1

2024:CGHC:41589-DB

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 5316 of 2024

1 - Rishi Tiwari S/o Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Aged About 22 Years R/o Nehru

Nagar, Bhilai, Durg Chhattisgarh.

2 - Akriti Tiwari D/o Mr. Rajnish Tiwari Aged About 19 Years R/o B - 464,

Samta Colony, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3 - Sinmoy Goutam Padhi S/o Mr. Subrat Kumar Padhi Aged About 18 Years

R/o D-45, Chouhan Town, Bhilai, Durg Chhattisgarh.

4 - Lakshya Jain S/o Amolak Jain Aged About 20 Years R/o Jai Tulsi Multi

Speciality Hospital, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

5 - Jemini Chandrakar D/o Mr. Jayandra Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 20

Years R/o Panchshil Sector, Borsi Bhilai, Durg Chhattisgarh.

6 - Peeyush Kumar Chandrakar S/o Shravan Chandrakar Aged About 23

Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, Sikshak Colony, Kurud, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And

Family Welfare Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar,

Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - The Director Of Medical Education Old Nurses Campus, DKS Bhawan,

Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3 - The Commissioner Medical Education Swasth Bhawan, North Block,

Sector 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4 - Abhishek Memorial Medical College And Research Junwani, Bhilai Durg

Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

2

WPC No. 5318 of 2024

Geetika Chandrakar D/o Shri Dilip Chandrakar Aged About 20 Years R/o

Bajrang Chowk, Village Doner, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

----Petitioner

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare

Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar,

Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Secretary Medical Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,

Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3 - Director Medical Education, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4 - Commissioner Medical Education Chhattisgarh Raipur, Swastha Bhawan,

Second Floor, North Block, Sector No. 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District

Raipur Chhattisgarh

5 - Abhishek Mishra Memorial Medical College And Research Smriti Nagar

Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

WPC No. 5322 of 2024

1 - Antas Tiwari S/o Shri Aproov Tiwari Aged About 19 Years R/o Bodhkunj,

Juna Bilaspur Karbala Road, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur.

2 - Anwita Singh D/o Shri S. K. Singh Aged About 19 Years R/o Kharoon

Railvihar Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, C.G.

3 - Aditya Tiwari S/o Dr. Sandeep Tiwari Aged About 19 Years R/o Shrikant

Verma Marg Near Sony Showroom, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur, C.G.

4 - Nikhita Mishra D/o Shri Pankaj Mishra Aged About 19 Years R/o House No.

23, Dolphin Plaza, Mowa, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, C.G.

5 - Vinamra Dubey S/o Shri Sanjay Dubey Aged About 19 Years R/o Thana

Road, Akaltara Distt- Bilaspur, C.G.

6 - Nitya Kedia S/o Shri Sachin Kedia Aged About 18 Years R/o Agrasen

Nagar, Baloda Nagar, Akaltara, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa, C.G.

----Petitioners

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary To The Govt. Of

Chhattisgarh Department Of Medical Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal

Nagar, P S - Rakhi, Raipur, C.G.

3

2 - The Director Directorate Of Medical Education, Swasthya Bhawan, North

Block, Second Floor, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, C.G.

3 - The Commissioner Directorate Of Medical Education, Swasthya Bhawan,

North Block, Sector- 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, C.G.

4 - The Chairman Counselling Committee Directorate Of Medical Education,

Swasthya Bhawan, North Block, Second Floor, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar,

Raipur, C.G.

5 - Shri Shankaracharya Institute Of Medical Science, Junvani Road, Bhilai

Through The Director Shri Shankaracharya Institute Of Medical Science,

Junvani Road, Bhilai

6 - Shri Balaji Institute Of Medical Science, Mowa, Raipur Through The

Director Shri Balaji Institute Of Medical Science, Mowa, Raipur

---- Respondents

WPC No. 5335 of 2024

Akshaya Tripathi D/o Ashutosh Tripathi, Aged About 19 Years R/o Nehru

Nagar (East), Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.)

----Petitioner

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Health And Family Welfare

Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar,

Nawa Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Secretary, Medical Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,

Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Director, Medical Education, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.)

4 - Commissioner, Medical Education, Chhattisgarh Raipur, Swasthya

Bhawan, Second Floor, North Block, Sector No. 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar,

District-Raipur (C.G.)

5 - Shri Shankaracharya Institute Of Medical Science, Junwani, Bhilai,

Through Its Deen, Shri Shankaracharya Institute Of Medical Science, Junwani

Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.)

6 - Chairman Of The Counseling Committee, Directorate Medical Education,

Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

4

WPC No. 5338 of 2024

1 - Aniruddha Ajay Kasulkar S/o Ajay Aged About 19 Years R/o Plot No. 35

Swapna Rameshwari Ring Road, Behind Shyam Beer Bar, Abhay Nagar,

Parvati Nagar, Nagpur Maharashtra

2 - Devesh Patel S/o Gopal Prasad Patel Aged About 20 Years R/o Mundha,

Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

3 - Yogesh Patel S/o Upendra Kumar Patel Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward

No. 14, Koylari, Umariya, Koliyaridih, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

4 - Surabhi Milind Kakade D/o Milind Kakade Aged About 19 Years R/o Near

Hanuman Mandir, Plot No. 14, Bhole Nagar, Near Shriram Nagar, VTC Besa,

District Nagpur (Maharashtra)

5 - Anuj Shivkumar Jaiswal S/o Shivkumar Aged About 18 Years R/o 22, Near

Sai Mangal Hall, Shikshak Sahakari Society, Ward No. 6, Bori, Nagpur

Maharashtra

6 - Tushar Dewangan S/o Lalit Kumar Dewangan Aged About 21 Years R/o

C/o Lalit Kumar Dewangan, 146/1 Ward No. 07, Kirandul, Dakshin Bastar,

Dantewada Chhattisgarh

7 - Manmohan Gour S/o Amit Gour Aged About 19 Years R/o 82, Sunder

Nagar, VTC Raipur, Post Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

8 - Shrishti Sharma D/o Satyaprakash Sharma Aged About 19 Years R/o

Raipur Road, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

----Petitioners

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare

Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar,

Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Secretary Medical Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,

Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3 - Director Medical Education, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4 - Commissioner Medical Education Chhattisgarh Raipur, Swasthya Bhawan,

Second Floor, North Block, Sector No. 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District

Raipur Chhattisgarh

5 - Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute Of Medical Sciences And Research

(SRIMSR) Through Its Deen, Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute Of Medical

Sciences And Research (SRIMSR), Village Pacehda, Post Kurru, Tehsil

5

Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

6 - Chairman Of The Counseling Committee Directorate Of Medical Education

Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

WPC No. 5339 of 2024

1 - Anchal Das D/o Arvind Das Aged About 20 Years R/o Ganeshpur, Post

Vishrampur, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, C.G.

2 - Sweta Rani Birtia D/o Prakash Chandra Birtia Aged About 17 Years

Through Her Natural Guardian Father Namely Prakash Chandra Birtia, S/o

Bidyadhar Birtia, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Bargarh, Orissa

3 - Adya Sambhavi D/o Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Aged About 17 Years Through Her

Natural Guardian Father Namely Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, S/o K. M. P. Verma,

Aged About 84 Years, R/o Flat No. 707, Agrasar Pride, Avanti Vihar, Near

Shrishti Plaza, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

4 - Anuj Verma S/o Neeraj Verma Aged About 20 Years R/o Madhya Nagri

Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G.

5 - Prashansa Chandravanshi D/o Mahendra Kumar Chandravanshi Aged

About 19 Years R/o Akash Nagar, Near Vijay Nagar Chowk, Raipur, District

Raipur, C.G.

6 - Unmuni Goswani D/o Bhanu Pratap Goswami Aged About 19 Years R/o

Prakash Kunj, Near Netaji Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

7 - Nikhil Nakade S/o Dudharam Aged About 19 Years R/o Prakash Kunj,

Katora Talab, Near Fairshta Hospital, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

8 - Shreyas Dighraskar S/o Vivek Dighraskar Aged About 19 Years R/o Tilak

Nagar, Chantapara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G.

9 - Harsh Govind Bepari S/o Govind Chandra Bepari Aged About 19 Years R/o

Bande Colony, Pankhajur, District- Pankhajur, District Kanker, C.G.

----Petitioners

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare

Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar,

Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

2 - Secretary Medical Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,

Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

6

3 - Director Medical Education, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

4 - Commissioner Medical Education Chhattisgarh Raipur, Swasthya Bhawan,

Second Floor, North Block, Sector No. 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District

Raipur, C.G.

5 - Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences, Raipur Through Its Deen, Raipur

Institute Of Medical Sciences, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

6 - Chairman Of The Counseling Committee Directorate Medical Education

Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

WPC No. 5340 of 2024

1 - Khushbu Didwania D/o Ashish Didwania Aged About 19 Years R/o House

No. 1, CAE Choubey Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Kanchan Poptani D/o Dr. Manoj Poptani Aged About 19 Years R/o E-

00125, Street No. A-23, Shyam Nagar, Telibandha, Opposite Gurudwara,

Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Lakshya Patel S/o Bharat Patel Aged About 19 Years R/o Plot No. 1, SBI

Colony, Lane No. 4, Fafadih, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

----Petitioners

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare

Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar,

Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Secretary Medical Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,

Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Director Medical Education, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

4 - Commissioner Medical Education Chhattisgarh Raipur, Swasthya Bhawan,

Second Floor, North Block, Sector No. 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District

Raipur (C.G.)

5 - Shri Balaji Institute Of Medical Science Mova, Raipur, Through Its Deen,

Shri Balaji Institute Of Medical Science, Mova, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

6 - Chairman Of The Counseling Committee Directorate Medical Education

Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

7

WPC No. 5344 of 2024

1 - Himani Agrawal D/o Shri Kuber Narayan Agrawal Aged About 19 Years R/o

Pt. Deen Dayal Puram, New Khursipar, Bhilai, Durg Chhattisgarh

2 - Shrishti Agrawal D/o Shri Kamal Agrawal Aged About 19 Years R/o Lalpur

Road, Bagbahra, Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

3 - Pauravi Bhardwaj D/o Shri Ashish Bhardwaj Aged About 18 Years R/o

Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai Durg Chhattisgarh

4 - Anany Pandey S/o Shri Sanjay Kumar Pandey Aged About 20 Years R/o

332 (Gh), Sanskar School, Gaurav Path, Balodabazar Chhattisgarh

5 - Anusha Gupta D/o Shri Mukul Chandra Gupta Aged About 23 Years R/o

Nehru Nagar, Bhilai Durg Chhattisgarh

6 - Aayush Singh Baghel S/o Shri Balraj Singh Aged About 21 Years R/o Main

Road, Mungeli Chhattisgarh

7 - Sadiksha Dubey D/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Dubey Aged About 21 Years R/o

Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector-iii, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

8 - Neeral Jain D/o Shri Vinay Kumar Jain Aged About 18 Years R/o Model

Complex, Moti Nagar Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh

9 - Ishanvi Chauhan D/o Shri Amit Kumar Aged About 19 Years R/o Ranibag

Colony, Alhaypur, Bijnaur Uttar Pradesh

----Petitioners

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And

Family Welfare Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar,

Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - The Director Of Medical Education Old Nurses Campus, DKS Bhawan,

Raipur Chhattisgarh

3 - The Commissioner Medical Education Swasth Bhawan, North Block,

Sector 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh

4 - Shri Shankaracharya Institute Of Medical Sciences Junwani , Bhilai, Distt.

Durg Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

For Petitioners :Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate, assisted by

Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, alongwith Mr.

Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate, Mr. Chandresh

Shrivastava, Mr. Anand Shukla, Mr. Atul Kumar

Kesharwani and Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Advocates.

8

For Respondent/State:Mr. Prafull N Bharat, Advocate General assisted

by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate.

For Private Respondents:Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate.

Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

22/10/2024

1.These petitions are listed today on admission, however, with the consent

of learned counsel appearing for the parties, they are being heard finally.

2.Since common facts and issues are involved in all these petitions and

challenge made to the orders is one and the same in these petitions, they

are being heard and considered together.

3.WPC No. 5322 of 2024 is taken as the lead case and the parties and

proceedings are referred to as given therein, except where it is

separately referred to.

4.The petitioner(s) in WPC No. 5316/2024, has prayed for the following

relief(s):

“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate

writ / order / direction, commanding the Respondent authorities to

produce the entire records necessary for adjudication of the instant

petition.

10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ / order / direction, quashing the impugned

notification dated 18.10.2024 & the communication dated

18.10.2024 (Annexure P-1 Colly.)

9

10.3That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ / order / direction, restraining the respondent

authorities from taking any adverse action or passing any

consequential order, prejudicially affecting the admission of the

petitioners under the NRI quota for the MBBS Course.

10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ / order / direction, quashing any consequential

order passed by the respondent authorities pursuant to the

impugned notification and communication and/or restrain the

respondents from initiating any action against the petitioners.

10.5 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ / order / direction, of appropriate the nature

allowing the petitioners to pursue their MBBS Course in the

Respondent no.4 College.

10.6 Any other relief(s), direction(s), which Hon'ble the Court

deems fit, and proper, in the circumstances of the case.”

5.The petitioner(s) in WPC No. 5318/2024, has prayed for the following

relief(s):

“1] That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate

writ/order/direction, commanding the Respondent authorities to

produce the entire records necessary for adjudication of the instant

petition.

2] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ/order/direction, the impugned notification/order

dated 18.10.2024 issued by the State Government (AnnexP/2) and

the communication dated 18.10.2024 (Annex. P/2) issued by the

Commissioner may kindly be quashed.

3] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ/order/direction, restraining the respondent

authorities from taking any adverse action or passing any

consequential order prejudicially affecting the admission of the

petitioner under the NRI quota for the MBBS Course.

4] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ/order/direction, quashing any consequential order

passed by the respondent authorities pursuant to the impugned

10

notification and communication and/or restrain the respondents from

initiating any action against the petitioner.

5] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ/order/direction, of appropriate the nature allowing

the petitioners to pursue their MBBS Course in the Respondent

no.5 College.”

6.The petitioner(s) in WPC No. 5322/2024, has prayed for the following

relief(s):

“(1) to quash the order F-17-37/2024/55 dated 18-10-2024 issued

by Respondent-1 and the notice dated 18-10-2024 issued by the

Respondent-4.

(2) to direct the Respondents to maintain the admission of the

Petitioners in accordance the criteria as prescribed under Admission

Rules 2018 and declare them eligible for admission to the MBBS

UG course for the academic session 2024-2025 under the NRI

quota.

(3) any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court considers proper, may

kindly be awarded.”

7.The petitioner(s) in WPC No. 5335/2024, has prayed for the following

relief(s):

“1] That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate

writ/order/direction, commanding the Respondent authorities to

produce the entire records necessary for adjudication of the instant

petition.

2] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ/order/direction, the impugned notification/order

dated 18.10.2024 issued by the State Government (Annex. P/1) and

the communication dated 18.10.2024 (Annex. P/2) issued by the

Commissioner may kindly be quashed.

3] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ/order/direction, restraining the respondent

authorities from taking any adverse action or passing any

consequential order prejudicially affecting the admission of the

petitioner under the NRI quota for the MBBS Course.

11

4] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ/order/direction, quashing any consequential order

passed by the respondent authorities pursuant to the impugned

notification and communication and/or restrain the respondents from

initiating any action against the petitioner.

5] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ/order/direction, of appropriate the nature allowing

the petitioners to pursue their MBBS Course in the Respondent no.5

College.”

8.The petitioner(s) in WPC No. 5338/2024, has prayed for the following

relief(s):

“1] That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate

writ/order/direction, commanding the Respondent authorities to

produce the entire records necessary for adjudication of the instant

petition.

2] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ/order/direction, the impugned notification/order

dated 18.10.2024 issued by the State Government (Annex. P/1) and

the communication dated 18.10.2024 (Annex. P/2) issued by the

Commissioner may kindly be quashed.

3] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ/order/direction, restraining the respondent

authorities from taking any adverse action or passing any

consequential order prejudicially affecting the admission of the

petitioners under the NRI quota for the MBBS Course.

4] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ/order/direction, quashing any consequential order

passed by the respondent authorities pursuant to the impugned

notification and communication and/or restrain the respondents from

initiating any action against the petitioners.

5] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ/order/direction, of appropriate the nature allowing

the petitioners to pursue their MBBS Course in the Respondent no.5

College.”

9.The petitioner(s) in WPC No. 5339/2024, has prayed for the following

12

relief(s):

“1] That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate

writ/order/direction, commanding the Respondent authorities to

produce the entire records necessary for adjudication of the instant

petition.

2] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate

writ/order/direction, the impugned notification/order dated

18.10.2024 issued by the State Government (Annex. P/1) and the

communication dated 18.10.2024 (Annex. P/2) issued by the

Commissioner may kindly be quashed.

3] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate

writ/order/direction, restraining the respondent authorities from taking

any adverse action or passing any consequential order prejudicially

affecting the admission of the petitioners under the NRI quota for the

MBBS Course.

4] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate

writ/order/direction, quashing any consequential order passed by the

respondent authorities pursuant to the impugned notification and

communication and/or restrain the respondents from initiating any

action against the petitioners.

5] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate

writ/order/direction, of appropriate the nature allowing the petitioners

to pursue their MBBS Course in the Respondent no.5 College.”

10.The petitioner(s) in WPC No. 5340/2024, has prayed for the following

relief(s):

“1] That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate

writ/order/direction, commanding the Respondent authorities to produce

the entire records necessary for adjudication of the instant petition.

2] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate

writ/order/direction, the impugned notification/order dated 18.10.2024

issued by the State Government (Annex. P/1) and the communication

dated 18.10.2024 (Annex. P/2) issued by the Commissioner may kindly be

quashed.

3] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate

writ/order/direction, restraining the respondent authorities from taking any

13

adverse action or passing any consequential order prejudicially affecting

the admission of the petitioners under the NRI quota for the MBBS

Course.

4] That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate

writ/order/direction, quashing any consequential order passed by the

respondent authorities pursuant to the impugned notification and

communication and/or restrain the respondents from initiating any action

against the petitioners.

5. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate

writ/order/direction, of appropriate the nature allowing the petitioners to

pursue their MBBS Course in the Respondent no.5 College.”

11.The petitioner(s) in WPC No. 5344/2024, has prayed for the following

relief(s):

“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate

writ / order / direction, commanding the Respondent authorities to

produce the entire records necessary for adjudication of the instant

petition.

10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ/order/direction, quashing the impugned notification

dated 18.10.2024 & the communication dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure

P-1 Colly.)

10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ / order/ direction, restraining the respondent

authorities from taking any adverse action or passing any

consequential order, prejudicially affecting the admission of the

petitioners under the NRI quota for the MBBS Course.

10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ / order/direction, quashing any consequential order

passed by the respondent authorities pursuant to the impugned

notification and communication and/or restrain the respondents from

initiating any action against the petitioners.

10.5 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ / order/direction, of appropriate the nature allowing

the petitioners to pursue their MBBS Course in the Respondent no.4

College.

14

10.6 Any other relief(s), direction(s), which Hon'ble the Court deems

fit, and proper, in the circumstances of the case.”

12.The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners {in WPC No.

5322/2024} are that they are students and they had appeared in the

entrance examination of National Eligibility cum Entrance Test

(Undergraduate) 2024 for admission to the course of MBBS/BDS. The

admission to the said course is governed by the provisions of the Rules,

called as 'NEET UG (MBBS/BDS) CG Admission Rules 2018 (NRrhlx<+

fpfdRlk] nar fpfdRlk ,oa HkkSfrd fpfdRlk ¼fQft;ksFksjsih½ Lukrd izos'k fu;e]

2018) (for short, the Admission Rules 2018). The petitioners successfully

cleared the examination and secured their position under the qualified

candidates. The State had published a notice dated 14.08.2024 inviting

online applications from qualified candidates for registration for

admission in UG (MBBS/BDS) course for academic year of 2024. On

the basis of the said registration, after first round of counseling, the first

list of allotment of Colleges to the concerned candidates was issued vide

notice dated 30.08.2024. After completion of first round of counseling,

notice was issued for second round of counseling and the time period

between 09.09.2024 to 18.09.2024 for choice filling/locking was

prescribed. The said time for choice filling of colleges was extended upto

to 21.09.2024 vide notice dated 17.09.2024

13.In the second round of counseling, the list of allotment, on the basis of

the choice filled by the candidates was published on 27.09.2024. The

petitioners have been allotted the respective Colleges on the basis of the

choice made by them at the time of registration. The petitioners had

submitted their candidature under NRI quota and have been allotted the

seat in the second round of counseling under the said NRI quota. The

petitioners have undertaken the admission after completing the

15

formalities on the basis of said allotment within the time prescribed in the

notice dated 27.09.2024. Their classes have already commenced and

the petitioners are attending their classes regularly. Surprisingly, the

notice dated 18.10.2024 has been published by the Commissioner,

Directorate of Medical Education, making reference of letter dated

18.10.2024 addressed by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department

of Medical Education to the Director, Directorate of Medical Education,

by which instructions have been issued therein for admission to the

course of NEET UG 2024 regarding NRI quota. It is contended inter alia

that admission to the said course under NRI quota which has been taken

prior to 24.09.2024 should be kept intact, whereas the admission which

have been taken after the said date i.e. after 24.09.2024, it should be

scrutinized in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Civil Writ Petition No. 20788 of 2024 and if the candidates are found

ineligible, their admission should be cancelled.

14.Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Anurag

Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners {in

WPC No. 5322/2024}, submits that the admission to NEET UG 2024

have been made strictly in accordance with the procedure and the

criteria as prescribed under the Admission Rules 2018. The criteria of

NRI quota has been prescribed under Rule 13 of the Admission Rule

2018. The petitioners fulfill the criteria as prescribed under Rule 13 of

the said Admission Rules of 2018 and after being satisfied and proper

scrutiny, the respondents have permitted their admission in the

respective Colleges of their choice. In the notice dated 18.10.2024, it

has been mentioned that the candidates who have taken admission after

24.09.2024 and who are real NRI as per the definition given by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, then they should get their documents

16

scrutinized. It has been further mentioned that if the candidates who

have secured their admission under the NRI quota do not appear for

verification of document or is not a real NRI as per the definition of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, their admission will stand cancelled. The

direction issued by the respondent No. 1 vide its letter dated 18.10.2024

and in consequence thereof, the notice dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P/1

collectively) both are arbitrary and non-est in the eye of law. The order

dated 24.09.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special

Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 22174 {arising out of final judgment and

order dated 10.09.2024 in CWP No. 20788/2024 passed by the Punjab

& Haryana High Court) has been completely misread by the

respondents. No such definition of NRI as has been mentioned in the

letter and notice dated 18.10.2024 has been given by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. By the said order, an SLP was preferred by the State of

Punjab which has been dismissed vide order dated 24.09.2024 against

the judgment dated 10.09.2024 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High

Court. The controversy therein was the inclusion of certain category of

relationship under the existing definition of NRI which was made after

the deadline for submitting admission form. Such action of the State

was turned down by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the appeal

preferred by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also

dismissed.

15.Mr. Sinha further submits that the admission to the NEET UG 2024 in

the State of Chhattisgarh is governed by the Admission Rule 2018 which

is a statutory Rules and having force of law. The admission of the

petitioners are also governed by the said rules. The definition of the NRI

has been prescribed under Rule 13 of the Admission Rules 2018 and

the petitioners fulfill the requisite criteria. Neither there has been any

17

violation nor any deviation of the said Rules while granting the admission

to the petitioners and, as such, after completion of the entire admission

process, any change which is alien to the existing rules cannot be

allowed to prevail. So far as the provision regarding NRI quota as

provided under the Admission Rules 2018 is concerned, it has been

prescribed strictly in accordance with observation made by the the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of P.A. Inamdar & others v.

State of Maharashtra & Others {(2005) 6 SCC 537}. Even otherwise,

no such definition as has been mentioned in the notice dated 18.10.2024

has been prescribed in the order dated 24.09.2024 by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court.

16.It is next submitted by Mr. Sinha that it is settled law that the rules of a

game can not be changed after its commencement. The petitioners had

appeared in the NEET UG 2024 examination and secured their position

as qualified candidates. At the time of their admission, the Admission

Rule 2018 was in force which as of now remains intact and, therefore,

the admission of the petitioners are governed by the criteria as

prescribed therein and any deviation or violation of it makes the

procedure/action as void and illegal. After the notice dated 18.10.2024,

their admissions are at stake and as hence, they have approached this

Hon’ble Court. When the confirmation letter has been issued by the

respondent-Institute in favour of the petitioner (page 78 of WPC No.

5322/2024), after fully being satisfied, then there is no reason as to why

the petitioners should not be treated as a candidate under the NRI

quota.

17.Mr. Sinha draws attention of this Court to Rule 13(l)(1) of the Admission

Rules, 2018 which reads as under:

18

“1- vizoklh Hkkjrh; izk;kstd dk vH;FkhZ ls vH;FkhZ dh ih<+h vFkok

nks ih<+h igys rd esa ekrk ;k firk i{k ls jDr laca/k dh iqf"V djrk

gks ¼tSls % laca/k firk] ekrk] HkkbZ] cgu] HkkbZ cgu dh larku] pkpk]

pkpk dh larku] ekek] ekek dh larku] ekSlh] ekSlh dh larku] cqvk]

cqvk dh larku] ukuk] ukuh] nknk] nknk ls fj’rk½ bl gsrq oa’kkoyh o`{k

izek.k i= tks fd rglhynkj ;k mlls mPPk vf/kdkjh dk;kZy; }kjk

tkjh fd;k x;k gksA”

18.A specific query was made to the learned Advocate General as to

whether any certificate of being NRI is issued by any authority, Mr.

Bharat fairly submits that no such certificate is issued to any candidate

by any authority. It is submitted by Mr. Bharat that similar provisions

were prevalent with regard to the admission under the NRI quota in the

State of Punjab and therefore, the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in

Devbir Singh v. State of Punjab & Others {CWP No. 20041 of 2024

(O&M) decided on 10.09.2024} and other connected cases observed

that in essence, the original intent behind NRI quota to provide access

for children of genuine NRI’s, has been stretched beyond reasonable

limits and this would compromise the integrity and fairness of admission

process and the State of Punjab was directed to complete the process of

MBBS admission under NRI category in the State quota as per the

original and unamended prospectus.

19.Mr. Bharat submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, way back in the

year 2006 has defined as to who is an NRI in a Constitution Bench

judgment in P.A. Inamdar (supra) at paragraph 131 which reads as

under:

“NRI seats

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

19

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 the money which they would be spending elsewhere

on education of their 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 the

direction in Islamic Academy to regulate.”

20.It is further submitted by Mr. Bharat that these petitions deserve to be

dismissed on the sole ground that there is no pleading in these petitions

to the effect that the petitioners are the direct descendants or relatives of

the NRIs or that their fees has been paid in foreign currency.

20

21.In response, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respective

petitioners that the State may enquire as to whether the fees has been

paid by the the petitioners in foreign currency and whether they are

relatives/direct descendants as provided under Rule 13(l)(1) of the

Admission Rules 2018 or not.

22.Another query has been put to the learned Advocate General as to what

is the criteria or methodology adopted by the State to determine that the

candidate should be given admission under the NRI quota, Mr. Bharat

submits that candidate has only to inform with regard to the relative who

is an NRI and further the payment of fees should be made in foreign

currency.

23.In response to the above, Mr. Sinha submits that the rules that were

under challenge before the Punjab & Haryana High Court are not pari

materia with the Admission Rules, 2018. In the case before the Punjab &

Haryana High Court, after conducting of the examination, there was a

change of the criteria which was put to challenge and while considering

that challenge, the observations came and the matter travelled upto the

Apex Court. Assuming for the sake of argument, even if the rules and

notification of the Punjab & Haryana High Court is set aside, that would

apply only to the State of Punjab and not to the State of Chhattisgarh.

The Admission Rules of 2018 is still in existence and has not been

amended/set aside.

24.Mr. Bharat submits that in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India,

dismissal of the SLP amounts to affirmation of the order of the order of

the Punjab & Haryana High Court and it will be a binding precedent on

the entire country.

25.In this regard, Mr. Sinha submits that even the Hon’ble Apex Court has

21

merely dismissed the SLP of the State of Punjab, in limine and not on

merits and even if it affirms the order of the Punjab & Haryana High

Court, it cannot have a binding effect on the State of Chhattisgarh as

every State has different admission rules.

26.Mr. Kshitij Sharma, learned counsel appears on behalf of the private

respondents/Medical Colleges {in WPC Nos. 5316/2024, 5318/2024

and 5344/2024}.

27.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings

and materials appended thereto.

28.Admission to a medical college pursuant to the NEET UG 2024 in the

State of Chhattisgarh is governed by the Admission Rules 2018 which is

a statutory rule and having force of law. The definition of the NRI has

been prescribed under Rule 2(l) of the Admission Rules, 2018. The

eligibility and documents required for admission under the said NRI

quota is provided under Rule 13 of Admission Rules 2018 and the

petitioners fulfill the said criteria as they have been issued confirmation

letter which obviously would have been issued only after checking their

credentials. Neither there has been any violation nor any deviation of the

said rules which is in existence while granting the admission to the

petitioners and, as such, after completion of the entire admission

process any change which is foreign to the existing rules can not be

allowed to prevail.

29.The issue involved in this petition is as to whether the State can

differentiate between the candidates who have been granted admission

under the NRI quota before 24.09.2024 and after 24.09.2024 in light of

the order passed by the Apex Court on 24.09.2024 in SLP(C) No.

22174/2024 which arose out of judgment dated 10.09.2024 passed by

22

the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in CWP No. 20788/2024 and whether

the judgment passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court can be made

applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh merely on the ground that an SLP

preferred against the same has been dismissed by the Apex Court?

30.The operative portion of the impugned communication made by the

State of Chhattisgarh to the Commissioner, Medical Education, dated

18.10.2024, reads as under:

“ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Civil Writ Petition No. 20788 of

2024 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 24 flrEcj 2024 ds ifjikyu esa

ekuuh; egkf/koDrk ls vfHker ekaxk x;k Fkk ftl ij

egkf/koDrk dk;kZy;] fcykliqj ds i= dzekad

AG/CG/BSP/2024/25389 fnukad 16@10@2024 ls izkIr

vfHker dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, N0x0 jkT; uhV ;wth 2024

dh ,uvkjvkbZ lhVksa dk dkmalfyax izfdz;k ds izfjizs{; esa

fuEukuqlkj funsZ’k fn;s tkrs gSa%&

1- fnukad 24-09-2024 ds iwoZ izosf’kr lHkh ,uvkjvkbZ

izk;ksftr vH;fFkZ;ksa dk izos’k ;Fkkor j[kk tkosA

2- fnukad 24-09-2024 ds i'pkr izosf’kr lHkh ,uvkjvkbZ

izk;ksftr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds izos’k dh laoh{kk dh tk;s ,oa laoh{kk

ds varxZr ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;y; }kjk Civil Writ Petition

No. 20788 of 2024 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 24 flracj

2024 ds vuq:i tks vH;FkhZ vik= ik, tkrs gSa mudk izos’k

fujLr fd;k tkos rFkk tks vH;FkhZ laoh{kk esa ik= ik, tkrs gSa

mudk izos’k ekU; fd;k tkosA

3- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds vuqlkj ik=

okLrfod ,uvkjvkbZ vH;FkhZ u gksus dh n’kk esa fjDr lhVksa

dk varj.k NRrhlx< fpfdRlk] nar fpfdRlk ,oa HkkSfrd

fpfdRlk ¼fQft;ksFksjsih½ Lukrd izos’k fu;e&2018 ds fu;e&

08 ,oa N-x- jkti= 2017 fuft O;olkf;d egkfo|ky;ksa esa

vizoklh Hkkjrh; fu;rka’k fu;e] 2017 dh dafMdk 04 ¼6½ ds

vuqlkj fd;k tkosA”

23

31.For proper appreciation of the lis, it would be prudent to firstly

understand as to what was the issue that was decided by the Punjab &

Haryana High Court in CWP No. 20788/2024 and other connected

matters.

32.In this regard, attention has been drawn to paragraph 1.2 of the

judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which reads as under:

“1.2 In the matter at hand, the following question has arisen

for adjudication:-

“If in accordance with the State Government's policy, a

15% reservation for genuine NRI is provided in the

prospectus for admission to a professional course,

whether a subsequent decision to include non-genuine

NRIs after the deadline for submitting admission forms is

sustainable?”

33.The facts in the aforesaid case have been discussed vide paragraphs

1.3 to 1.6 of the said judgment. In paragraph 1.5, the amendment that

was brought in by the State of Punjab is of great importance and as

such, it would be beneficial to reproduce the same which reads as

under:

“1.5 On 20.08.2024, the following corrigendum was issued

substituting the relevant clause with respect to scope and

ambit of students who are entitled to be considered for NRI

seats:-

“Modified Provisions

1. For admission under the NRI quota/NRI category seats,

preference be given according to the following order:

a. Actual NRIs candidates who originally belonged to the

State of Punjab.

b. Children of NRIs who originally belonged to Punjab State.

c. Actual NRIs who originally belonged to an Indian State or

Union Territories other than Punjab

24

d. Children of NRIs who originally belonged to an Indian

State or Union Territories other than Punjab.

e. If in case the seats of NRI's are left vacant after

considering the above preferences (a-d) then the candidates

who is the Ward/Nearest relation of NRI shall also be

considered under NRI quota seats:-

The degree of relation with NRI will be considered as per the

following orders of preference mentioned as under:-

I. He/she shall be in the nearest relation.

II. In the definition of nearest relation, following relation

having blood relations will be considered:-

a) Real Brother and sister of father i.e. real uncle and real

aunt.

b)Real brother and sister of mother i.e real maternal uncle

and maternal aunt.

c) Father and mother of father i.e grandfather and

grandmother.

d) Father and mother or mother i.e maternal grandfather and

maternal grandmother.

e) First degree-paternal and maternal cousins.

f) Such persons should be NRI.

III. Such persons should ordinarily be residing abroad.

IV. Such person should have looked after such student as

the guardian of the student and evidence to that effect must

have been produced before the Committee by such person in

the form of an affidavit duly verified by the competent

authority.

Note:-

Any seats remaining vacant under NRI category after the

second round of counselling shall go to the NEET qualified

eligible foreign national. However, if the seats still remain

vacant these shall be converted to general category seats in

the Government/Government Aided Colleges and

Management Category seats in the Private colleges.

25

The fee of the NRI candidate shall only be accepted from

NRI/NRE bank account.”

34.In nutshell, initially, the direct descendants of the NRIs were to be

granted seats under the NRI quota, but after amendment, the scope of

admission under the NRI seats was expanded and that too, at the stage

of admission after filling up of the forms, counselling etc.

35.According to Mr. Bharat that clause II(e) of the modified provisions, as

referred in the paragraph 1.5 of the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana

High Court is identical to that of 13(l)(1) of the Admission Rules, 2018

(which has already been quoted above) and as such, the outcome of the

said judgment will definitely have a binding effect on the State of

Chhattisgarh as well as the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High

Court has been affirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing the SLP. Mr.

Bharat states that by issuance of the impugned notice, the State has

only attempted to grant admission to the candidates who are the actual

descendants of the NRIs and not to those who were earlier granted the

benefit as has been provided in 13(l)(1) of the Admission Rules, 2018.

36.Very surprisingly, merely by issuance of notice impugned herein, the

admission given before 24.09.2024 are deemed to be intact whereas the

admissions given after the said date i.e. 24.09.2024, they may be

disturbed/cancelled. The State has treated the cut off date to be the date

of passing of the order in the SLP by the Apex Court i.e. 24.09.2024.

The order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the Apex Court in SLP(C) No.

22174/2024, wherein the order dated 10.09.2024 passed in CWP No.

20788/2024 by the Punjab & Haryana High Court was under challenge,

is merely a dismissal in limine. The same reads as under:

“O R D E R

1. We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition

26

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

2. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.

3. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.”

37.The aforesaid order has no bearing on the Admission Rules of 2018 and

neither the Apex Court has laid down any ratio or defined as to who

should be treated as NRI and who can be granted admission under the

NRI quota in the medical colleges. The Admission Rules of 2018 still

holds the field in the State of Chhattisgarh as they have neither been

amended nor cancelled nor modified.

38.There is no disagreement with regard to the ratio laid down by the Apex

Court in a catena of decision that rule of the game cannot be changed

after its commencement. The petitioners had appeared in the NEET UG

2024 examination and secured their position as qualified candidates. At

the time of their admission, the Admission Rule 2018 was in force and

still remains as it is, therefore, the case of the petitioners would be

governed by the Admission Rules, 2018 and there can be no deviation

from that.

39.Further, the State cannot discriminate candidates fulfilling the same

qualification/eligibility criteria merely on the basis of passing of a

judgment by another High Court wherein another admission

rules/provisions were under challenge and the Apex Court had merely

dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the said judgment, in

limine and not on merits. The same cannot be a binding precedent on

the State of Chhattisgarh where altogether different rules i.e. Admission

Rules of 2018 is in existence. The definition of NRI has been

discriminated on the basis of cut off date i.e. 24.09.2024 when the Apex

Court had dismissed the SLP against the order of the Punjab & Haryana

High Court, in limine. The candidates who have taken admission prior to

27

24.09.2024 are allowed to continue with their studies whereas the

candidates who have taken admission after 24.09.2024, if their

admission is found in violation of the order passed in CWP No. 20788 of

2024, their admissions may be cancelled. The candidates standing on

the same footing cannot be measured by two different yardstick on the

basis of cut of date i.e. 24.09.2024. It is hit by the principles of intelligible

differentia. The definition of NRI has been considered differently for the

two set of candidates i.e. the candidates who have taken admission prior

to 24.09.2024 have been considered differently from the candidates

have taken admission after admission prior to 24.09.2024 and after

24.09.2024. Applying these two different yard stick is arbitrary and

illegal.

40.With regard to dismissal of a case in limine, in State of Orissa &

Another v. Dhirendra Sundar Das & Another, {(2019) 6 SCC 270},

the Apex Court observed as under:

“9.27. It is well-settled principle of law emerging from a

catena of decisions of this Court, including Supreme Court

Employees’ Welfare Assn. v. Union of India and State of

Punjab v. Davindar Pal Singh Bhullar, that the dismissal of an

SLP in limine simply implies that the case before this Court

was not considered worthy of examination for a reason, which

may be other than the merits of the case. Such in limine

dismissal at the threshold without giving any detailed reasons,

does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding

precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution.”

41. With regard to the issue of ratio decidendi, the Apex Court, in Roger

Shashoua and other v. Mukesh Sharma & Others {(2017) 14 SCC

722}, it was observed as follows:

“55. At this juncture, we think it necessary to dwell upon the issue

whether Shashoua principle is the ratio decidendi of BALCO and

28

Enercon (India) Ltd. (supra) and we intend to do so for the sake of

completeness. It is well settled in law that the ratio decidendi of

each case has to be correctly understood. In Regional Manager v.

Pawan Kumar Dubey, a three-Judge Bench ruled: (SCC p. 338,

para 7)

“7. … It is the rule deducible from the application of law to

the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its

ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts

which may appear to be similar. One additional or different

fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in

two cases even when the same principles are applied in each

case to similar facts.”

42.It is very surprising that when the judgment of the Constitution Bench in

P.A. Inamdar (supra) was passed way back in the year 2005 which

clarified as to who should be treated as the NRI and who should be

given the seats under the NRI quota, the State of Chhattisgarh has not

bothered to take any steps to formulate any rule/policy with regard to

grant of admission to the candidates under the NRI seats and in the year

2018 also, the State has come up with the Admission Rules, 2018 which

also does not prohibit the relatives other than the actual real

descendants of the NRI and in such a situation, taking shelter of an

order which was passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the

admission which has already been granted to the petitioners, cannot be

taken back. The judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP

No. 20788/2024 does not have any binding effect on the State of

Chhattisgarh as the dismissal of the SLP against the said order by the

Apex Court, was merely a dismissal in limine and not on merits. Even

otherwise, no law has been laid down or any order has been passed as

to who should be given the admission under the NRI quota.

43.The impugned communication dated 18.10.2024 and the notice dated

18.10.2024 (Annexure P/1 collectively to WPC No. 5322/2024) is

29

discriminatory as, on the hand, it allows to continue with the studies to

those candidates who have been admitted before 24.09.2024 and the

candidates who have been admitted after 24.09.2024, their admissions

have been put at stake, which amounts to playing with the future of the

candidates which cannot be permitted and as such, the impugned

communication as well as the impugned notice (both dated 18.10.2024)

are quashed.

44.Resultantly, all the above petitions are allowed.

45.Needless to say that the State is at liberty to frame policy / amend the

Admission Rules of 2018 for the academic sessions to come, if it so

desire.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Amit

30

Head Note

In view of the settled proposition of law by the Apex Court,

dismissal of a case in limine at the threshold without giving

any detailed reasons, does not constitute any declaration of

law or a binding precedent under Article 141 of the

Constitution of India.