K.V.Nikila v. Selection Committee

W.P.No.31330 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 19.08.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPANW.P.No.31330 of 2025and W.M.P.No.35056 of 2025K.V.Nikila... Petitioner Vs.Selection Committee, represented by its Deputy Director – UG,Directorate of Medical Education and Research, Government of Tamil Nadu, No. 162, Periyar E.V.R.High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010... RespondentPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to consider the Petitioner Ms.K.V.Nikila bearing NEET UG 2025 roll number 4106115029 as eligible under NRI category for admission into the MBBS course during the academic year 2025-26 and permit her to participate in the counselling process. For Petitioner: Mr.Abishek JenasenanFor Respondent: Mrs.M.Sneha Special Counsel 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31330 of 2025

O R D E RBy consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself.

The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondent to consider the Petitioner Ms.K.V.Nikila bearing NEET UG 2025 roll number 4106115029 as eligible under NRI category for admission into the MBBS course during the academic year 2025-26 and permit her to participate in the counselling process.

Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has submitted all the necessary documents of her paternal uncle and 1st cousin of her father, who is an NRI. But the respondent has not included the name of the petitioner in the list of the eligible NRI candidates. It is the specific submission of the petitioner that according to Clause (i) Sub Clause (vi) of Clause 8 of the Prospectus issued by the respondent deals 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31330 of 2025about the first degree-paternal and maternal cousins, which would only define the first degree paternal and maternal cousins of the candidates father or mother. But the respondent did not consider the candidates father's first degree paternal and maternal cousins of the blood relatives, which is contrary to Clause-8 of the Prospectus.

The said submission of the petitioner is totally objected by the learned Special Counsel appearing for the respondent and would submit that the Clause-8 has to be read in toto and while reading of the Clause (i) it would only mean that the first degree-paternal and maternal cousins of the candidates and not the candidate's father.

In this regard, it is appropriate to extract Clause (i) of Clause 8 of the Prospectus:-“8 (i). The seats under NRI quota should be utilized by the Bonafide NRIs only and for their children or wards. Therefore, the NRI financially supporting the candidates should either be the parent (Father or Mother) of the candidate or the spouse or the blood relatives of the candidates or legally declared as guardian of the candidate by the Court as per 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31330 of 2025provisions in “The Guardians and Wards Act 1890”.Blood Relatives: Blood Relatives are defined as i) Real brother and sister of the candidate.ii) Real brother and sister of father i.e. real uncle and real aunt.iii) Real brother and sister of mother i.e. real maternal uncle and maternal aunt.iv) Father and mother of father i.e. grandfather and grandmother.v) Father and mother of mother i.e., maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother.vi) First degree-paternal and maternal cousins.vii) Such person should be NRI.”