Special Correspondent

High Court fiat on filling PG medical, dental seats under NRI quota

‘They have to be filled only through the common counselling authority’

June 01, 2017 01:01 am | Updated 01:01 am IST -

The High Court has made it clear that any vacant seat under the NRI quota shall be filled only through the common counselling authority.

The High Court has made it clear that any vacant seat under the NRI quota shall be filled only through the common counselling authority.

Stating that all the admissions made to the postgraduate medical courses under the NRI/management quota in all the medical and dental colleges in the State for the academic year 2017–18 are subject to court’s order, the High Court of Karnataka has made it clear that any vacant seat under the NRI quota shall be filled only through the common counselling authority and not directly by the college managements.

A Division Bench comprising Justice H.G. Ramesh and Justice John Michael Cunha passed the interim order on Tuesday after noticing that the Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA), after conducting two rounds of counselling to fill seats under the NRI quota, had released some vacant seats under the quota to private college managements.

Reiterating that the NRI quota cannot exceed 15% of the total intake as per norms and the quota shall be confined only to the children of NRIs or their wards in terms of the apex court’s verdict, the Bench said the Regulation 9A of the Medical Council of India (MCI) makes allotment of seat through common counselling authority based on NEET ranking mandatory.

“Any admission made contrary to Regulation 9A is void. Even if seats fall vacant in any category for any reason, such seats shall be filled only through the common counselling authority provided under Regulation 9A. No vacant seats shall be filled without the said seats being allotted by the common counselling authority,” the Bench observed while make it clear that any term in any consensual agreement [between the State authorities and the private college managements] to the contrary is void as it is violative of Regulation 9A.

Also, the Bench said every college, officer or authority who disobeys or fails to strictly comply with this order shall be liable for action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.