http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4329 of 2007

PETITIONER: Shikha Aggarwal & Ors

RESPONDENT: State of Punjab & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/09/2007

BENCH: K G Balakrishnan & R. V. Raveendran & D.K. Jain

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL  NO. 4329       of 2007 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.13548/2007) With CA No 4328 of 2007 (@ SLP (C) No.13421/2007) And CA No 4327 of 2007 (@ SLP (C) NO.13645/2007)

       Leave granted. Heard both sides.  

       The State Government issued a Notification dated 21.3.2007  enumerated four categories of students who were eligible to apply  for the seats earmarked under ’NRI quota’. The Respondent  University issued a prospectus dated 28.3.2007 for 2007  Admissions incorporating the said four categories as eligible  candidates for NRI quota seats. Category III under NRI quota seats  pertains to Indian students sponsored by the NRIs, where  sponsorship letter is attached with the application. The appellants in  all these appeals were candidates for admission to post-graduate  medical courses for the year 2007, falling under category III of the  Notification dated 21.3.2007. Counselling for Category III was fixed  on 13.7.2007 and appellants were present on that day, ready for  counselling.  

2.      However, categories III and IV were deleted from the NRI  status by Corrigendum issued by the State Government on  13.7.2007. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants immediately filed writ  petitions challenging the notification dated 13.7.2007 deleting  category III and seeking a direction for admission under ’NRI  quota’. The said writ petitions were dismissed. The High Court was  of the view that having regard to the law laid down by this Court in  P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra [2005 (6) SCC 537], students  falling under categories III and IV could not be considered for  admission under ’NRI quota’. We do not find any infirmity in the  reasoning of the Division Bench in upholding the deletion.     

3.      The appellants, however, urge another contention based on  facts peculiar to their cases. The appellants submitted that having  regard to the notification dated 21.3.2007 and the university  prospectus which entitled them to be considered for admission  under NRI quota seats under Category III (candidates sponsored by  NRIs) and their ranking in the merit list under NRI quota, they were  confident of getting admission, after completion of admissions under  categories I and II. They, therefore, burnt their boats by forgoing  the opportunity of pursuing postgraduate courses in other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Universities. Some of them were already admitted to post-graduate  courses in other States. Some had been called for  interview/counselling for post-graduate courses in other States and  were likely to get admissions. They either gave up their seats or did  not appear for interviews/counselling in other States, as they were  confident of getting seats in the colleges affiliated to respondent  University. They were all set for counselling on 13.7.2007 for  admission under category III of NRI quota. The belated deletion of  category III on 13.7.2007 resulted in the cancellation of counselling  and denial of admission to them, thereby jeopardizing their career.  The appellants submit that this factual aspect was completely  ignored by the High Court.  They contend that the corrigendum  notification dated 13.7.2007 should not be made applicable to them  for the academic session beginning in the year 2007.  

4.      On the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the opinion that  the appellants are entitled to relief. The counseling was fixed on  13.7.2007. Having regard to their ranks in the merit list of  candidates under the NRI quota, the appellants would have got  admissions, if  Category III had not been deleted on 13.7.2007. The  appellants had sacrificed the opportunity of pursuing the PG course  or seeking admission to PG courses in other Univesities/colleges as  they were sure of getting admission to colleges affiliated to  respondent-University under the NRI quota as originally notified. If  the deletion of category III by notification dated 13.7.2007 is made  applicable to them, the appellants will lose one valuable year of  their career for no fault of theirs, when they were led to believe that  they were entitled to be considered under NRI quota. It is not in  dispute that adequate number of seats under the NRI quota still  remains unallotted. On the peculiar facts and circumstances, to do  complete justice, we direct that the appellants be counselled for  admission to the post-graduate medical courses by treating them as  candidates under NRI quota. Compliance  before 28.9.2007.  

5.      We make it clear that the deletion of categories III and IV,  otherwise stands undisturbed and the relief granted to appellants on  the peculiar facts of their cases, will not be considered as a  precedent for other cases.

  6.      The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.