Raipur:
Chhattisgarh high court
has set aside a state govt notice, which sought to distinguish between candidates admitted to MBBS programmes under
NRI quota
before and after Sept 24, 2024.
This notice, dated Oct 18, 2024, was issued in response to a Supreme Court order that dismissed an appeal against the Punjab & Haryana high court's judgment on NRI admissions. However, Chhattisgarh HC underscored that SC's dismissal was in ‘limine' — meaning it did not address the merits of the case or establish a binding precedent.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that all admissions made under prevailing rules of the state govt would remain valid, with the state being free to amend the rules for the next academic year. "As per the settled legal position by the apex court, a dismissal in limine without detailed reasoning does not amount to a declaration of law or set a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution," HC observed.
The petitioners, who had secured seats under the 2018 admission rules and were deemed eligible based on those criteria, argued that the state's directive unfairly subjected candidates admitted after Sept 24, 2024, to additional scrutiny, while leaving earlier admissions untouched. The 2018 rules outlined NRI eligibility and documentation requirements, which governed the admission process.
HC emphasised that the state had not amended these rules to incorporate any changes from the Punjab & Haryana ruling, and thus, the 2018 rules continued to apply.
The court further held that disqualifying candidates admitted post-Sept 24, 2024, would constitute unjust discrimination by applying different standards based on the date of admission. Such differentiation, the court noted, violated principles of equity and lacked an intelligible basis, especially since both sets of candidates were admitted under identical rules. It also criticised the selective application of another HC judgment, pointing out that the SC dismissal did not provide a legal precedent for Chhattisgarh to follow.
In the absence of any amendment or new policy restricting NRI admissions to direct descendants, the court ruled it was inequitable for the state to retroactively impose stricter criteria. The state was permitted to modify the 2018 rules for future academic sessions if necessary. Consequently, the court quashed the state's notice and communication dated Oct 18, 2024, safeguarding the petitioners' admissions and ensuring their uninterrupted studies.
The bench issued the judgment while hearing multiple petitions challenging the state's directive on NRI quota admissions for medical courses through
NEET 2024
.
The petitions stemmed from students who had gained admission to MBBS programmes under NRI quota and were later notified by the medical education department that they would undergo additional scrutiny or risk cancellation of their seats. The petitioners' counsels contended that their admissions, made under the 2018 NEET UG (MBBS/BDS) Chhattisgarh Admission Rules, were valid and that the abrupt imposition of new criteria was arbitrary and unfair.
Given the common issues in these petitions, the court consolidated them for a joint hearing, with WPC No. 5322 of 2024 serving as the lead petition. This lead petition, along with others, sought to prevent the state from enforcing the Oct 18 directive, which required stricter verification of NRI credentials for admissions made after Sept 24, 2024.
The petitioners, who had qualified under NEET 2024 and followed all required procedures under the state's admission guidelines, had their admissions confirmed through official counseling rounds and had already begun attending classes. However, in Oct 2024, they received notices requiring further verification under new criteria linked to an unrelated case from the Punjab & Haryana high court.
The new directive mandated that candidates admitted after September 24, 2024, substantiate their NRI status according to stricter criteria or face the cancellation of their admissions.
Representing the petitioners, senior counsel Abhishek Sinha, assisted by advocates Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Manoj Paranjpe, and Chandresh Shrivastav, argued that the admissions conformed to the 2018 Admission Rules, particularly Rule 13, which governs NRI quota admissions. He asserted that the sudden change in criteria and the requirement for additional scrutiny contradicted the rules in force at the time of admission and violated the legal principle that rules cannot be altered mid-process.
The petitioners urged the court to invalidate the Oct 18 notice, arguing that the state had misunderstood and misapplied the criteria outlined in the SC decision in PA Inamdar & Ors v. State of Maharashtra (2005) regarding NRI admissions.
