.
A limited reservation of such seats, not exceeding 15 per cent, 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 by bona fide 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 well-defined criteria, the educational institution may admit on subsidised 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 the direction in Islamic Academy to regulate.”
Division Bench further observed that the Writ Court did not accept that father’s brother of the appellant was qualified to confer any benefit on his niece under the NRI quota seats. Feeling aggrieved, LPAOW No.54/2014 by the appellant, Ms. Shagun Mahajan and LPAOW Nos. 55/2014 and 56/2014 by Acharya Shri Chander College of Medical Sciences and Hospital, have been filed.
Division Bench after hearing counsel for the parties and are of the view that the para 131 would not permit exclusion of real uncle sponsoring nephew or niece and is of prima facie of this view that the spirit of para 131 is that nobody should be permitted to take a seat under NRI quota unless he has such relations living abroad, who could come forward in a bona fide manner to pay the foreign exchange for admission to the post graduate courses in medical science.
In fact it was in the same vein that the Writ Court accepted father-in-law sponsoring the daughter-in-law against NRI seat and the admission given to Misbah Tabassum has been upheld. With these observations, Division Bench that all the three appeals are admitted to hearing as a number of issues have been raised, which cannot be decided at the motion stage and in the meanwhile stayed the impugned judgment passed by the Writ Court. JNF