IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 7967 of 2008 Date of decision: 15th May, 2008 Dr. Harminder Mahey … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S.Dhindsa, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. B.B.S. Sobti, Advocate for respondent No.3. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has prayed that directions be issued to the respondents to issue him eligibility certificate for being considered and admitted in the NRI quota to the Postgraduate MD/ MS Course for the session 2008-2011 in Dayanand Medical College and Hospital under the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner is an NRI and the petitioner being son, is entitled to be considered under the reservation for NRI quota. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be covered by the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PA Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra, JT 2005 (3) SC 313, wherein it has been held as under: Civil Writ Petition No. 7967 of 2008 “First, such seats should be utilized bonafide by the NRIs only and for their children or wards. Secondly, within this quota, the merit should not be given a go by.” The case of the petitioner for admission under the NRI quota was rejected by the respondents vide Annexure P-7, whereby the petitioner was informed that as he is admittedly 32 years old, married and a permanent citizen of India, hence he is not entitled to be considered under the NRI quota. Counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner is not a Non-Resident Indian. He further submits that he claims admission on the basis that he is a child of an NRI and hence he is entitled to be given admission in the Postgraduate MD/ MS Course under the NRI quota. Mr.Dhindsa, counsel for the University, has controverted the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel has placed reliance on clause 38 of the Prospectus, which is as under: “38. In private Colleges NRI Seats shall be 15% of the total seats in order of preference as under:- Category I: NRIs who originally belonged to the State of Punjab. Category II: NRIs who originally belonged to an Indian state other than Punjab.” It is contended that only an NRI is entitled to preference under the 50% NRI quota and as the petitioner is a permanent citizen of India and not an NRI, hence he is not entitled to be considered for a seat under the NRI quota. Learned counsel further submits that the University has not considered any child of an NRI for the purpose of admission to the Postgraduate Degree Course in the NRI quota. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that as the petitioner is permanent citizen of India, hence, even though he is a son of an NRI, yet he cannot claim the admission under the 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 7967 of 2008 reserved quota of NRI seats. The petitioner is also not covered under the definition of ward as is given in the Guardian and Wards Act, nor the petitioner can be said to be a child of an NRI. The definition of child, as given in the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, reads as under: “child noun (pl. children) 1. a young human who is not yet an adult: a child of three/ a three-year-old child – men, women and children – an unborn child – not suitable for young children – I lived in London as a child. – a child star; see also BRAINCHILD, LATCHKEY CHILD, POSTER CHILD, SCHOOLCHILD 2. a son or daughter of any age: They have three grown-up children. – a support group for adult children of alcoholics – They can’t have children; see also GODCHILD, GRANDCHILD, LOVE CHILD, ONLY CHILD, STEPCHILD – compare KID 3. a person who is strongly influenced by the ideas and attitudes of a particular time or person: a child of the 90s 4. (disapproving) an adult who behaves like a child and is not MATURE or responsible (IDM) be with ‘child (old- fashioned) to be pregnant be ‘child’s play (informal) would find it difficult.” We have also gone through the meaning of word childhood, as given in the Oxford Dictionary – Thesaurus (III), which reads as under: “childhood noun state or period of being a child; adolescence, babyhood, boyhood, girlhood, infancy, minority, teens, youth.” As far as reference to para 135 of PA Inamdar’s case (supra) is concerned, we find that the observations made therein are directory in nature as it has been observed that the first such seats should be utilized bona fide by the NRIs only and for their children or wards. In the instant case, as the petitioner is 32 years old married man therefore, he cannot be held to be a bona fide dependent of an NRI. He neither falls under the 3 Civil Writ Petition No. 7967 of 2008 definition of children nor wards. Apart from the above, as has been observed earlier, as the petitioner is a permanent resident of India and is not an NRI, therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered for admission under the NRI quota for the Postgraduate MD/ MS Course. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 15, 2008 rps 4