In a landmark decision, the Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled against the state’s attempt to alter the rules governing NRI quota admissions for MBBS courses midway through the process, declaring such changes “arbitrary and illegal.” The bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, found that the state’s notification dated October 18, 2024, violated the principle of maintaining consistent rules during the admission process, which had already begun.
The decision came in response to several petitions challenging the sudden imposition of stricter criteria for candidates admitted under the NRI quota after September 24, 2024. The court ruled that any changes to admission criteria must not be retroactive, as it impacts candidates who have already secured seats based on existing rules.
Background of the Case
The controversy began with a series of petitions filed by MBBS aspirants who had secured admission under the NRI quota in various medical colleges in Chhattisgarh through NEET UG 2024. These students claimed that their admissions were in accordance with the “Chhattisgarh Admission Rules 2018,” which specify eligibility criteria for NRI quota seats. The state government’s October 18 notice mandated additional scrutiny for candidates admitted after September 24, citing a Supreme Court order related to similar issues in Punjab.
The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Sinha, argued that the state’s move to impose new conditions mid-process was arbitrary and a breach of settled legal principles. They contended that the admissions were conducted according to the existing rules, and modifying the criteria after the counseling rounds violated their rights.
Key Legal Issues
The High Court’s judgment addressed several critical legal questions:
1. Legality of Mid-Process Rule Changes: The court reiterated the established principle that rules cannot be altered once the admission process has commenced. The bench underscored that maintaining consistent criteria is vital to ensure fairness, stability, and transparency in admissions. The sudden change not only jeopardized the petitioners’ admissions but also created confusion among candidates.
2. Effect of Supreme Court’s Order: The state’s October 18 notice cited a September 24, 2024, Supreme Court dismissal of an SLP regarding NRI quota admissions in Punjab as a basis for stricter scrutiny. However, the High Court clarified that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP in limine (at the threshold) did not establish a binding legal precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Chhattisgarh government could not use it to justify retrospective changes to its admission rules.
3. Principle of Non-Discrimination: The court found the state’s approach discriminatory. Candidates admitted under the same rules were treated differently based on whether their admissions were finalized before or after September 24, 2024. This arbitrary distinction violated the principle of “intelligible differentia,” which requires similar treatment for candidates in similar circumstances.
Court’s Decision and Observations
The court quashed the state’s notification and communication dated October 18, allowing all affected petitioners to continue their MBBS courses without the threat of additional scrutiny or cancellation. In a strong observation, the bench noted:
“Changing the rules mid-game is arbitrary and illegal; the rule of the game cannot be altered after its commencement.”
The court also directed the state to ensure that any future changes to admission rules be made prospectively and not impact candidates who have already secured admissions.
Parties and Legal Representation
– Petitioners: MBBS aspirants admitted under the NRI quota in Chhattisgarh’s medical colleges.
– Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh, represented by Advocate General Prafull N. Bharat, along with officials from the Medical Education Department.
– Legal Team: Senior Advocate Abhishek Sinha represented the petitioners, supported by advocates Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Manoj Paranjpe, and others. The private medical colleges involved were represented by Advocate Kshitij Sharma.
