Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

OCI cardholders are only eligible for NRI seats, not for State Quota or reserved categories meant for Indian citizens: Punjab & Haryana High Court

30 September 2024 8:49 PM

By: sayum


Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Aranav Bhargav v. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, dismissed a writ petition filed by an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder seeking admission to MBBS under the State Quota. The petitioner, Aranav Bhargav, challenged the prospectus clause limiting OCI admissions to the NRI category, seeking admission under the sub-category for wards of gallantry award recipients. The Court upheld the clause, emphasizing that OCI cardholders cannot claim parity with Indian citizens for State Quota seats.

The petitioner, an OCI cardholder born in the USA, applied for MBBS admission under the NRI category but sought to be considered under the State Quota as a ward of a gallantry award recipient. The petitioner argued that the clause restricting OCI cardholders to the NRI category was discriminatory. However, the University and the State maintained that OCI candidates are eligible only for NRI seats as per the guidelines.

The key issue was whether OCI cardholders are entitled to be considered for State Quota seats, specifically under reserved categories meant for Indian citizens, despite the clear provisions of the prospectus limiting them to NRI seats.

Justice Kshetarpal ruled that the petitioner’s request lacked merit, as OCI cardholders are not entitled to claim rights reserved for Indian citizens under State Quota admissions. The Court referred to the legal distinction between OCI cardholders and Indian citizens, as outlined in the Citizenship Act, 1955, and various notifications from the Government of India.

"OCI cardholders, while entitled to various rights, cannot claim the same privileges as Indian citizens, particularly in matters of State Quota admissions."

Conclusion

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming that OCI cardholders are only eligible for admission under the NRI category and cannot claim State Quota seats reserved for Indian citizens, including reserved sub-categories such as gallantry award recipients.

Date of Decision: September 25, 2024

Aranav Bhargav v. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences​.

Latest Legal News