Dismissed

Charanjeev Atwal v. Baba Farid University and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 May 2008CWP/7264/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner sought admission under the Ward of NRI quota for a postgraduate medical course. The Court held that the petitioner, being a married adult not under guardianship, did not satisfy the definition of a 'Ward' required for the quota.

What did the court decide?

The application for admission under the Ward of NRI quota was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed.

Charanjeev Atwal Vs Baba Farid University… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

CWP No.7264 of 2008

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CASE NO.: CWP No.7264 of 2008

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: May 5, 2008

CHARANJEET ATWAL

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

BABA FARID UNIVERSITY & OTHERS

¶10

...RESPONDENTS

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

PRESENT: MR. M.K. DOGRA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. T.S. DHINDSA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

¶13

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL)

¶14

The petitioner has prayed for admission to the Post Graduate Course in Medical Colleges in the category of 'Ward of NRI'. Her application has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 23.4.2008 (Annexure P-2) on the ground that the petitioner is admittedly 39 years of age and is married to a person who is permanently a citizen of India and has children. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact that the petitioner is 39 years of age and is married to a citizen of India does not debar the petitioner from claiming admission in the Medical Colleges under the Ward of NRI Quota, specially when her parents are Non Resident Indians and are willing to sponsor her candidature.

¶15

Notice was issued. Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, Advocate counsel for the University has referred to the definition of 'Ward' and according to learned counsel as the case of the petitioner is not covered by the definition of the

¶16

CWP No.7264 of 2008

¶17

-2-

¶18

word 'Ward', hence she is not entitled to any admission. It is contended that the petitioner is not entitled for admission as she is not dependent or under the protection and control of her parents. The word 'Ward' has been defined in the Law of Laxicon as under:-

¶19

“ A person, who by reason of minority; lunacy or other incapacity is under the protection or control of a guardian.”

¶20

A perusal of the aforementioned definition clearly shows that only a person who by reason of minority, lunacy or any incapacity would be entitled to claim protection or control of her guardian. In the present case, as the petitioner is married to an Indian Citizen and is not under the guardianship of her parents, therefore, she cannot get admission under 'Ward of NRI' category. The petitioner does not satisfy the criteria of dependents. We find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.

¶21

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

¶24

May 5, 2008 Gulati

Charanjeev Atwal v. Baba Farid University and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charanjeev Atwal v. Baba Farid University and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devinder Kumar Upadhaya Vs the Po Lc U.T.Chd.

Rashpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dharam Pal Vs Presiding Officer, Lc Ambala and Anr.

Sadhu Singh Vs Pb. State Elect. Board and Ors.

Paramvir Singh Vs the Pb State Warehousing Corp & Anr.

District Family Welfare Offier Vs Presiding Officer and Anr.