Expanded NRI quota definition cannot be applied mid-admission process, rules Punjab & Haryana HC

The petitioner, an Indian citizen and resident of Jalandhar, qualified NEET (UG)-2026 and sought admission to the MBBS/BDS courses in Punjab under the NRI quota.

The Punjab Government’s notification dated 10 July 2026 prescribed the eligibility conditions for NRI seats, including eligibility of NRIs or their children, and fixed 12 August 2026 as the last date for submission of physical applications under the NRI quota.

The Medical Counselling Committee (MCC), by notice dated 27 May 2026, had expanded the NRI definition to include certain first-degree relatives of an NRI student who had acted as the student’s guardian.

The petitioner claimed eligibility under this expanded definition on the basis that his paternal aunt (“Bua”), a citizen of the United States, had brought him up and had furnished the requisite certificates and affidavit.

The State declined to consider his claim, relying on the narrower definition contained in Clause 17 of the Punjab notification.

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court, which permitted him to approach the High Court.

Whether the expanded definition of “NRI” contained in the MCC notice dated 27 May 2026 could be applied to the Punjab State counselling process despite not having been incorporated into the original Punjab notification/prospectus?

Whether the petitioner, whose paternal aunt allegedly acted as his guardian, was entitled to participate in the NRI quota under the expanded MCC definition?

Whether the eligibility criteria for admission could be altered after commencement of the admission process and after expiry of the application deadline?

The Court applied Clause 17 of the Punjab notification, which reserved specified medical and dental seats for NRIs and their children in the prescribed categories.

Clause 21(J) and the prospectus disclaimer required MCC guidelines and applicable notifications to be followed during counselling, but did not authorise alteration of the notified eligibility criteria after the admission process had commenced.

The Court relied on Devbir Singh v. State of Punjab, where it was held that an expanded NRI definition introduced after applications had closed could not be applied retrospectively or midstream.

The Court also relied on Parmender Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 177, and Adarsh Dinkar Sontakke v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, for the principle that eligibility conditions and selection criteria must be disclosed in the prospectus and that the “rules of the game” cannot be changed after commencement of the admission process.

The Court further noted the principle that the prospectus cannot subsequently be altered to the detriment of students who applied under the originally notified criteria.

The Court found that the Punjab notification and prospectus governed the State quota counselling process and that Clause 17 did not include a student whose paternal aunt was an NRI and guardian.

Although the MCC notice expanded the NRI definition, the relevant admission process had already commenced and the last date for NRI applications had expired on 12 August 2026.

Applying the rule against midstream alteration of eligibility criteria, the Court held that adopting the expanded definition at that stage would enlarge the pool of eligible candidates and prejudice students who had applied, or refrained from applying, on the basis of the original criteria.

Consequently, the MCC notice could not be used to compel the State to recognise the petitioner’s claim for the 2026 Punjab counselling process.

The petitioner was therefore not entitled to claim participation in the NRI quota on the basis of his paternal aunt’s alleged guardianship.

The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit, with no order as to costs; all pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.