Madras High Court
The Director vs ____________ on 3 October, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.(MD) No.1723 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A.(MD)No.1723 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.13249 and 13251 of 2024
1.The Director,
Directorate of Medical Education and Research,
College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
2.The Additional Director,
Directorate of Medical Education and Research,
College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
3.The Secretary,
The Selection Committee,
Directorate of Medical Education and Research,
No.162, Periyar E.V.R.High Road,
Kilpauk,
Chennai - 600 010. ... Appellants
-vs-
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1723 of 2024
1.Minor H.Madhav Krishna
Rep. by his father S.Harikrishnan
Harimadhavam, Tc 21/2072,
Mannadilane Ambalamukku,
Peroorkada Po,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 005.
2.The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India,
New Delhi.
3.The National Medical Commission,
Represented by its Secretary,
Pocket 14, Sector - 8, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110 077.
4.The Director,
Velammal Medical College Hospital and Research Institute,
Velammal Village,
Madurai – Tuticorin, Airport Mattuthavani Ring Road,
Chinthamani,
Madurai – 625 009.
5.The Director,
Sree Mookambika Institute of Medical Sciences,
Padanilam, Kulasekharam,
Kanyakumari District - 629 161. ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow this Writ
Appeal by setting aside the order, dated 27.08.2024, passed in W.P.(MD)No.
20373 of 2024.
____________
Page 2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1723 of 2024
For Appellant Nos.1 & 2 : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader
For Appellant No.3 : Mrs.M.Sneha
Standing Counsel
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
For Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr.K.Govindarajan
Deputy Solicitor General of India
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
The appeal is by the Director of Medical Education and Research.
2. Challenge in this Writ Appeal is to the order of the Writ Court, where
the Writ Court concluded that delay in production of the certificate cannot be a
ground to refuse admission. The first respondent / writ petitioner applied under
Non-Resident Indian (NRI) quota and was able to produce a certificate to the
effect that his uncle is a Non-Resident Indian and he would support him.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The Tahsildar, who issued a certificate, gave a relationship certificate
on 01.07.2024, describing the relationship as Nephew, but the authorities insisted
that the certificate should be the reverse and the relationship should be shown as
uncle of the student. A delay occurred in obtaining a corrected certificate,
because of which, the first respondent / writ petitioner was denied admission.
When the first respondent / writ petitioner moved the Writ Court, the authorities
did not make a claim that the first respondent / writ petitioner was not qualified.
The only defence that was projected before the Writ Court was that the certificate
of relationship was produced belatedly. Therefore, the Writ Court held that the
delay in production of certificate cannot be made a ground to reject the claim of a
candidate, who is otherwise qualified.
4. Before us, Mrs.M.Sneha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
third appellant would submit that the first respondent / writ petitioner was not
qualified to claim admission under the Non-Resident Indian quota. Inviting our
attention to the qualifications prescribed, particularly, sub-clauses (i) and (j) of
Clause 8 of the Prospectus, which reads as follows:-
''i) The seats under NRI quota should be utilized by
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Bonafide NRI's only and for their children or wards.
Therefore, the NRI financially supporting the candidates
should either be the parent (Father or Mother) of the
candidate or the spouse or the blood relatives of the
candidates or legally declared as guardian of the candidate
by the Court as per provisions in "The Guardians and Wards
Act 1890".
j) For purpose of the above clause the term blood
relative is defined as follows:-
i) Real brother and sister of father i.e. real uncle
and real aunt
ii) Real brother and sister of mother i.e. real
maternal uncle and maternal aunt
iii) Father and mother of father i.e. grandfather and
grandmother.
iv) Father and mother of mother i.e. maternal
grandfather and maternal grandmother.
v) First degree-paternal and maternal cousins.
vi) Such person should be NRI.''
the learned counsel would submit that Non-Resident Indian applicant should be
related to the sponsorer within the first degree.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The affidavit filed by Mr.Ramesh Govindan Nair, the Non-Resident
Indian, who sponsors the first respondent / writ petitioner shows that the first
respondent / writ petitioner is his wife's cousin's son. Therefore, according to the
learned counsel, the first respondent / writ petitioner will not qualify even for
applying under the Non-Resident Indian quota.
6. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first
respondent / writ petitioner would submit that this issue was never raised before
the learned Single Judge.
7. We do not think that we can throw out the appeal on the ground that
this question was not raised before the learned Single Judge. If it is shown that
the first respondent / writ petitioner was not qualified to apply under the Non-
Resident Indian quota, then, the disqualification goes to the root of the matter and
therefore, the question can be raised even in the appeal, unless it depends on
proof of further facts.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The affidavit filed by the Non-Resident Indian namely, the sponsorer
on 22.06.2024 itself shows that the student namely, the first respondent / writ
petitioner does not qualify to apply under the Non-Resident Indian quota. Hence,
the first respondent / writ petitioner cannot be granted a seat under the Non-
Resident Indian quota. It is an unfortunate case where the student has also joined
the Institution. Luckily, the disqualification has been discovered early, so that, he
has not wasted many years in the Medical College.
9. We, therefore, allow the Writ Appeal and the order of the learned
Single Judge is set aside. The rejection of the first respondent's / writ petitioner's
candidature as a Non-Resident Indian is upheld, though for grounds different
from the one stated in the order impugned in the Writ Petition. If the first
respondent / writ petitioner is qualified in other categories, it will be open to him
to seek a seat under the Management quota or any other quota available. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
NCC : No [R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
Index : No 03.10.2024
smn2
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India,
New Delhi.
2.The Secretary,
National Medical Commission,
Pocket 14, Sector - 8, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110 077.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
smn2
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.13249 and 13251 of 2024
03.10.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
