- 1 -

Reserved on : 23.09.2026

Pronounced on : 24.09.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 24

TH

DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

WRIT PETITION NO. 107263 OF 2026 (EDN-AD)

BETWEEN:

JAHNAVI

D/O ABHINANDAN HANJI

AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,

OCC.:STUDENT,

R/O.:NO.135, MANGALWAR PETH,

BELAGAVI TALUK AND DISTRICT

BELAGAVI – 590 006.

…PETITIONER

(BY SMT. CHETANA S.BIRAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. UNION OF INDIA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,

201-D, NIRMAN BHAVAN, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,

NEW DELHI.

- 2 -

2. DIRECTOR GENERAL

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES,

MEDICAL COUNSELLING COMMITTEE,

NIRMAN BHAVAN, RAJAPATH AREA,

CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,

NEW DELHI – 110 011.

3. THE NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, DWARKA PHASE-1,

NEW DELHI – 110 077.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MRUTYUNJAY S.HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AN D R-2;

SRI ANOOP G.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE WRIT OF

CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED

27/05/2026 BEARING REF.U-11011/07/2025-MEC PASSED B Y

RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE-E; 2. ISSUE WRIT OF

CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION /

PROVISIONAL NRI DOCUMENT VERIFICATION CERTIFICATE A T

ANNEXURE-D DATED 17/08/2026 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO .2;

3. ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3

TO CONSIDER THE DOCUMENT ALREADY FURNISHED AND ALLO W

THE PETITIONERS’ CLAIM FOR SEAT ALLOTMENT UNDER THE NRI

QUOTA IN THE UPCOMING COUNSELLING.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR ORDERS ON 23.09.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEME NT

THIS DAY M.NAGAPRASANNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

- 3 -

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

and

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )

The petitioner is before the Court seeking the foll owing

prayer:

1. Issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned noti ce

dated:27/05/2026 bearing Ref.U-11011/07/2025-MEC

passed by respondent no.2 at Annexure-E.

2. Issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned

communication/provisional NRI document verification

certificate at Annexure-D dated: 17/08/2026 passed by

respondent No.2.

3. Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to

consider the document already furnished and allow t he

petitioners’ claim for seat allotment under the NRI quota

in the upcoming counselling.

4. Issue such other writ or order or direction as deemed fit in

the interest of justice and equity.

2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner claiming to be eligible for selection to

undergraduate courses appears in the National Eligi bility cum

Entrance Test - Undergraduate, 2026 (‘NEET UG’ for short). The

- 4 -

petitioner claims to have secured 64.45% and seeks admission into

medical course under the 15% Non-Resident Indian (' NRI') quota,

on her claim of being sponsored by her paternal unc le, one Sri

Amol, S/o Anil Chaugule being her nearest relative and an Overseas

Citizen of India ('OCI'), an NRI settled in the United States of

America. The petitioner claims to have furnished al l necessary

documents mandated by the 3

rd

respondent with regard to

sponsorship by the said paternal uncle Amol and tha t he is ready

and willing to sponsor for the education of the petitioner.

2.2. The necessary documents were all uploaded by the

petitioner along with a self-declaration affidavit and the bank details

for the purpose of securing a seat under the NRI qu ota. The 3

rd

respondent issues a provisional NRI document verifi cation

certificate, on verification of the documents on 17 -08-2026,

rejecting the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a seat under

the NRI quota. The rejection of the claim is what h as driven the

petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

- 5 -

3. Heard Smt Chetana S Biraj, learned counsel appea ring for

petitioner, Sri Mrutyunjay S Hallikeri, learned counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Anoop G Deshpande, l earned

counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

4. The learned counsel, Smt Chetana Biraj, appearing for the

petitioner, taking this Court through the geneological tree would

vehemently contend that the sponsoror from the Unit ed States of

America fits into the criteria necessary for the pu rpose of

sponsorship under the NRI quota. The rejection, acc ording to the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is completely contrary

to the guidelines notified for allotment of seats under the NRI

quota. According to her, what is necessary is, a sponsoror must be

a family member and must be capable of taking care of the

education of the person whom they would sponsor. Sh e would seek

quashment of the document verification certificate inter alia

rejecting the claim of the petitioner and direct allotment of a seat to

the petitioner under NRI quota.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Mrutyunjay S Hallikeri

appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 would vehe mently refute

- 6 -

the submission contending that it is not only a family member who

is necessary to be the sponsoror, but he must also have shown

interest in sponsoring the education of a candidate who claims a

seat under the NRI quota. Since the candidate has n ot

demonstrated that in the past there has been sponso rship by the

said person, all of a sudden the sponsorship cannot spring, as the

NRI quota is one among the widely misused quota, wh ere family

members spring from nowhere to sponsor the candidat es for the

purpose of allotment of the quota.

6. We have given our anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties

and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are all a matter of record and it

would not require any iteration. The 3

rd

respondent has issued

notice for the applicants claiming seats under NRI quota. The notice

reads as follows:

“…. …. ….

NOTICE

- 7 -

Kind Attention: Candidates who claim to be NRI/ OCI o r

want to get their nationality converted from Indian to

NRI.

It is for the information to candidates who want to apply

for NRI quota in upcoming UG/PG counselling for the academic

year 2026-2027, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of I ndia in

W.P No. 13393 of 2007 and others (2008) (Anshul Tom ar

vs. State of M.P) has set forth eligibility criteria for seats

reserved under NRI quota.

The relevant excerpt from the order passed by the

Hon’ble Court in W.P No. 13393 of 2007 is as under:

“1) If the mother or father of student is NRI and residing abroad

ordinarily, then, either of the situations so held will be

considered to be proper.

2) If the first-degree relation of the student is NRI and residing

abroad ordinarily, then in such circumstances also, qua this

year, should be considered eligible. It is natural that such

definition would include the real brother and sister over and

above the mother-father of the first-degree relation.

3) As per the definition revised by the Hon'ble Ape x Court,

interpretation of clause 3 thereof as not made limi ted but if

made in a broad perspective, then, it is clear that the person

who wanted to consider such student as ward (Palya) , then, he

be considered to be proper subject to compliance of the

following conditions:

a) He should be the nearest relation.

b) In the definition of the nearest relation, commi ttee has

considered following relative having blood relations.

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 a nd

grandmother.

- 8 -

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.

c) Such persons should ordinarily be residing abroad.

d) Such person should have looked after such studen t as

the guardian of the student and evidence to that ef fect

must have been produced before the committee by suc h

person.

e) There should be affidavit with aforesaid fact.”

Hence, the candidates applying for NRI Quota seats will have to

abide/adhere with the abovementioned eligibility cr iteria for

participation in counselling as NRI candidate/candidature.

It is further informed to NEET aspirants for the academic year

2026 that MCC/competent authority will seek evident ial proof/

legal document from the candidates as in point 3 (d) & (e) of

the order, during counselling, demonstrating that the sponsor is

actually Bonafide legal guardian of the candidate a s per

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.”

The petitioner partakes in the NEET UG Examination 2026 and

secures 64.45% and then stakes a claim that there is a sponsoror

by name Amol Chaugule who is an OCI and files a sel f-declaration

affidavit to sponsor the petitioner's under-graduate education and

also provides bank statements to establish financial capacity. The

self declaration of the said NRI is as follows:

- 9 -

- 10 -

- 11 -

The petitioner has placed, as a document appended to the petition,

a genealogical tree which depicts that the sponsoro r is the

petitioner's father's first cousin, as the petition er's great

grandfather is the sponsor's grandfather. The genealogical tree is as

follows:

The 3

rd

respondent then issues a provisional NRI document

verification certificate, in which the candidature of the petitioner

comes to be rejected for allotment of a seat in the NRI quota.

8. This Court, owing to the matter requiring consideration and

the impending urgency, passes the following order on 08-09-2026.

It reads as follows:

- 12 -

“The petitioner is before the Court calling in

question a notice dated 27.05.2026 and has sought o ther

incidental relief. The petitioner claims to be entitled for

claiming a seat for a medical course under the NRI quota

which is at 15%. The dispute lies in, who is the sponsor of

the petitioner to claim the said quota. The candidature is

now rejected on the score that the Medical Counsell ing

Committee Guidelines do not permit the nature of

sponsorship that is projected by the petitioner to become

eligible for the medical seat under the NRI quota.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has projected

a Genealogical Tree to demonstrate that the sponsor is a

blood relative of the petitioner, which is seriously disputed

by the respondents on the score that a distant rela tive

cannot become a sponsor and that the said sponsor m ust

have sponsored fees or otherwise in the past and cannot

at the first instance become a sponsor to the NRI quota.

He would submit that to curb such misuse the guidel ines

are laid, the issue requires consideration. The impending

urgency is the counseling that is going to end tomorrow.

In that light we deem it appropriate to permit the

petitioner to participate in the counselling that is to end

tomorrow at 10.00 a.m. All the necessary nuances fo r

permitting the petitioner to participate in the sec ond

round of counseling now going on shall be undertaken by

the respondents without broking any delay.

The learned counsel for the respondents submits

that in the event the second round would not come about,

third round of counselling commences from 21.09.202 6.

The petitioner can be permitted to participate in that way.

Be that as it may. In the light of the subsisting

counselling, the petitioner shall be permitted to participate

in the counselling. However, we make it clear that the

petitioner would not claim any equities in future in the

event the petition would run against the petitioner.

List on 17.09.2026 in the fresh matters list.”

- 13 -

The issue now would be, whether the petitioner woul d be entitled

for the said allotment under the NRI quota.

9. Jurisprudence is replete with the judgments of the Apex

Court and that of different High Courts, interpreting what would be

the criteria for the purpose of allotment of seats under the NRI

quota. I deem it appropriate notice to all of them.

9.1. The Apex Court in the case of P.A. INAMDAR v. STATE

OF MAHARASHTRA

1

, holds as follows:

“…. …. ….

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 admis sions

to a 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 lar ge, we

have noticed in cases after cases coming to this Co urt,

neither the students who get admissions under this

category nor their parents are NRIs. In effect and r eality,

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 br ought by

such students admitted against NRI quota enables th e

educational institutions to strengthen their level of education

and also to enlarge their educational activities. It was also

1

(2005) 6 SCC 537

- 14 -

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 bu t also get

reunited with the Indian cultural ethos by virtue of being here.

They also wish the money which they would be spendi ng

elsewhere on education of their children should rat her reach

their own motherland. A limited reservation of such seats, not

exceeding 15%, in our opinion, may be made availabl e to NRIs

depending on the discretion of the management subje ct to two

conditions. First, such seats should be utilised bona fide by

NRIs only and for their children or wards. Secondly,

within this quota, merit should not be given a comp lete

go-by. The amount of money, in whatever form collected from

such NRIs, should be utilised for benefiting students such as

from economically weaker sections of the society, w hom, on

well-defined criteria, the educational institution may admit on

subsidised payment of their fee. To prevent misutil isation of

such quota or any malpractice referable to NRI quot a seats,

suitable legislation or regulation needs to be framed. So long as

the State does not do it, it will be for the Commit tees

constituted pursuant to the direction in Islamic Academy

[(2003) 6 SCC 697] to regulate.”

9.2. In CONSORTIUM OF DEEMED UNIVERSITIES IN

KARNATAKA v. UNION OF INDIA

2

, the Apex Court holds as

follows:

“…. …. ….

4. In this regard our attention has been invited to a

Division Bench decision of the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh rendered in Anshul Tomar v. State of M.P.

[Anshul Tomar v. State of M.P., 2008 SCC OnLine MP 1 39 :

(2008) 2 MP LJ 450] , wherein the High Court after

referring to the authority in Ruchin Bharat Patel [Ruchin

Bharat Patel v. Parents' Assn. for M/D Students, (2 022)

2

(2021) 14 SCC 644

- 15 -

18 SCC 78] has referred to a set of guidelines draf ted by

Pravesh Niyantran Samiti (Medical Education), Mumba i.

The said guidelines read as follows : ( Anshul Tomar case

[Anshul Tomar v. State of M.P., 2008 SCC OnLine MP 1 39:

(2008) 2 MP LJ 450] , SCC OnLine MP para 10)

“10. … ‘Based upon the decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court referred hereinabove dated 13-11-2006

[Ruchin Bharat Patel v. Parents' Assn. for M/D Students,

(2022) 18 SCC 78] has laid down a criteria for admission

in NRI quota, the Samiti decides and resolves the

criteria for granting the admissions in NRI quota, as

under:

(1) If the mother or father of student is NRI

and residing abroad ordinarily, then, either of the

situations so held will be considered to be proper.

(2) If the first degree relation of the student

is NRI and residing abroad ordinarily, then in such

circumstances also, qua this year, should be

considered eligible. It is natural that such definition

would include the real brother and sister over and

above the mother-father of the first degree relation.

(3) As per the definition revised by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, interpretation of Clause 3

thereof as not made limited but if made in a

broad perspective, then, it is clear that the

person who wanted to consider such student as

ward (Palya), then, he be considered to be

proper subject to compliance of the following

conditions:

(a) He should be the nearest relation.

(b) In the definition of the nearest

relation, committee has considered

following relative having blood relations:

(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.

- 16 -

(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.

(c) Such persons should ordinarily be residing

abroad.

(d) 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.

(e) There should be affidavit with aforesaid

fact.

The Samiti directs the AMUPMDC and the

institutes/colleges to follow the above guidelines strictly

while granting the admissions in NRI quota in respect of

the First Year Health Science course for the academi c

year 2007-2008 and onwards.’ ”

5. After reproducing the said guidelines, the Divisio n

Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held as under :

(Anshul Tomar case [Anshul Tomar v. State of M.P., 2008 SCC

OnLine MP 139 : (2008) 2 MP LJ 450] , SCC OnLine MP paras

11-12)

“11. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to

think that the term “ward” has been given a broader

meaning in Ruchin Bharat Patel [Ruchin Bharat Patel v.

Parents' Assn. for M/D Students, (2022) 18 SCC 78] .

We have reproduced the guidelines of Mumbai

Committee to show that they are in consonance with the

guidelines set forth by Ruchin Bharat Patel [Ruchin

Bharat Patel v. Parents' Assn. for M/D Students, (2022)

18 SCC 78] . Nothing has been placed on record to show

that NRIs have acted in a mala fide manner.

12. Regard being had to the amplified meaning of

the term “ward” and in the absence of any mala fides

- 17 -

and further on the foundation that the merit has not

been completely given a go-by, we are inclined to quash

the decision of the Committee and hold that the

admission of the petitioners under the NRI quota is valid

and the petitioners are entitled to prosecute their

studies under the said College.”

6. On being asked, Mr P.S. Narasimha, learned Additional

Solicitor General has submitted that this Court may think of

making any kind of interim arrangement subject to f inal

adjudication of the controversy so that the same does not arise

in future.

7. As presently advised, the principles set out in

Anshul Tomar [Anshul Tomar v. State of M.P., 2008 SCC

OnLine MP 139 : (2008) 2 MP LJ 450] , shall be foll owed

this year for the purpose of filling up of 15% NRI q uota.

Be it clarified, the NRI quota shall include Oversea s

Citizens of India (OCI) and Persons of Indian Origi n

(PIO). The counselling shall be held and finalised by 31-8 -

2017, in respect of this quota and, if for some reason or other,

the counselling is not concluded by that date, the same shall be

completed by 4-9-2017. It needs no special emphasis to state

that the present order is only applicable to the de emed

universities and no other category of institution

.”

9.3. The Apex Court in the case of NILAY GUPTA v. NEET

PG MEDICAL & DENTAL ADMISSION/COUNSELLING BOARD

3

,

observes as follows:

“…. …. ….

27. Clearly, this Court had the benefit of past experience

with the concept of NRI quota : witness its scepticism about

filling of such seats (in the past) by undeserving and unmerited

candidates, to the detriment of more meritorious st udents.

Therefore, the Court indicated a limited quota with some

3

(2021) 14 SCC 644

- 18 -

essential controls in the manner of filling up of s uch NRI

quota seats. These were:

27.1. The NRIs, who wish to bring their children to this

country not only for their education but also to ge t them

reunited with the Indian cultural ethos by virtue of being here

and to enable the NRIs to expend money (which they would be

spending elsewhere on education of their children) to reach their

mother land.

27.2. Having pointed out the reality behind the incorrect

or “misnamed” NRI quota and found substance in the purpose

behind allowing such quota, this Court favoured a limited

reservation, not exceeding 15% of sanctioned seats, to

be made available for the NRIs, however, depending o n

the discretion of the management.

27.3. This Court, however, imposed two conditions for

admission under the NRI quota, firstly, that such seats

should be utilised bona fide by NRIs only and for th eir

children or wards and secondly, that within this qu ota,

merit should not be given a complete go by.”

9.4. Prior to the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of

CONSORTIUM OF DEEMED UNIVERSITIES IN KARNATAKA

supra and NILAY GUPTA supra, a Division Bench of the High Court

of Madhya Pradesh in its judgment in the case of ANSHUL TOMAR

v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

4

, holds as follows:

“ …. …. ….

10. At this juncture, it is worth noting that Pravesh

Niyantran Samiti (Medical Education). Mumbai while dealing

with the issue relating to admissions to be granted admissions

in NRI seats. dealt with the eligibility facets. After reproducing

4

2008 SCC OnLine MP 139

- 19 -

the paragraph from Ruchin Bharat Patel (supra) the Committee

opined thus:—

“Based upon the decision of Hon'ble- Supreme

Court referred herein above dated 13th November 2006

has laid down a criteria for admission in NRI quota, the

Samiti decides and resolves the criteria for granting the

admissions in NRI quota, as under:

1) If the mother or father of student is NRI and

residing abroad ordinarily, then,.either of the situations

so held will be considered to be proper

2) If the first degree relation of the student is

NRI and residing abroad ordinarily, then in such

circumstances also. qua this year, should be considered

eligible. It is natural that such definition would include

the real brother and sister over and above the mother-

father of the first degree relation.

3) As per the definition revised by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, interpretation of clause 3

thereof as not made limited but if made in a broad

prespective, then, it is clear that the person who

wanted to consider such student as ward (palya),

then, he be considered to be proper subject to

compliance of the following conditions:

a) He should be the nearest relation.

b) In the definition of the nearest

relation, committee has considered following

relative having blood relations.

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.

grand father and grand mother.

iv) Father and mother of mother i.e.

maternal grandfather and maternal

grand mother.

v) First degree paternal and maternal

cousins.

- 20 -

vi) Such person should be NRI.

c) Such person should ordinarily he residing

abroad.

d) 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.

e) There should be affidavit with aforesaid,

fact. The Samiti directs the AMUPMDC and the

Institutes/Colleges to follow the above guidelines

strictly while granting the admissions in NRI quota in

respect of the First Year Health Science course for

the academic year 2007-08 and onwards.”

11. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to think that

the term ‘ward’ has been given a broader meaning in Ruchin

Bharat Patel (supra). We have reproduced the guidelines of

Mumbai Committee to show that they are in consonanc e

with the guidelines setforth by Ruchin Bharat Patel

(supra). Nothing has been placed on record to show that NRIs

have acted in a malafide manner.”

9.5. Another Division Bench of the High Court of Ma dhya

Pradesh, in its judgment in the case of SHIVANI SINGH v. STATE

OF MADHYA PRADESH

5

holds as follows:

“ …. …. ….

43. For proper adjudication of the issues raised by

the petitioners and appreciating the object and pur pose

of creating a quota for NRI candidates, the backgrou nd of

the same is restated at the cost of repetition . The

Supreme Court in the case of P.A lnamdar v. State o f

Maharashtra, 2005 MPLJ Online (S.C.) 24 : (2005) 6 SCC

537, explaining the decision in the case of T.M.A P ai

Foundation v. State of Karnataka, 2002 MPLJ Online

5

2018 SCC OnLine MP 1501

- 21 -

(S.C.) 13 : (2002) 8 SCC 481, has held as under in

paragraph 131:—

“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 a

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 availabl e

as the money brought by such students admitted

against NRI quota enables the educational institutions to

strengthen their level of education and also to enlarge

their 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 the 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 utilised bona fide

by NRIs only and for their children or wards. Secondly,

within this quota, merit should not be given a complete

go-by. The amount of money, in whatever form

collected from such NRIs. should be utilised for

benefiting students such as from economically weake r

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 [(2003) 6 SCC 697] to regulate.”

(underlined by us)

- 22 -

44. A perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme

Court makes it clear that while freedom was granted to the

colleges to give admissions to NRIs by charging higher fees, the

Supreme Court had imposed riders to the effect that the

NRI quota should not be misused and that the admissi ons

in the said quota should be granted either to the g enuine

NRIs or their children and wards. A perusal of para 131 in

the case of P.A. Inamdar (supra) further indicates that the State

was directed to make suitable regulation to prevent

misutilization of the NRI quota and any malpractice referable to

NRI quota seats.

45. Subsequent to the aforesaid decision of the

Supreme Court, the State of M.P. enacted the Act of 2007

and framed the Rules of 2008 thereunder. The defini tion

of NRI incorporated in section 3(j) of the Act of 20 07,

states that the meaning of NRI would be the same as

given under section 115(c) of the Income Tax Act. T his

definition has been reiterated by the State in the Rules of

2008 and the Regulations of 2017.

46. The Act of 2007 of the State of M.P. and the

Rules framed thereunder were challenged by the priva te

medical colleges as being ultravires the legislativ e

competence of the State as well as being contrary t o the

directions and orders issued by the Supreme Court i n the

case of T.M.A Pai (supra) and P.A. Inamdar (supra). This

High Court upheld the validity of the Act and the R ules

being aggrieved by which the private colleges filed

petitions before the Supreme Court which have also been

dismissed by the Supreme Court in the case of Modem

Dental College (supra).

47. During the pendency of the petition before the

Supreme Court, the private medical colleges filed i nterim

applications before the Supreme Court for the purpo ses

of giving them freedom to make admissions in the NR I

quota whereupon the Supreme Court by an interim ord er

passed in Civil Appeal No. 4060/2009 Modern Dental

College (supra) reported in Modem Dental College an d

Research Centre v. State of M. P., (2009) 7 SCC 751,

permitted the private colleges to make admissions i n the

NRI quota in terms of paragraph 131 in the case of P .A.

- 23 -

lnamdar (supra). Though, initially this order and liberty

granted to the private colleges was only for the ye ar 2009-

2010, the Supreme Court subsequently continued the interim

arrangement and thereafter by order dated 3-4-2012 reported

in Modem Dental College and Research Centre v. Stat e of M.P.,

(2012) 4 SCC 707, the interim arrangement made by t he

Supreme Court for granting admissions to NRI quota was

directed to be continued till the disposal of the appeal by the

Constitutional Bench which ultimately upheld the validity of the

provisions by the judgment reported in Modem Dental College

(supra) in May, 2016.

48. From the aforesaid orders of the Supreme Court

it is apparent that till decision in the case of Mo dem

Dental College (supra) by the Constitutional Bench in

May, 2016, the interim arrangement made by the

Supreme Court granting liberty to the Private Colle ges to

make admissions in the NRI quota in accordance with

para 131 in the case of P.A. lnamdar (supra) contin ued to

remain in operation.

49. In the meanwhile, one Anshul Tomar, who had

been granted admission in the NRI quota on the groun d

that he fulfilled the criteria of being a ward of a NRI,

approached this Court by filing a petition against the

order passed by the Admission and Fee Regulatory

Committee objecting to his admission which was

ultimately allowed by this Court by order dated 8-4 -2008

Anshul Tomar v. State of M. P., 2008 (2) M.P.L.J. 4 50.

This Court in the aforesaid case took into considera tion

para 131 of the judgment in the case of P.A. lnamda r

(supra) and the order passed by the Supreme Court i n the

case of Ruchin Bharat v. Parents' Association for th e M/D

Students, in Civil Appeal No. 4480/2006 decided on 13-

11-2006 wherein certain directions were issued

regarding grant of admission to students under the NRI

quota. In the case of Anshul Tomar (supra), this Co urt

followed the criteria and guidelines laid down by t he

Supreme Court in the case of a Ruchin Bharat (supra ) and

also the criteria laid down by the Pravesh Niyantra n

Samiti, Medical Education, Mumbai pursuant to the

directions issued in the case of Ruchin Bharat (sup ra).

This Court approved and applied the broader meaning

- 24 -

given to a ward by the Supreme Court in the case of

Ruchin Bharat (supra) as well as Mumbai Committee an d

quashed the order passed by the Admission and Fee

Regulatory Committee objecting to the admission gran ted

to Anshul Tomar (supra) and allowed the petition fi led by

him. The order passed by this Court in the case of A nshul

Tomar (supra) has been cited with approval and dire cted

to be followed by the Supreme Court in the case of

Consortium of deemed Universities in Karnataka

(CODEUNIK) v. Union of India, W.P. Civil No. 689/20 17,

by an interim order passed on 22-8-2017 which has

however been confined to deemed Universities .”

9.6. A Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab a nd

Haryana in the case of DEVBIR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

6

,

holds as follows:

“ …. …. ….

V. TERM ‘WARD’ EXPOUNDED

3.7 The Gujarat High Court while examining the scope

of the word ‘ward’ in Chandibhamar Abhey Sanjaykumar v.

State of Gujarat, (2024) 1 GLR 447 has observed in the

following manner:—

14. As noticed hereinabove, it would appear that

while carving out reservation to the extent of 15% for

admission to medical colleges in favour of the NRIs, the

Hon'ble Apex Court was concerned with a situation

where under the guise of admission to NRI seats,

admission was granted to students who were neither

NRIs nor their parents were NRIs. It is in context of such

a concerned that the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed

that the seats in the State quota should be given only to

bona fide NRIs or their children or wards. In the

humble opinion of this Court, seeking to widen the

scope of the term ‘ward’ beyond the term, would

6

2024 SCC OnLine P&H 12023

- 25 -

be doing violence to the spirit of the observations

of the Hon'ble Apex Court while carving out

reservation for NRIs.

15. The term ‘ward’ in its most elementary

meaning as per the Oxford Dictionary would mean

‘a child who is under the protection of a court of

law, a child whose parents are dead and who is

cared for by another adult (guardian)’. The Blacks

Law Dictionary defines the word ‘ward’, as ‘a

person, usually minor, who is under a guardian's

charge or protection’. In the considered opinion of

this Court, the word ‘ward’ used by the Hon'ble

Apex Court, has to be appreciated in the context of

the normal-elementary meaning of the term ‘ward’

read with the spirit of the observations as referre d

to hereinabove. The Hon'ble Apex Court inter alia

observed and has used the word ‘ward’ in the first

condition whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court inter

alia lays down that the seats should be utilized by

genuine NRIs only for their children or wards.

Thus, the idea was to ensure that in addition to

the children of NRIs, if a child is a ward of a bon a

fide NRI, he should also be entitled to get the

benefit of admission in NRI seats. Thus, in the

considered opinion of this Court, the word ‘ward’

appearing in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in case of P.A. Inamdar (supra), has to be

viewed as describing a minor who is in the

guardianship of a NRI. Furthermore, it would be

relevant to observe that while the said decision

itself envisages legislation to be framed, more

particularly ‘to prevent misutilization or

malpractice referable to NRI Quota Seats’ and

therefore in the considered opinion of this Court,

the word ‘ward’ used in the context of the

legislation could also not extend beyond the plain

meaning ascribed to the term. Again, in context of

legislation, more particularly since the word ‘ward ’

envisages a minor who is under the protection of

an adult, the law which regulates such

guardianship in the country being the Guardians

and Wards Act, therefore the definition of the term

‘ward’ has rightly been attributed the same

definition as found in the legislation governing

such a relationship.”

…. …. ….

- 26 -

VII. CHANGE IN THE CRITERION OF SEAT ALLOCATION

(IN NRI QUOTA) : -

3.10 Similarly, Mr. Patwalia's argument that there is no

change in the criterion is against the record. It is evident from

comparative/side by side reading of clause 17 of th e original

prospectus and corrigendum dated 20.08.2024, that the

category of NRIs/their children has been expanded by

substitution; in order to accommodate candidates, w ho

are either the wards or the nearest relation of NRIs

including the real brother or sister of father, rea l brother

or sister of mother, father and mother of father, f ather

and mother of mother, first degree paternal/materna l

cousins. They are sought to be included in the category of NRIs

only because one of their relative is settled out of India who is

prepared to lend his name though the student or his parents are

not NRIs. Moreover, Clause (IV) is vague and amenable to

misuse. No elaborate and clear criteria has been la id

down to evaluate the guardianship of the NRI. As per the

corrigendum, the evaluation of guardianship is so v ague

that it is apparent that the process is not wholly

transparent. It has been based upon the subjective

satisfaction of the committee on the basis of affid avit

submitted by the NRI. The experience shows that such

vague stipulation leads to arbitrary use and it enc ourages

corruption.

…. …. ….

XI. EXPANSION OF TERM ‘NRI’

…. …. ….

3.23 Moreover, new clause (iv) of the modified

provision, which permits relatives to qualify as gu ardians,

simply by showing that he has looked after such stu dent,

is vague and lacks clear criteria. It creates room for

manipulation, where guardianship might be claimed

merely for the sake of securing admission under thi s

category. This significantly dilutes the merit based

admission process and unfairly disadvantages studen ts

who may be more academically qualified but lack the

financial resources to compete with those availing the

‘NRI Quota’ under these expanded terms. ”

- 27 -

9.7. Another Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana in the case of RUSHALI SINGHAL v. STATE OF

HARYANA

7

observes as follows:

“…. …. ….

14. Between the first candidate and second candidate,

merit of the first candidate is higher. Though we are doubtful

of her claim to be included in the definition of NRI clause

in terms of notification dated 10-11-2025, as the

relationship of the sponsor and the first candidate ,

cannot be said to be of first-degree paternal cousi n as it

is the first cousin of the father of the first cand idate

whose husband is the sponsor. However, that in itse lf

would not be conclusive in the peculiar facts of th e case

for the reasons enumerated herein above . Apart from the

fact that first candidate is higher in merit, she was also declared

to be an NRI candidate in the notice issued by the Directorate

General, Health Services, Government of India, on 27-1-2026.

The first candidate was also offered admission in R ajasthan,

which she overlooked only because of the provisional admission

offered in the State of Haryana. She has already deposited

her fee from an NRI account. In such circumstances, we

are of the view that in the peculiar facts of the c ase, the

claim of the first candidate is entitled to be give n

preference over that of the second candidate. The

respondent-University is, accordingly, directed to grant

admission to the First Candidate forthwith, subject to fulfilment

of all other formalities. We clarify that it shall not be treated

as any precedent for subsequent years, when questio n of

eligibility of a candidate arise for being included in the

NRI category. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by first

candidate i.e. CWP-8173-2026 is allowed while writ petition filed

by the second candidate i.e. CWP-5859-2026, is dismissed.”

7

2026 SCC OnLine P&H 7558

- 28 -

9.8. Long before the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court in

the cases of CONSORTIUM OF DEEMED UNIVERSITIES and

NILAY GUPTA , and the Division Benches of the High Courts of

Madhya Pradesh and Punjab and Haryana in SHIVANI SINGH ,

DEVBIR SINGH and RUSHALI SINGHAL , a learned Single Judge

of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of OMER

BASHIR ITOO v. STATE

8

holds as follows:

“ …. …. ….

27. Idea of having a guardian, in relation to seeki ng

admission as ‘ward’ of an NRI under NRI quota will b e

imaginary only, when it comes to admission in

Professional Education Institutions at post graduat e level

because by that time a candidate has since attained the

age of majority. Even at graduation level, the idea of

having appointed guardian may not apply in majority of

the cases. Under the Guardians and Wards Act, a

guardian is appointed in relation to a minor. A min or

under that Act read with the Majority Act, is a per son not

having attained the age of majority, that is, 18 ye ars.

Experience would show that in the present era of

cutthroat competition, majority of the candidates c ross

the age of 18 even by the time of their seeking adm ission

in professional colleges at graduation level (like

MBBS/BDS BE/B Tech etc.) and in any case age of

majority is attained by the time of seeking admissi on at

post graduate level (like MS/MD/M. Tech.). To say tha t

‘ward’ in relation to admission under NRI quota to

professional colleges should be a person who has a

guardian appointed by a court would render superflu ous

8

2014 SCC OnLine J&K 124

- 29 -

the category of ‘wards’ of NRIs as envisaged in P.A.

Inamdar.

28. Contextually, it would not be wholly correct to

suggest that in law entity of a ‘ward’ is wholly synonymous with

existence of a guardian appointed by a court or that a ‘ward’ will

not come into being until and unless there is a gua rdian

appointed for the person claiming to be the ‘ward’. In law the

concept of a guardian of a person does exist even

independent of his having been appointed as guardia n by

a court. For example, father or mother is the natural guardian

of a minor and husband is natural guardian of his m inor wife.

There may be a testamentary guardian appointed by a natural

guardian. It, therefore, would not be correct to say that

the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar has envisaged tha t

‘Ward’ for the purpose of admission under NRI quota

would be one for whom an NRI has been appointed as a

guardian by the court.

…. …. ….

31. The situation that may put together all the aspects

and fulfill and reflect the purpose and object of N RI quota

envisaged in P.A. Inamdar can be achieved by giving slightly

spacious and practical meaning to the word ‘ward’, though

within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Cour t and not

by restricting its meaning to only a person having an NRI

guardian appointed by a court. At the same time the meaning to

be given to the word ‘ward’ cannot be such so as to add a new

category of aspirants under NRI quota not envisaged by the

Supreme Court. The NRI quota should not and cannot be

allowed to be relegated to a source of earning NRI money only.

To make the NRI quota workable and meaningful and to

harmonize the purpose and requirements envisaged in

P.A. Inamdar, the word ‘ward’ in relation to the NR I

quota used therein is required to be interpreted in such a

way so that the concept and the underlying purpose are

supplemented and not supplanted .

32. Key to the meaning to be given to word ‘ward’

used by the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar can be ha d

from the expression ‘such seats should be utilized bona

fide by NRIs only and for their children or wards' u sed by

the Supreme Court. Besides the purpose envisaged in

- 30 -

providing the NRI quota, what is important is that t here

should be bona fide utilization of the quota and wi thin the

quota merit must prevail. The use would be bona fide if an

NRI, besides bearing expenses on education of his o wn

child(ren) or a candidate for whom he has been appo inted a

guardian, is permitted to sponsor and finance the education of a

candidate, providing education to whom is his obligation or who

for the purpose of education is dependent upon him. Cases

would not be rare where a person, other than a parent or legally

appointed guardian, has social obligation and responsibility for

providing education to a candidate or where a candi date is

dependent on a person other than his parents. For example, one

having lost his father or both the parents, the responsibility of

bringing him up and providing him education may be discharged

by one of his blood relation or a distant relation. Husband has

the responsibility for providing education to his wife. One may

be dependent upon his grandparents. Case of a fathe r-in-law

having responsibility of providing education to the wife of his

son, in particular, unemployed son will also fall in the same

category. In all such cases requirement of appointment as

guardian cannot be allowed to come in the way of a

person in bearing educational expenses of the candi date.

It should, therefore, be permissible for an NRI, oth er

than a parent or legally appointed guardian, to spo nsor

and finance education of a candidate, who is depend ent

upon him for education purpose or providing educati on to

whom is his social obligation and responsibility.

Responsibility or the dependence should be the crite ria.

33. In taking the view as above, I can draw support

from the 2-Judge Bench Judgment of Gujarat High Cou rt

in Special Civil Application No. 9079 of 2010 (supr a)

relied upon by Mr. Kohli, learned counsel for the

respondent No. 4. In that case petitioner had appli ed for

NRI seat for admission in MBBS/BDS/BPT, having been

sponsored by an NRI. It was admitted by petitioner's

counsel before the High Court that the sponsor was a

cousin brother of petitioner's father. It was state d by

petitioner's counsel that there was nothing to sugg est

that in the past the petitioner was dependent on th e

sponsor in any manner but the sponsor had undertake n

to pay fees for the petitioner for higher education in

- 31 -

MBBS course. Petitioner therefore, claimed benefit within

the category of NRI dependent candidates.

34. In that case the expression ‘dependent of Non-

resident Indian for education purpose’ as used in t he

Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges o r

Institutions (Regulation of admission and fixation o f

Fees) Act, 2007 came up for interpretation by the G ujarat

High Court. This Act seems to have been enacted

pursuant to the judgment in P.A. Inamdar. The High

Court has referred to the definition of NRI seats gi ven in

section 2(i) of this Act which reads:

“2(i) Non-Resident Indian Seats means

fifteen per cent seats reserved for children or

wards or the dependents for the education

purpose, of the Non-Resident Indian, to whom

admission is to be given in the professional

educational colleges or institutions”.

(Emphasis supplied)

35. The Division Bench in that case, while referrin g

to P.A. Inamdar, observed that ‘prescribing separat e

quota reserved for Non-Resident Indian students has

been recognized by the Apex Court. However, the ent ire

purpose was to make such benefit available to genui ne

NRI students and not to enlarge the scope to such an

extent that even non-genuine students could claim s uch

benefit.’

36. The Division Bench after referring to the

meaning of the word ‘dependent’ in some other Acts and

its definition in Black's Law Dictionary, concluded in

context of the petitioner of that case, which I rep roduce:

“14. In the present case, petitioner

admittedly prior to filling up the form for

admission in NRI quota seats never claimed any

dependency on her NRI sponsor. It is also not case

of the petitioner that the petitioner's parents are

not able to pay fees for her higher education.

Admittedly, petitioner studied upto 12th Standard

without any dependence on the sponsor. Her

education and all other expenses have so far been

borne by her parents. It is not case of the

- 32 -

petitioner that her parents are not able to bear

costs for her further education. In short, till she

filled up her admission form, the sponsor had

provided no economic support to the petitioner for

her education or for any other purpose.”

…. …. ….

This Act too undisputedly has been enacted after th e

judgment in P.A. Inamdar. High Court of Kerala has referred

to the definition of Non-Resident Indian seats give n in

section 2(o) of that Act as ‘a seats reserved for c hildren

or wards or dependents of non-resident Indians to w hom

admission is given by a management in a fair,

transparent and a non exploitative manner on the ba sis

of fees as may be prescribed.’ The High Court while

observing that ‘the State Legislature has widened t he

scope of NRI seats by including the dependents of NR Is

also’, apart from providing for children or wards a s

contemplated in P.A. Inamdar, however, did not

deliberate upon the validity of the expansion so ma de as

that question was not raised before the High Court.

39. I would, thus, hold that within the parameters

for NRI quota laid down by the Supreme Court in P.A.

Inamdar, it would be permissible for a private unai ded

Professional Education Institution to grant admissi on

under the NRI quota to a candidate who is dependent

upon an NRI for the purpose of his education or for

whose education, an NRI is responsible, besides the NRI

himself or his children. What, however, would be

important is that there should be none other more

responsible for education of the candidate in quest ion

than the NRI sponsoring and financing his case for

admission under NRI quota. NRI quota cannot be made

available to a candidate simply for the reason that some

of his NRI/her relative or blood relative has agreed to

provide NRI money only for the purpose of undergoing

the course for which the admission is sought. ”

9.9. Again, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi,

in an identical circumstance, in the case of RAJIK KAUR v.

- 33 -

MEDICAL COUNSELLING COMMITTEE & ANR

9

observes as

follows:

"…. …. ….

10. To the surprise of the petitioner, the documents

of the petitioner were rejected by the online porta l on the

ground that she did not upload the Court order show ing

that her sponsor is her legal guardian.

11. The petitioner, in the present case, is aggrieved by

the impugned notification bearing No. Ref.U-11011/0 7/2025-

MEC dated 27.05.2026 and more particularly the last paragraph,

which reads as under:

“….

d) 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.

e) There should be affidavit with aforesaid fact.”

Hence, the candidates applying for NRI Quota

seats will have to abide/adhere with the

abovementioned eligibility criteria for participation in

counselling as NRI candidate/candidature. It is further

informed to NEET aspirants for the academic year 2026

that MCC/competent authority will seek evidential proof/

legal document from the candidates as in point 3 (d) &

(e) of the order, during counselling, demonstrating that

the sponsor is actually Bonafide legal guardian of the

candidate as per Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.”

(Emphasis supplied)

12. Mr. Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner, draws

my attention to definition clause and more particularly Sections

4(2) and 4(3) of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890

(“GWA”), wherein the definition of guardian and ward

which reads as under:-

“(2) “guardian” means a person having the

care of the person of a minor or of his property, o r

of both is person and property

(3) “ward” means a minor for whose person

or property, or both, there is a guardian”

9

W.P.(C) 11407/2026 disposed on 10.08.2026

- 34 -

13. He further draws my attention to Section 8 of GWA,

which reads as under:

“8. Persons entitled to apply for order.—An

order shall not be made under the last foregoing

section except on the application of—

(a) the person desirous of being, or claiming

to be, the guardian of the minor, or

(b) any relative or friend of the minor, or

(c) the Collector of the district or other local area

within which the minor ordinarily resides or in which he

has property, or

(d) the Collector having authority with respect to

the class to which the minor belongs”

14. A perusal of the above shows that the GWA is

only applicable to the minor children and persons t aking

care of a minors. The same, prima-facie, do not seem to

apply to persons who are aged 18 and above.

15. Learned counsel of the petitioner has also drawn my

attention to the date of birth of the petitioner which is stated to

be 08.09.2007. The petitioner, in the present case, has crossed

the age of 18 years.

16. Thus, prima-facie, the impugned portion of the

circular dated 27.05.2026, seems to be inapplicable qua

the petitioner as the petitioner has already crosse d the

age of 18 years and thus does not need to obtain th e

certificate required under the GWA.”

(Emphasis supplied at each instance)

If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are considered on the

bedrock of the principles elucidated by the Apex Court and different

High Courts, what could unmistakably emerge is, the disentitlement

of the petitioner for securing an allotment under the NRI quota.

- 35 -

10. In terms of the law as declared by the Apex Cou rt and

different High Courts, the sponsoror must be the re al brother or

sister of either the father or the mother, grandparents i.e., parents

of either the mother or the father of the candidate or first degree

paternal or maternal cousins. If this Court would interpret the same

to include the sponsoror in the case at hand under the definition of

'nearest relative', it would amount to dilution of the guidelines

issued for the purpose of securing seats under the NRI quota and

consequently would run foul of the interpretation laid by the Apex

Court and different High Courts at different times, all of which are

noticed hereinabove.

11. The guidelines are unequivocal. It mandates th at the

person who is willing to sponsor a candidate/studen t must have

looked after such student as the guardian of the st udent and

evidence to that effect must have been produced bef ore the

Committee by such person. The affidavit that is placed before the

Committee or uploaded, is with regard to the desira bility and

financial capability of sponsoring the petitioner, but does not

indicate that the petitioner has been taken care of or looked after

- 36 -

as a guardian in the past. It is an admitted fact that the sponsoror

is in the United States of America and the petitioner was here. The

evidence of taking care or looking after could perh aps be the

financial transaction with regard to care, concern and education of

the petitioner or any candidate as the case would be, de hors this,

for the first time an affidavit springing that the sponsoror would

want to fund the education of the sponsoree, for th e purpose of

availing the benefit of 15% NRI quota is sans countenance.

12. The interim order granted by us was clear that no equities

would be claimed by the petitioner in future, in th e event the

petition would go against the petitioner.

13. In the light of the settled principle, there is no warrant of

interpretation, which would give a wider scope to the guidelines, to

include all and sundry in a family who is capable of becoming of a

sponsoror, more so, in the light of the fact that the person who is

now willing to sponsor has at no point in time shown interest in the

sponsorship or payment of fees towards the educatio n of the

petitioner.

- 37 -

14. Finding no warrant of interference with the rejection by

the 3

rd

respondent for allotment of a seat under the NRI quota to

the petitioner, the petition would necessarily meet its dismissal and

is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

JUDGE

Sd/-

(HEMA KULKARNI)

JUDGE

BKP