CWP No.14355 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14355 of 2008 Date of Decision: 01-10-2008 Ms. Chandni Pabby ....Petitioner Versus The Panjab University and others .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner, an Indian National, who has been granted Permanent Resident Card by the United States of America, has sought admission against the seats reserved for the Non Resident Indians ( for short `NRI' ) in the B.A.LL.B (Hons.) Five Year Integrated Course of Panjab University. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that in the Prospectus published, there was no condition that a candidate, who has studied in a country other than India for three years immediately preceding the year of admission, shall be treated to be an NRI. Therefore, such condition, which deprives the petitioner of her right to seek admission in the Course on the basis of her Permanent Resident Card, cannot be imposed after the publication of the Prospectus. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the prospectus, there was no definition as to who is an NRI. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of CWP No.14355 of 2008 (2) Maharashtra and others, (2005) 6 SCC 537 has upheld the right of admission to the NRIs, but has clarified that such seats should be utilized bona-fide by NRIs only and for their children or wards. The relevant extracts from the said judgment, read as under:- “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 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 the 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 available 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 the 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 bring here. They also wish the money which they would be spending elsewhere on education of their children should rather reach their own motherland. A CWP No.14355 of 2008 (3) 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 utilized bona- fide by NRIs only and for their children or wards.” In terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the clarification issued by the University so as to ensure that only the bona-fide NRIs get admission against the seats reserved for them, the action of the University cannot be said to be violative of the conditions of Prospectus. This Court in Meenal Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1995(2) PLR 209 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nishant Puri v. State of H.P. and others, (1999)1 SCC 126, have upheld the condition imposed in somewhat similar circumstances to determine the bona-fide residence of the students to seek admission on the basis of residence. It was held that the condition of qualifying 10+1 and 10+2 examinations from an institution located in the State is justified, while granting admission to such students as residents of the said State. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 01-10-2008 ds