LAWS(HPH)-2007-8-85

ABHINAV VERMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Decided On August 20, 2007
Abhinav Verma Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A detailed judgment was passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 1st June, 2006 in CWP No. 432 of 2006 in which this Court had taken a very clear view that even though the category of Non Resident Indians (NRIs) in the matter of admissions to professional colleges such as medical colleges and dental colleges has a clear nexus With the object sought to be achieved, viz. the integration of Non Resident Indians living abroad into Indian mainstream and making available to them the facilities in existence in the Country of their origin, in so far as the category of "NRI sponsored candidates" is concerned, no such nexus could be said to be linked with any object sought to be achieved by creating such a category. By its very definition as well as in common parlance the category of "NRI sponsored candidates", comprises of only such persons who actually and physically are Indians residing in India. This categorization, therefore, of NRI sponsored candidates was declared by this Court to be impermissible under law. The following observations in the aforesaid judgment are apposite and we quote:

(2.) THE distinction between NRI candidates and NRI sponsored candidates is quite clear. There is no vagueness in so far as definition as well as description of these two categories are concerned. Whereas NRI candidates are such persons who do not reside in India and who are Non Resident Indians (residing abroad), NRI sponsored candidates are such Indians who do not reside abroad, but actually and physically reside in India, and who, for the purposes of their admissions have been or might be sponsored by NRIs. The sponsorship of course, as everyone understands, is limited only with respect to the funding of their admissions.

(3.) THIS Court, therefore, in the aforesaid judgment dated 1st June, 2006 had clearly, unambiguously and in no uncertain terms had mandated that it was not open to the State Government to create a category of NRI sponsored candidates because in the considered opinion of this Court doing so would mean, in effect and substance selling admissions on commercial basis, pure and simple by practicing patent discrimination against other Indian nationals who would be selected only on the basis of their merit and would not be in a position to obtain sponsorships from NRIs for the purpose of funding their admissions by receiving finances from abroad.