Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Ojus Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 January, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Anuradha Shukla
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:268
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND
DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 07th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 37985 of 2024
DR. OJUS YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Vagrecha - Advocate with Shri Ishan Jatavedus Tignath - Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Janhvi Pandit - Addl. Advocate General for the respondents/State.
Shri Shashank Verma - Senior Advocate with Shri Akhilesh Rai - Advocate for
the respondent no.3.
"Reserved on : 18.12.2024"
"Pronounced on : 07.01.2025".
This petition having been heard and reserved for order, coming on
for pronouncement this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
passed the following:
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed assailing the seat matrix for private medical colleges in the State
of M.P. published by the respondent no.2 on 22.11.2024 whereby
directly procedure for choice filling and locking of seats was
commenced from 23.11.2024 till 25.11.2024.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has passed his MBBS
exam and wanted to pursue a postgraduate course. The petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:268
appeared for the All India NEET PG 2024 and cleared the
examination. However, when the portal of filling up the seats in the PG
Courses was opened by the respondents and the seat matrix for private
medical colleges was published on 22.11.2024, instead of affording the
petitioner an opportunity to raise objections as per Rule 5 of the
Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Rules 2018, directly the
procedure for choice filling and locking of seats was commenced from
November 23-25, 2024. Thus, the petitioner claimed that the practice
adopted by the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. It was alleged that
the respondents have manipulated the 15% quota meant for NRI
students and consequently, there is a reduction in the number of seats
which was supposed to be allotted to meritorious students belonging to
reserved as well as unreserved categories.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the respondents have
acted in gross violation of the reservation policy and published the NRI
Quota seats for private medical colleges only for 8 branches instead of
22 branches, thereby restricting the 15% NRI Quota to 8 branches
only. This practice has resulted in shortage of seats meant for other
categories because application of 15% NRI quota rule selectively to 8
branches has increased the number of seats for students opting for NRI
seats and thus, reducing the number of seats in these 8 branches for the
students belonging to reserved as well as unreserved categories.
Therefore, it was alleged that the practice of differentiating between
clinical and non-clinical branches and the arbitrary distribution of seats
in 8 selective PG courses has led to shortage of seats which otherwise
would have been available if the respondents would have followed the
policy of reservation in letter and spirit.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:268
4. The petitioner asserted that the observations made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of P.A Inamdar & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 537 were ignored by
the respondents in the present case as merit was given a complete go
by.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has supported the seat matrix
vis à vis the NRI Reservation Policy which is followed by the
respondents. The respondents have vehemently opposed the prayer of
the petitioner while submitting that the Central and State Governments
are empowered to frame Rules regarding the NRI Quota. The objective
behind the NRI quota is to enable the private educational institutions to
have a reasonable surplus for its development activities and expend on
institutional needs and accepting the prayer of the petitioner would
defeat the said objective. The allocation of NRI seats is in conformity
with the reservation policy set forth in Rule 4 and Rule 14 of the
Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Rules, 2018. Reliance has
been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar
(Supra), Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka,
Modern Dental College (2003) 6 SCC 697. Hence, the petition
deserves to be dismissed.
6. Shri Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.3
submitted that the respondent no.3 is a private, self-financed, unaided
premier medical institution known for its excellence in education and
healthcare. Respondent no.3 has always adhered to all statutory norms,
including those governing the allocation of NRI quota seats and
maintains its commitment to highest standards of medical education
and infrastructure development. Learned counsel further contended
that only 15% of the total seats are allocated for NRI quota, leaving
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:268
85% of the seats for regular allocation and hence it is not correct to
assure that this quota seriously and adversely affects the opportunities
of non-NRI candidates. It is further submitted that the State
Government is duty-bound to ensure the filling of all NRI quota seats,
as the fees fixed by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee
(AFRC) and Madhya Pradesh Private University Regulatory
Commission (MPPURC) take into account the assumption of 100%
occupancy of these seats. Any vacancy in NRI seats would directly
impact the financial viability of the institutions, creating challenges for
their operational and infrastructural sustainability. Ensuring that all
NRI seats are filled is crucial for maintaining the economic health of
private institutions, which rely on the fees collected from this quota to
meet their expenditure and enhance facilities. It is further submitted
that every institution has its own strengths and areas of expertise.
Certain streams or subjects offered by specific colleges are in greater
demand, while others may not attract the same level of interest. The
allocation of seats, including NRI quota seats, is done keeping these
strengths and weaknesses in mind to maximize the utilization of seats
and match demand patterns effectively. It is further submitted by
counsel for respondent no.3 that the preparation of the seat matrix
involves multiple, complex considerations, including demand trends,
feasibility, and institutional capacity. These factors are analyzed
carefully to ensure an equitable and efficient allocation of seats that
balances the interests of all stakeholders. Loose or speculative
allegations, such as those made by the petitioner, cannot justify judicial
interference in this intricate process, especially when no violation of
rules or legal provisions has been demonstrated.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:268
8. The main bone of contention of the petitioner is that the State Govt.
has allotted 15% NRI quota seats to the private medical colleges which
are distributed amongst only 8 branches whereas it should have been
distributed amongst all the 22 branches. Because of selective
application of NRI quota only to 8 branches the petitioner has been
deprived of admission because due to increase in seats of NRI quota
under selective 8 branches only, the seats under other categories have
been proportionately decreased.
9. M.P. Niji Vyavsayik (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Evam Shulk Ka
Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007, was enacted by the State Govt. for the
regulation of admission process and fees structure of private medical
colleges in the State of M.P. Section 12 of the Act provides for power
of the State Govt. to frame rules under the Act. Under section 12 of
the Act, 'M.P. Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 have been
framed in order to regulate admission process in private medical and
dental colleges in M.P. Rule 4(2)(ga) of the said Rules provides for
category-wise reservation as provided in Schedule 2 Khand 'B' which
provides as under :-
(िनयम-4 दे खए)
ख ड-ब वगवार आर ण
वग पा म महािव ालय िजनम कुल सीटों का
िजसम लागू है लागू है ितशत
अिनवासी सम त केवल िनजी 15
भारतीय अ यथ महािव ालयों म
मिहला अ यथ सम त सम त महािव ालयों 30
अ यथ एवं बी.डी.एस. महािव ालयों म
एवं बी.डी.एस.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:268
Thus, Khand B of Schedule 2 provides that 15% quota in the NRI
category shall apply to all the available courses in private medical
colleges. The rules are silent in regard to allotment of 15% NRI quota
branch-wise. Petitioner is unable to show any rule or provision which
provides branch-wise allotment of seats under 15% NRI quota. If the
petitioner is aggrieved by non-mention of branch-wise allotment of
15% NRI quota, then he ought to have challenged the rules in that
regard. In the absence of such challenge, this Court cannot interfere in
the allotment of seats under 15% NRI quota made by the private
medical colleges.
10. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the observations made in
the case of P.A. Inamdar (Supra) have not been followed by the
respondents is concerned, it is trite to refer to the relevant extracts of
the aforesaid judgment:
"131. 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 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 its 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 Indian
cultural ethos by virtue of being here. They also wish money
which they would be spending elsewhere on education of their
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:268
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's direction to regulate.
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Thus, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of P.A.
Inamdar (Supra) has held in crystal clear terms that a limited reservation
not exceeding 15% of the total seats can be allocated to the NRI
Category which shall be subject to the discretion of the management.
The said discretion was made subject to two riders, namely:
(i) The NRI Quota shall be utilized only and only for the NRIs and/or
their wards.
(ii) And, within the NRI Quota, merit cannot be completely discarded.
12. In the present case, the discretion was exercised by the respondents after
satisfying the aforesaid twin conditions. Moreover, the criteria
formulated for allotment of seats by the State Govt. appears to be fair,
reasonable and in compliance with statutory requirements. It also
reflects a balance approach to meet institutional financial needs and
ensure fairness in admissions. The petitioner is unable to prove any
violation of rules or regulations.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:268
13. Since, the rules are silent with respect of branch-wise allotment of NRI
Quota seats in private medical colleges and since the petitioner has not
challenged the vires of the rules, therefore, this Court cannot interfere
with the legality of the said rules in exercise of power under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
14. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed for the reasons set out
above.
15. The interim order granted by this Court dated 18.12.2024 stands
vacated.
16. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances and
further that the precious medical seats should not go in waste, when the
country is facing acute shortage of doctors, the respondents are directed
to conduct the counselling forthwith in respect of NRI quota seats, as
has been held by the Apex court in the case of Era Lucknow Medical
College and Hospital Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
decided on 20.12.2024 in W.P.(C).No.833/2024. The Authorities are
directed to hold fresh stray/special counselling for the vacant seats, if
any, and complete the admission process forthwith.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
HEMANT SARAF
2025.01.07 16:16:51
+05'30'
HS
