Supreme Court Upholds Transfer of Vacant NRI Quota Seats to General Category in Kerala Medical Colleges (18 May 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 May 2022

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 3654 of 2022

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Bela M Trivedi, J.

Can medical seats reserved for Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) be reallocated to the general category if they remain vacant? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning medical admissions in Kerala. This case examines the rules for filling vacant NRI quota seats in private medical colleges and whether these seats can be transferred to the general state quota. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Bela M Trivedi, J.

Case Background

The case arose from a dispute regarding the admission process for MBBS courses in private medical colleges in Kerala for the academic year 2021-22. The National Testing Agency (NTA) conducted the NEET-UG exam, and the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations (CEE) in Kerala was responsible for the admission process. Private medical colleges in Kerala reserve 15% of their seats for the NRI category.

After two rounds of counseling, 57 NRI quota seats remained vacant. The Kerala Private Medical College Management Association requested the CEE to invite fresh applications for these seats, citing difficulties faced by students in submitting documents due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This request was rejected by the CEE, which decided to transfer 47 vacant NRI seats to the general state quota for the mop-up round.

Several candidates who had applied under the NRI category but were not admitted filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court, seeking a direction to grant time for fresh registration in the NRI quota. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the CEE’s decision to transfer the vacant seats. The appellants, who were not initially parties to the High Court proceedings, then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the transfer of NRI seats to the general category.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Kerala High Court initially heard the writ petition filed by candidates seeking an extension for NRI quota registration. A Single Judge directed the CEE to consider the representation made by the Private Medical College Management Association. However, the CEE rejected the representation, stating that sufficient time had already been given to candidates.

Subsequently, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, observing that sufficient time was granted to NRI candidates and that the CEE was at liberty to transfer vacant seats as per the prospectus. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, stating that the NRI quota seats fell within the ambit of ‘special reservation’ and could be transferred to the ‘mandatory reservation’ quota. The High Court also noted that the last date for admissions was approaching, and granting further extensions would disrupt the academic schedule.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the prospectus for admission to Kerala Engineering, Architecture, and Medical courses, specifically Clause 5.5.4. This clause states:

“If any seat, in any special reservation quota including PwD quota, is left unavailed by the candidates to that particular category, it will go to the Mandatory reservation quota, unless otherwise stated.”

The prospectus categorizes seats into ‘special reservation’ and ‘mandatory reservation’. Clause 4.1.4 defines ‘Special Reservation’ as seats reserved for specific categories, while Clause 4.1.5 defines ‘Mandatory Reservation’ as seats distributed as per the reservation principles mandated by the Government of Kerala.

The Medical Counselling Committee’s Information Bulletin and Counselling Scheme also plays a role. It stipulates that vacant NRI seats in deemed universities should be converted to unreserved seats after exhausting all eligible NRI candidates.

Arguments

The appellants, who were candidates seeking admission under the NRI quota, argued that:

• The NRI quota seats do not fall under the purview of ‘special reservation’ as defined in Clause 5.5.4 of the Prospectus. Thus, vacant NRI quota seats cannot be transferred to the general category.
• A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of MP [(2009) 7 SCC 751] held that vacant NRI seats in unaided institutions cannot be transferred to the State, following earlier decisions of the court.
• The admission of unreserved category candidates to the 46 NRI seats in the mop-up and stray vacancy counseling rounds is contrary to law and thus stands vitiated.

The State of Kerala contended that:

• The representation of the respondent association to the CEE for inviting fresh applicants for the NRI quota had been rejected after due consideration.
• None of the 7 appellants whose names were on the NRI list had exercised their options for the 45 vacant NRI seats that were transferred.
• The judgment in Modern Dental College is not applicable as the appellants did not challenge the prospectus or the information bulletin which stipulates that vacant NRI seats shall be transferred.

The State of Kerala also submitted that sufficient time was given to candidates to submit the necessary documents for the NRI quota. The CEE published a list of 614 candidates in the NRI category and provided multiple extensions for document submission. Due to the lack of options filed by candidates for the final phase of counseling, 45 NRI quota seats were converted to ‘State Merit seats’ for mop-up allotment, as per the Medical Council of India Guidelines and the Information Bulletin.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the vacant NRI quota seats in private medical colleges can be transferred to the general state quota.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellants did not challenge the provisions of the Information Bulletin, which allowed for the conversion of vacant NRI seats to unreserved seats during the mop-up round. The Court also noted that the appellants did not exercise their options for the vacant NRI seats. The Court emphasized that the respondents had merely complied with the existing rules and procedures. The Court did not delve into the issue of whether the NRI quota seats fell under the purview of ‘special reservation’ as the appellants had not challenged the Information Bulletin.

The Court did not delve into the merits of whether the NRI quota seats fell under ‘special reservation’ because the appellants had not challenged the Information Bulletin, which was the basis for the transfer of the seats. The Court also emphasized that the appellants had not exercised their options for the vacant seats, indicating a lack of interest in those particular seats. This factual aspect played a significant role in the Court’s decision.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the existing rules and procedures, as outlined in the Information Bulletin. The Court did not find any malafide or arbitrary action by the respondents in following these rules. The Court also noted that the respondent association had only sought an extension of time for submission of documents, which was rejected by the CEE due to sufficient time already provided to the candidates.

The Court’s decision was primarily based on the procedural aspects of the case and the fact that the appellants had not challenged the relevant rules, rather than a deep dive into the legal principles surrounding the definition of ‘special reservation’ or the transfer of NRI quota seats.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“During this year, the applicants had been given sufficient time to apply for NRI quota. After two phases of allotments there are about 300 students remaining in the NRI category list and awaiting for allotment. The mop up counselling process is going on and the allotment is scheduled to be published on 02.04.2022. As per MCI schedule, the admission to MBBS course has to be completed before 05.04.2022.”

“The CEE would be at liberty to transfer vacant seats in accordance with clause 5.5.4 of the Prospectus for admission to Kerala Engineering, Architecture, and Medical courses. There is no challenge to the prospectus. If any further extension is granted for fresh registration, it would disrupt the academic schedule.”

“The respondent submits that only because none of the 7 candidates registered their options concerning NRI seats, were the seats converted to unreserved seats to prevent the seats from lying vacant.”

Key Takeaways

• Vacant NRI quota seats in private medical colleges can be transferred to the general state quota if the relevant rules and procedures, such as those outlined in the Information Bulletin, permit it.
• Candidates must challenge the specific provisions of the prospectus or information bulletin if they disagree with the rules for the conversion of seats.
• Courts will generally uphold decisions made by authorities if they comply with the existing rules and procedures, unless there is evidence of malafide or arbitrary action.
• The decision highlights the importance of adhering to timelines and procedures in the admission process.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that if candidates do not challenge the existing rules and procedures, the court will not interfere with the decision of the authorities to transfer vacant seats as per the rules. There is no change in the previous position of the law, as the court relied on the existing rules and procedures.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decision of the Kerala High Court. The Court held that the transfer of vacant NRI quota seats to the general state quota was valid because the appellants had not challenged the relevant provisions of the Information Bulletin, and the respondents had acted in compliance with those rules. The Court emphasized that the appellants had not exercised their options for the vacant seats, which further justified the transfer. This judgment underscores the importance of challenging the specific rules and procedures if candidates disagree with them and adhering to timelines and procedures in the admission process.