A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment examines the legality of deletion of the Non-Resident Indian (NRI) quota in postgraduate medical and dental admissions for the academic year 2020–2021 in Rajasthan. The dispute arose when private medical colleges, after initially indicating a 15% NRI quota and initiating verification of NRI candidates, eliminated the quota at a late stage and merged the seats with the management quota. Two NRI candidates challenged this action before the Rajasthan High Court. The Single Judge held the deletion arbitrary and directed their admission under the NRI quota. The Division Bench reversed this decision, leading to appeals before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court analysed the scope of institutional autonomy, the nature of NRI quota under constitutional jurisprudence, and the limits of judicial intervention in admission processes. It clarified that the NRI quota is permissive and discretionary, not mandatory or immutable, and flows from institutional autonomy recognised in earlier Constitution Bench judgments. However, the Court emphasised that such discretion cannot be exercised unreasonably or without adequate notice, especially when candidates have altered their position based on a declared admission framework.

While upholding the Division Bench’s view that no candidate has a vested right to admission under a quota, the Court recognised that the abrupt deletion of the NRI quota during an ongoing admission process caused unfair prejudice to NRI candidates. The Single Judge’s direction granting direct admissions was held legally impermissible, as courts cannot create rights absent statutory mandate. Balancing equities, the Supreme Court invoked its power to do complete justice and ordered a special, limited counselling round confined only to seats disturbed by the Single Judge’s judgment, without unsettling settled admissions.

Keywords:
NRI quota, Medical admissions, Institutional autonomy, Judicial restraint, NEET PG counselling, Complete justice

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose in the backdrop of postgraduate medical admissions conducted through NEET PG 2020 during the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. Private medical colleges in Rajasthan initially declared a 15% NRI quota, consistent with long-standing practice recognised in judicial precedents. The admission process commenced with NEET examinations in January 2020, followed by counselling schedules and verification of NRI candidates in March and April 2020.

The NEET PG Counselling Board, in consultation with participating colleges, published an admission framework indicating the existence of NRI seats and the sequence in which such seats would be filled prior to management quota seats. NRI candidates, including the appellants, submitted documents, paid fees, and structured their applications based on this representation. However, shortly before counselling, private colleges revised their seat matrices and eliminated the NRI quota entirely, merging it with the management quota.

This sudden change prompted litigation, raising concerns regarding fairness, arbitrariness, legitimate expectation, and the extent of autonomy enjoyed by private unaided institutions. The Single Judge of the High Court treated the NRI quota as inseparable from the management quota and directed admissions. The Division Bench rejected this approach, holding that no quota confers an enforceable right. The Supreme Court was thus called upon to reconcile institutional discretion with procedural fairness and define the permissible limits of judicial intervention in academic matters.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The admission process for PG medical and dental courses in Rajasthan for AY 2020–21 began with NEET PG held in January 2020, results declared on 31 January 2020. A meeting of the NEET PG Counselling Board was held on 17 March 2020, attended by representatives of private colleges, where it was agreed that 15% of seats would be treated as NRI/management quota and NRI candidates would be considered first.

The Instruction Booklet published thereafter recognised three categories of seats—government, management, and NRI—and specified detailed eligibility conditions for NRI candidates, including sponsorship and documentary proof. The appellants registered under the NRI category and submitted required documents within stipulated timelines.

On 11 April 2020, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College published a notification showing 22 NRI/management quota seats, including two seats in MD Radiodiagnosis. However, on 13 April 2020, the final seat matrix published by the Board showed NIL NRI seats. A formal notification dated 14 April 2020 informed NRI candidates that their applications would be considered under the management quota.

Aggrieved, two NRI candidates approached the High Court. The Single Judge held that the deletion of the NRI quota mid-process was arbitrary and contrary to earlier Supreme Court judgments, directing their admission. This triggered third-party appeals by candidates admitted under the management quota. The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge’s order, leading to the present appeals.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the NRI quota in postgraduate medical admissions is mandatory or discretionary?
ii. Whether private medical colleges can abolish the NRI quota during an ongoing admission process?
iii. Whether courts can direct admission of candidates in the absence of statutory entitlement?
iv. Whether deletion of the NRI quota without notice violates fairness and non-arbitrariness?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner submitted that the admission process had commenced with a clear representation that 15% NRI seats would be available, and candidates had altered their position based on this assurance.

ii. It was argued that minutes of the 17 March 2020 meeting clearly mandated that NRI seats be filled first, and only leftover seats could be treated as management quota.

iii. Reliance was placed on P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra to argue that NRI quota is a recognised component of private medical admissions.

iv. The abrupt deletion of the quota was contended to be a change in rules midstream, impermissible under settled law governing selection processes.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondents submitted that no student has a vested right to a quota, and private institutions retain autonomy to decide whether to offer NRI seats.

ii. It was argued that P.A. Inamdar merely permits, but does not mandate, an NRI quota.

iii. The COVID-19 pandemic justified a policy decision to merge NRI seats with management quota due to uncertainty in filling such seats.

iv. The Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by directing admissions, thereby creating rights without statutory backing.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 10-D, Medical Council of India Act, 1956
ii. NEET Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations
iii. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences Act, 2005
iv. Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences and Technology Act, 2011

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court held that the NRI quota is neither sacrosanct nor compulsory. Drawing extensively from T.M.A. Pai Foundation and P.A. Inamdar, the Court reaffirmed that private unaided institutions enjoy autonomy to determine seat allocation, subject to regulatory frameworks.

The Court rejected the view that a 15% NRI quota is an unalterable feature of PG admissions. However, it emphasised that discretion must be exercised fairly. The abrupt deletion of the quota after candidates had submitted documents and committed to the process was held to have caused unfair detriment.

The Court found the Single Judge’s direction granting admissions legally unsustainable, reiterating that courts cannot issue positive directions absent statutory duty. At best, the High Court could have directed consideration of the petitioners’ cases.

Invoking its power to do complete justice, the Supreme Court ordered a special counselling round limited only to seats disturbed by the Single Judge’s judgment, ensuring minimal disruption and equitable treatment of all affected candidates.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The NRI quota in postgraduate medical admissions is permissive and discretionary, not mandatory. Private medical colleges may decide whether to offer such quota, but if they choose to abolish it during an ongoing admission process, reasonable notice must be given to avoid unfair prejudice. Courts cannot direct admissions without statutory entitlement.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that pandemic-induced disruptions necessitate flexible institutional decision-making but cautioned that such flexibility must not undermine procedural fairness or candidate confidence in admission systems.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Deletion of NRI quota during admissions must be preceded by reasonable notice.
ii. Courts should avoid issuing direct admission orders absent statutory mandate.
iii. Equitable solutions should minimise disturbance to settled admissions.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment strikes a careful balance between institutional autonomy and procedural fairness. It reinforces judicial restraint in academic matters while acknowledging candidate prejudice caused by abrupt policy shifts. The decision strengthens administrative fairness without diluting constitutional autonomy of private institutions.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, [2005] 2 Supp SCR 603
ii. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, [2002] 3 Supp SCR 587
iii. Modern Dental College v. State of M.P., [2012] 5 SCR 768
iv. Christian Medical College Vellore Association v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 423

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Medical Council of India Act, 1956
ii. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences Act, 2005