Kerala High Court
Kerala State Indian System Of Medicine ... vs The National Commission For Indian ... on 24 September, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
WA No.1744 of 2024
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 2ND ASWINA, 1947
WA NO. 1744 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2024 IN WP(C) NO.33768 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 KERALA STATE INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE SELF-FINANCING
COLLEGE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (KISMA)
REG. NO. CA 444/11, REGD. OFFICE : PNNM AYURVEDA
MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHERUTHURUTHY, SHORANUR P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
RAJITHAN E.P.B., PIN - 679531
2 THE MANNAM AYURVEDA CO-OPERATIVE MEDICAL COLLEGE
M.S.M. P.O., PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, DR. K. THULASEEDHARAN
NAIR., PIN - 689501
3 THE PANKAJAKASTHURI AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE & POST
GRADUATE CENTRE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695572, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DR. J.
HAREENDRAN NAIR, PANKAJAKASTHURI HERBAL RESEARCH
FOUNDATION, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.KAVYA VARMA M. M.
2
WA No.1744 of 2024
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE
MINISTRY OF AYUSH, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, PLOT NO. T-19,
1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, BLOCK IV, DHANWANTARI BHAWAN ROAD,
NO. 66, PUNJABI BAGH (WEST), NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY, PIN - 110026
2 AYUSH ADMISSIONS CENTRAL COUNSELLING COMMITTEE (AACCC)
MINISTRY OF AYUSH, AYUSH BHAWAN, B' BLOCK, GPO
COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY., PIN - 110023
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
5 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,
7TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, THAMPANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
6 THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., MULANKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, PIN - 680596
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.S.KIRAN, SC, NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN
SYSTEM OF MEDICINE (NCISM)
SRI.C.DINESH, SCGC, R2
SHRI.BINNY THOMAS, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCES
SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, SENIOR G.P.
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 25.08.2025 ALONG WITH
WA 635 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 24.09.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
WA No.1744 of 2024
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 2ND ASWINA, 1947
WA NO. 635 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.10508 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 KERALA STATE INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE SELF-FINANCING
COLLEGE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (KISMA)
REG. NO. CA 444/11, REGD. OFFICE: PNNM AYURVEDA
MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHERUTHURUTHY, SHORANUR P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, DR.
K. THULASEEDHARAN NAIR, PIN - 679531
2 AHALIA AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE
AHALIA CAMPUS, KOZHIPPARA (PO), PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED
BY THE VICE PRESIDENT-ACADEMICS, AHALIA INTERNATIONAL
FOUNDATION MR. RAJITHAN EPB, PIN - 678557
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.KAVYA VARMA M. M.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AYUSH, AYUSH
BHAWAN, B BLOCK, GPO COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI, PIN -
110023
4
WA No.1744 of 2024
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
2 THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE
MINISTRY OF AYUSH, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, PLOT NO. T-19,
1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, BLOCK IV, DHANWANTARI BHAWAN ROAD,
NO. 66, PUNJABI BAGH (WEST), NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY, PIN - 110026
3 AYUSH ADMISSIONS CENTRAL COUNSELLING COMMITTEE (AACCC)
MINISTRY OF AYUSH, AYUSH BHAWAN, B' BLOCK, GPO
COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
PIN - 110023
4 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
5 THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
6 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,
7TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, THAMPANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
7 THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., MULANKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, PIN - 680596
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.S.KIRAN, SC, NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN
SYSTEM OF MEDICINE (NCISM)
SHRI.BINNY THOMAS, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCES
SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, SENIOR G.P.
SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.C.DINESH-, SCGC, R2
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 25.08.2025 ALONG WITH
WA 1744 OF 2024, THE COURT ON 24.09.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
5
WA No.1744 of 2024
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
COMMON JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
These writ appeals are filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala
High Court Act, 1958, challenging the respective judgments dated
23.10.2024 in W.P.(C)No.33768 of 2024 and the judgment dated
17.03.2025 in W.P.(C)No.10508 of 2025, by the petitioners in
those writ petitions. The 1st petitioner in both the writ petitions is
the Kerala State Indian System of Medicine Self-Financing College
Management Association (KISMA), which is a registered
Association of Ayurveda Colleges functioning in the State of Kerala
in the self-financing stream. The remaining petitioners in the writ
petitions are the Medical Colleges that are members of KISMA
offering courses in Ayurveda. Since the issue involved in both
these writ appeals are one and the same, they are heard together
and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For
convenience of reference, the parties and documents are referred
to in this judgment as they were referred to in W.P.(C) No.33768
of 2024 and corresponding writ appeal, unless otherwise stated.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petitions is
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
that the process resorted by the 5 th respondent Commissioner for
Entrance Examinations for allotment of seats in the Colleges
under the Association of the 1st petitioner was not by following the
procedure stipulated in Ext.P2 communication dated 22.08.2024
and Ext.P2(a) order dated 03.09.2024 issued by the 1 st
respondent National Commission for Indian Systems of Medicine.
According to the petitioners, the word management quota used in
Ext.P4 prospectus for admission to Professional Degree Courses,
2024, published by the 5th respondent, has been misconstrued.
When eligibility and qualification criteria are provided in Exts.P2
and P2(a) order, the eligibility criteria laid down in Ext.P4
prospectus have no legal existence. It is the case of the petitioners
that, as per Ext.P2, the total seats available in Government,
Government-aided institutions and private institutions were
divided into two categories, in which 15% thereof are set apart as
all India quota and 85% are set apart as State-Union Territory
quota. As per Clause 4 of Ext.P2, the management seats under
the State-Union Territory quota in private institutions shall be
treated as domicile-free. However, while carrying out the
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
admission process by way of Ext.P4 prospectus, the respondents
are insisting on the nativity certificate and thereby confining the
opportunity of admission to students from the State of Kerala.
Therefore, the educational institutions are deprived of students
from outside the State, which affects the quality and
homogeneous character of the campus. In W.P.(C) No.33768 of
2024, the petitioners sought the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the
records leading to Ext.P4 eligibility criteria and to quash the
same as the stipulation of eligibility provided therein cannot
be made applicable for the BAMS/BSMS/BUMS and post
graduate courses;
ii. Issue a writ declaring that admission for
BAMS/BSMS/BUMS and Post graduate courses in private
self-financing institutions including admissions in the All
India quota and NRI quota can only be made without
insisting on the domicile restriction as contained in Ext.P4
which run contrary to the stipulations in Exts.P2 & P2(a);
iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the 5 th
respondent to invite fresh applications and allotment for the
unfilled seats for the BAMS/BSMS/BUMS and post-graduate
courses following the stipulations contained in Ext.P2 and
P2(a) as it will override the stipulations in Ext.P4. "
3. In W.P.(C) No.33768 of 2024, on behalf of the 1 st
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
respondent, a statement dated 03.10.2024 has been filed by the
learned Standing Counsel, producing therewith Annexure R1(a)
document. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated
07.10.2024, followed by an additional counter affidavit dated
17.10.2024, producing therewith Exts.R5(a) document. According
to the 5th respondent, there is no inconsistency between Ext.P2
communication and Ext.P4 prospectus. It is contended by the 5 th
respondent that, as per the stipulations contained in Ext.P2, the
State is empowered to adopt and apply the policy of the State
while filling up the seats coming under the quota set apart for the
State. The various Clauses in Ext.P2 were referred to in the
counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent. The maintainability of
the writ petition was also challenged in the counter-affidavits.
According to the contesting respondents, the interest of the
Colleges will not in any way be affected due to the conditions
stipulated in Ext.P4, since the College will get sufficient students,
whatever be the policy decision of the Government.
4. To the counter affidavits, the petitioners filed a reply
affidavit dated 20.10.2024, producing therewith Exts.P14 and P15
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
documents.
5. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the
materials on record, the learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.(C)
No.33768 of 2024, holding that none of the reliefs sought by the
petitioners is legally sustainable.
6. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.10508 of 2025 also
approached this Court with the writ petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India with the very same pleadings as in
W.P.(C)No.33768 of 2024. The reliefs sought in that writ petition
are as under:
"i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the
records leading to Exts.P1 eligibility criteria and to quash
the same as the stipulation of eligibility provided therein
cannot be made applicable for the BAMS/BSMS/ BUMS and
post graduate courses;
ii. Issue a writ declaring that admission for BAMS/BSMS/
BUMS and Post graduate courses in private self-financing
institutions including admissions in the All India quota and
NRI quota can only be made without insisting on the
domicile restriction as contained in Ext P1, which run
contrary to the stipulations in Exhibits P2 and P2(a);
iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the 6 th
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
respondent to invite applications and allotment for the seats
in the BAMS/BSMS/BUMS and post graduate courses, for
the academic year 2025-26, without insisting on a nativity
or domicile restrictions."
7. On hearing both sides, finding that the issue has
already been covered in the judgment dated 23.10.2024 passed
by in W.P.(C)No. 33768 of 2024, the learned Single Judge
dismissed W.P.(C)No.10508 of 2025, in the light of the judgment
passed in W.P.(C) No.33768 of 2024.
8. On 04.11.2024, when W.A.No.1744 of 2024 came up for
admission, though this Court admitted the appeal, did not stay the
admission process at the behest of the appellants whose locus has
been disputed by the respondents.
9. On 27.11.2024, when W.A.No.1744 of 2024 came up for
consideration, this Court directed the National Commission to
clarify whether the impugned stipulation by the State of Kerala
directing that 15% Management seats in the private institutions in
the State should be kept aside on the basis of domicile is correct.
The National Commission was directed to file a counter-affidavit
only on the said specific issue. It was clarified that if a counter
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
affidavit cannot be filed due to shortage of time, written
instructions from the National Commission addressed to the
Standing Counsel for the National Commission be placed on
record, along with the memo of the Standing Counsel for the
National Commission.
10. On 03.12.2024, when W.A.No.1744 of 2024 came up for
consideration, this Court directed the State to take a specific
decision as regards the subject matter, both in respect of 15%
quota which is kept domicile free falling under Clause 3 and the
remaining seats. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of that order read thus;
"2. This matter has been heard from time to time. During
the hearing today, it would so transpire that as per Clause 3
of the National Commission guideline, wherein the State can
have a policy as regards 85% of State quota, 15% quota
has been carved out to be made domicile free. According to
the Petitioners, such a carving out and restriction only to
15% is not permissible and it should be in respect of the
remaining seats as well. This argument is based on the
premise that for exercise of power under Clause 3 of the
guidelines, there has to be a specific direction under Article
161 of the Constitution of India, which is not on record.
According to the learned Government Pleader, it was after
the process has commenced, upon representation of the
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
managements that 15% in respect of the seats
contemplated under Clause 3 were kept domicile free as
Management quota. Even then, it being a policy matter, a
decision should have been taken by way of an order. We are
informed that third stray vacancy allotment is now going on
and would end on 20 December 2024.
3. Considering the fact that there has to be a specific
decision as regards providing quotas which would be a
policy, we direct the State to take a specific decision as
regards the subject matter, both in respect of 15% quota
which is kept domicile free falling under Clause 3 and the
remaining seats. Since the admission would close on 20
December 2024, let a decision be taken and order be placed
on record within a period of one week."
11. On 10.12.2024, after hearing the submissions of the
learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, this Court suo motu
corrected the typing error in the order dated 03.12.2024 by
correcting the Article stated in the order dated 03.12.2024 as
Article 162 of the Constitution of India at the place of Article 161
of the Constitution of India.
12. In pursuance to the direction in the order dated
27.11.2024, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent
produced Annexure R1 instructions cum clarification along with a
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
memo dated 30.11.2024.
13. On 12.12.2024, when W.A.No.1744 of 2024 came up
for consideration, the learned Government Pleader placed on
record an order dated 11.12.2024 issued by the Government in
pursuance to the direction in the order dated 03.12.2024. The
learned Senior Counsel for the appellants stated that the said
order will have to be challenged by way of an amendment.
14. In view of the passing of Ext.P16 order dated
11.12.2024 by the Government, the appellants filed I.A.No.5 of
2024 to incorporate additional pleadings challenging Ext.P16
order. By the order dated 18.12.2024, this Court allowed the
amendment application and permitted to carry out those
amendments in the writ appeal.
15. In W.A.No.635 of 2025, the 6th respondent therein, who
is the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, filed a counter
affidavit dated 22.05.2025 reiterating the stand in the counter
affidavit filed in W.P.(C)No.33768 of 2024.
16. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants,
the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
Counsel for the 1st respondent NCISM, the learned Senior Central
Government Counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned
Standing Counsel for the 6th respondent.
17. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would
argue that, as per the seat matrix provided in Clauses 2 to 4 of
Ext.P2 communication dated 22.08.2024 issued by the 1 st
respondent, the filling up of 85% of seats in private institutions
shall be domicile-free. Clause 6 of Ext.P4 prospectus issued by the
Government by insisting nativity certificate and classification of
the students into three categories, such as Keralite, Non-Keralite
Category I (NK I) and Non-Keralite Category II (NK II), is against
the stipulations in Ext.P2. After the passing of the interim order
dated 03.12.2024 by this Court, the Government has passed
Ext.P16 order by dividing the 85% quota as 70% for the
Government quota and the remaining 15% as the
Management/NRI Quota, which is also against Ext.P2 and hence
liable to be set aside. Since this Court has already allowed the
amendment application filed by the appellants challenging
Ext.P16, there is no necessity to once again ask the appellants to
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
file a separate writ petition challenging Ext.P16 order passed by
the Government. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge went wrong in
finding the locus standi to move a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India against the appellants, by relying on
the judgments of the Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Ram
Chandra Dev [AIR 1964 SC 685] and Vinoy Kumar v. State
of U.P. And Others [(2001) 4 SCC 734]. By relying on
Paragraph 48 of the judgment of the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai
Foundation v. State of Karnataka [(2002) 8 SCC 481], the
learned Senior Counsel would submit that the writ petitions are
perfectly maintainable by the Private, Unaided, Non-Minority
Educational Institutions challenging the conditions stipulated in
Ext.P4 prospectus issued by the Government.
18. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
Pleader would submit that a combined reading of Exts.P2 and P4
would make it clear that at no stretch of imagination it can be said
that the management seats mentioned in Clause 4 of Ext.P2 refer
to the entire 85% of seats set apart for State/Union Territory
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
Quota. The appellants, being a college and the association of
colleges, have no locus standi to challenge Ext.P4, since the
appellants will not be prejudiced by the stipulation of nativity in
the Ext.P4 prospectus, as they will be provided with sufficient
number of students. Moreover, by Ext.P16 order, the Government
has made it clear that the management seats mentioned in Ext.P2
are 15% and the admission to those seats will be domicile-free.
The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that Ext.P16
order of the Government is not challenged by the appellants even
in W.P.(C)No.10508 of 2025, and hence the writ petitions as well
as the appeals are not maintainable. The locus standi of the
appellants to file the writ petitions challenging Ext.P4 prospectus
is raised by the respondents, and the learned Senior Government
Pleader pointed out various judgments on this point in support of
the contentions of the respondents, including those pointed out by
him before the learned Single Judge.
19. According to the respondents, the appellants are getting
sufficient number of students, whatever be stipulation regarding
nativity made by the Government and hence the appellants have
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
no locus standi to maintain the writ petitions. But while going
through T.M.A. Pai Foundation [(2002) 8 SCC 481], we are of
the opinion that the aforesaid stand of the respondents has no
merits. Paragraphs 48 and 50 of the judgment in T.M.A. Pai
Foundation read thus;
"48. Private education is one of the most dynamic and
fastest-growing segments of post-secondary education at
the turn of the twenty-first century. A combination of
unprecedented demand for access to higher education and
the inability or unwillingness of the Government to provide
the necessary support has brought private higher education
to the forefront. Private institutions, with a long history in
many countries, are expanding in scope and number, and
are becoming increasingly important in parts of the world
that relied almost entirely on the public sector.
50. The right to establish and administer broadly comprises
the following rights:
(a) to admit students;
(b) to set up a reasonable fee structure;
(c) to constitute a governing body;
(d) to appoint staff (teaching and non-teaching); and
(e) to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part
of any employees."
20. According to the appellants, the classification of students
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
based on nativity will affect their right to establish and administer
educational institutions by admitting meritorious students
domicile-free. When the appellants raise apprehension of
negation of such a right guaranteed under the Constitution of
India, as held in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, it cannot be said that
a writ petition challenging the order, which according to the
appellants, is issued with a view to take away the said right
guaranteed under the Constitution of India is not maintainable.
21. Similarly, though the respondents took a contention
that the appellants have no locus standi to maintain the writ
petitions in view of subsequent passing of Ext.P16 order by the
Government, we are not inclined to accept the said contention also
for the simple reason that Ext.P16 order was passed in view of the
interim order of this Court dated 03.12.2024, and moreover the
appellants filed I.A.No.5 of 2024 challenging Ext.P16 and that
amendment application was allowed by this Court.
22. The challenge against the criteria of eligibility for
admission stipulated in Ext.P4 prospectus issued by the
respondents is mainly placing reliance on Clauses 2 to 4 of Ext.P2.
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
Therefore, in order to understand the grounds of challenge, it
would be better to extract Clauses 2 to 4 of Ext.P2 as well as
Clauses 6 and 6.1 of Ext.P4. Clauses 2 to 4 of Ext.P2 read thus;
"2. The seat matrix for admission in the Government,
Government-aided institutions and Private institutions shall
be fifteen per cent (15%) for All-India Quota and eighty-five
per cent (85%) for State/Union Territory Quota as specified
in the NCISM and NCH Regulations in force at the time of
admission. (Please refer to Sl.No.14 of this guidelines).
3) In case of 85% of State/UT Quota, the seat matrix for
Government Quota, Management Quota, NRI Quota etc.,
shall be as per respective State and UT policy; however, all
admissions in all quotas (except foreign nationals) shall be
through counselling conducted by State/Ut counselling
authority."
4) The Management seats under the State/UT Quota in
Private Institutions shall be treated as domicile-free."
23. Clause 6 and 6.1 of Ext.P4 read thus.
6. CRITERIA OF ELIGIBILITY FOR ADMISSION
6.1 Nativity: Only Indian citizens are eligible for
admission to Professional courses unless otherwise
notified. The Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder (including
PIO cardholder) will also be treated at par with Indian
citizens for the limited purpose of admission. However,
PIO/OCI candidates will not be eligible for any kind of
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
reservation (Judgment in W.P.(C)No. 891 of 2021 dated:
03.02.2023 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
G.O(Rt)No.1620/2023/HEdn dated:01.11.2023).
Candidates seeking admission to Professional courses will
be categorised as Keralite, Non-Keralite Category I (NK I)
and Non-Keralite Category II (NK II).
(i) Keralite: A candidate of Kerala origin will be categorised
as a 'Keralite'. Children of All India Service (AIS) officers
(Non-Keralites) allotted to Kerala cadre are deemed to be
'Keralites' as per G.O. (Rt) No. 822/08/H.Edn. dated
29.05.2008. But they will not be eligible for
Communal/Special/Persons with Disabilities reservation or
any fee concession.
(ii) Non-Keralite Category I (NK I): A candidate who is
not of Kerala origin but fulfils any one of the following
conditions will be categorised as 'Non-Keralite Category I'
(NK I).
a. A candidate who has undergone qualifying course in
Kerala and who is son/daughter of Non-Keralite parents
belonging to Government of India/Defence Service, posted
to Kerala.
b. A candidate who has undergone qualifying course in
Kerala and who is son/daughter of Non-Keralite parents who
are serving/served Government of Kerala for a minimum
period of two years.
c. A candidate who is not of Kerala Origin but has been a
resident of Kerala State for a period of 5 (five) years within
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
the period of 12(twelve) years of his/her study.
d. A candidate who is not of Kerala Origin but who has
undergone his/her school studies in Kerala from standard
VIII to XII.
Note:- Non-Keralite Category I candidates will be considered
against 'State Merit' seats for
Engineering/Architecture/B.Pharm/Medical & Medical Allied
courses. But they will not be eligible for Communal/
Special/Persons with Disabilities reservation or any fee
concession.
(iii) Non-Keralite Category II [NK II]: Candidates who
do not come under 'Keralite' or 'Non-Keralite Category I' will
be categorised as 'Non-Keralite Category II'. Such
candidates are eligible for admission to both Government
and Management quota seats in Engineering courses in
Government Cost-Sharing Engineering colleges. However
the 'Non-Keralite Category II' (NK II) candidates will be
considered for admission to the Government seats in
Engineering courses in Government Cost-Sharing
Engineering colleges only when the Keralite and Non-
Keralite I (NK I) candidates are not available for admission.
'Non-Keralite Category II' (NK II) candidates are also
eligible for admission to both Government and Management
quota seats in Private Self-financing
Engineering/Architecture/Siddha /Unani colleges. But for
Siddha and Unani course, 'Non-Keralite Category II' (NK II)
candidates will be considered only when the Keralite and
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
Non-Keralite I (NK I) candidates are not available for
admission. 'Non-Keralite Category II' (NK II) candidates are
also eligible for admission to a maximum of 10% seats
under Management Quota in Private Self Financing
Pharmacy colleges subject to fulfilling the eligibility
conditions in clause 6.2 & 6.3. 'Non-Keralite Category II' (NK
II) candidates are not eligible for admission to Medical and
Medical Allied/Engineering/Pharmacy/Architecture courses
in Government colleges. Fifteen percent of the seats for the
admission of students to MBBS, BAMS, BSMS and BUMS
Courses in Self-Financing colleges in Kerala are set apart for
the allotment of candidates irrespective of their Domicile as
per the rank list prepared by the Commissioner for the
Entrance Examinations on the basis of the rank obtained in
the NEET-UG 2024 conducted by the National Testing
Agency (NTA), New Delhi. The 'Non-Keralite Category II' (NK
II) candidates will not be eligible for Communal/ Special/
Persons with Disabilities reservation or any fee concession.
Note : The following category of candidates will not be
governed by clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) above:
Candidates to be admitted in respect of seats reserved for
the nominees of Government of India, Administration of
Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep
Administration, Jammu & Kashmir, candidates selected
through the All India quota seats for MBBS/BDS courses and
candidates sponsored under reciprocal quota by Govt. of
Karnataka/ Tamil Nadu.
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
24. A reading of Clauses 2 to 4 of Ext.P2 shows that the
seat matrix for admission in Government, Government-aided
institutions and private institutions shall be 15% for All India
Quota and 85% for State/Union Territory Quota as specified in the
NCISM and NCH regulations in force at the time of admission.
According to the appellants, the 85% of the seats reserved for
State/Union Territory Quota are the Management seats mentioned
in Clause 4 of Ext.P2. But a reading of Clause 3 of Ext.P2 makes
it clear that the 85% of State/Union Territory Quota is sub divided
into Management Quota/NRI Quota/Government Quota, etc. and
the said Clause further states that the division of seat matrix for
Government Quota/Management Quota/NRI Quota, etc. shall be
as per the respective States and Union Territory policy, however,
all admissions in all quotas shall be through counselling conducted
by State/UT Counselling Authority. As rightly held by the learned
Single Judge, if the management seats mentioned in Clause 4 of
Ext.P2 refer to the entire 85% of State/Union Territory Quota, it
would have been mentioned in Clause 4 itself that the entire 85%
of seats shall be treated as domicile-free. When Clause 3 of Ext.P2
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
says that the division of Management Quota/Government
Quota/NRI Quota shall be as per respective State and UT policy,
that means the management seats mentioned in Clause 4 are the
percentage decided by the respective State and Union Territories
in accordance with their policy decisions. In such circumstances,
it cannot be said that Clause 6 of Ext.P4 prospectus for admission
to Professional Degree Courses 2024, published by the 5 th
respondent Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, violates
Ext.P2 communication dated 22.08.2024 issued by the National
Commission for Indian System of Medicine (Ministry of Ayush).
25. As discussed above, in view of the right of the appellants
to maintain educational institutions and admit students as held in
T.M.A. Pai Foundation [(2002) 8 SCC 481], a writ petition
challenging an order of the Government which according to the
appellants is detrimental to the interest of Minority Institutions run
by them is maintainable and to that extent the finding of the
learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment is incorrect. At
the same time, as found herein before, the challenge against
Clause 6 of Ext.P4 prospectus based on Clause 2 to 4 of Ext.P2 by
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
the appellants holds no merit, and the respondents are entitled
to take a policy decision as far as the admission to Government
Quota, Management Quota and NRI Quota, by dividing these
quotas into percentage within the 85% of seats set apart for
State/Union Territory Quota. The writ petitions are therefore
rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to interfere
with the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judge.
In the result, this writ appeals stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
Sks/MSA
and 635 of 2025
2025:KER:70801
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1 The true copy of the instructions by the 1st
Respondent
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING G.O.(RT) NO.
469/2024/AYUSH DATED 11.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE
STATE GOVERNMENT.
