High Court of KeralaDivision BenchWrit appeal dismissed; case disposed with no in...

Salma Iqbal v Union of India

Case / Petition Number:WA No.1568 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • S. Manikumar, Chief Justice
  • Shaji P. Chaly, J.
Judgment Date
2021-11-30
Court Decision / Holding
Writ appeal dismissed; no interference with the writ court’s conclusion; the policy matter concerning DASA eligibility is within the executive domain and subject to rational evaluation, with Ext.P7 to govern further action.
Final Disposition
Writ appeal dismissed; case disposed with no interference in the writ court’s order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Salma Iqbal

Respondents

  • Union of India represented by Ministry of Education

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Haris Beeran
  • • O.A. Nuriya

Counsels for Respondents

  • • S. Manu, ASG
  • • Jaishankar V. Nair

Case Synopsis & Summary

This intra-court writ appeal arises out of a challenge to Clause 2.1.3 of Ext.P3 Information Brochure governing Direct Admission of Students Abroad (DASA) for 2021-22. The appellant, Salma Iqbal, whose father is an NRI employed in Saudi Arabia, completed her schooling largely abroad and later attempted to secure admission under DASA. The information brochure prescribes that Indian Nationals must have at least two years of education abroad (including 11th and 12th or equivalent, not extending beyond eight years) and must pass the qualifying examination from abroad. Salma argued that such residential requirements are arbitrary, irrational, and not connected to the objective of the DASA scheme, which aims to attract PIOs/NRIs/Overseas Nationals into premier Indian technical institutes. She had ranked 63025 in JEE Main and sought admission for the 2021-22 cycle, but the criterion prevented her participation. The Writ Court refused to strike down the policy, holding that it falls within the policy domain and directed the respondents to consider her Ext.P7 representation within a month, with the entitlements subject to Ext.P7 orders. On appeal, the Division Bench affirmed the writ court’s approach, observing that policy decisions in education fall within the executive domain and that interference is warranted only for total irrationality. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the policy framework of DASA. The decision underscores the tension between uniform policy in higher education admissions and individual eligibility arising from diverse schooling backgrounds.

Provisions of Law Cited

Clause 2.1.3 of Ext.P3 Information Brochure (Direct Admission of Students Abroad scheme)Direct Admission of Students Abroad (DASA) scheme 2021

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Judicial review of policy decisions; deference to executive policy in education matters; policy rationality standard—absence of total irrationality.
  • Principle that policy matters fall within the executive domain and High Courts should refrain from substituting their policy choices unless manifest irrationality.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant submits that Clause 2.1.3 of Ext.P3 (the DASA Information Brochure) imposes a residential criterion that has no bearing on the objective of DASA and is irrational and arbitrary. It deprives a meritorious candidate who studied abroad from Indian institutional admissions under DASA, contrary to the spirit of encouraging PIO/OCI/NRIs to participate in Indian education. The petitioner contends the policy is excess, discriminatory, and not rationally linked to the scheme’s objectives. She seeks quashing of the clause and admission under Ext.P7 for 2021-22.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that DASA is a policy instrument framed by the Government of India; the clause constitutes an eligibility criterion designed to ensure eligibility criteria across nations; policy matters in education are within the exclusive domain of the executive, and the High Court should refrain from judicial interference unless the policy is utterly irrational. The writ petition was disposed by directing consideration of Ext.P7 within a month and stating that the entitlement remains subject to further orders.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister of Civil Service(1984) 3 All ER 935Mentioned OnlyCited by counsel to discuss judicial review of policy decisions; not applied or distinguished in the judgment.
Union of India v. International Trading Co.(2003) 5 SCC 437Mentioned OnlyReferenced in argument regarding policy deference; not directly applied.
DDA v. Joint Action Committee; Allottees of SFS Flats(2008) 2 SCC 672Mentioned OnlyCited in context of policy and judicial review discussions; not analyzed for this case.
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India(2017) 6 SCC 408Mentioned OnlyCited in policy context; no treatment analysis performed in the judgment.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Salma Iqbal v Union of India and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY TUESDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943** ## **WA NO. 1568 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23458/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA dated 28.10.2021** ## **APPELLANTS:** SALMA IQBAL, AGED 18 YEARS D/O.IQBAL, KOONARI HOUSE, NEW POST OFFICE, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 304. BY ADVS.HARIS BEERAN O.A.NURIYA ## **RESPONDENTS:** UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, 122-C, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001. SRI.S.MANU, ASG SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.1568 of 2021 :: 2 :: ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 30[th] day of November, 2021 ## **S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.** Instant writ appeal is preferred challenging the judgment dated 28.10.2021 in W.P.(C)No.23458 of 2021 by which, a learned Single Judge refused to interfere and to quash the residential requirement laid down as Clause 2.1.3 in Direct Admission of Students Abroad, 2021 (DASA) scheme. Being aggrieved by the non-interference of the learned Single Judge, appellant preferred this intra court appeal. 2. Short facts leading to the filing of this intra court appeal are as follows:- The appellant/writ petitioner, whose father is an NRI and has been working in Saudi Arabia for the past two decades, has filed the writ petition seeking to set aside the condition in Ext.P3 mandating Indian Nationals to complete at least two years of education, inclusive of 11[th] and 12[th] or equivalent (not beyond), in a Foreign Country during the last eight years and further mandating passing the qualifying examination from abroad, in the DASA Scheme. 3. The appellant/writ petitioner has further sought for a direction to the respondents to reply to Ext.P7 representation submitted by the appellant/writ petitioner and to permit the W.A.No.1568 of 2021 :: 3 :: appellant/writ petitioner to participate in the DASA Scheme for the Academic Year 2021-22. The appellant/writ petitioner has submitted that she has completed her Plus Two Course from MES International School, Pattambi in 2021. Her father is an NRI, who has been working in Saudi Arabia for the past two decades. The appellant/writ petitioner completed her secondary schooling in Saudi Arabia. The appellant/writ petitioner qualified for Joint Entrance Examination (JEE), Mains (JEE) 2021 for BE/B.Tech and has secured 63025[th] rank. The appellant/writ petitioner desires to secure admission to a Premier Technology Educational Institution in India, through Direct Admission of Students Abroad (DASA) program. DASA is a program framed by the Government of India for admission of Foreign Nationals/ Persons of Indian Origin/NRIs/Overseas Citizens of India to undergraduate program in Premier Technology Institutions. For Direct Admission of Students Abroad (DASA), the respondent/Union of India has issued Ext.P3 Information Brochure. Clause 2.1.3 of the said brochure provides that all Foreign Nationals studying in any country including India or Indian Nationals studying abroad who fulfill prescribed admission criteria shall be eligible. Prescribed W.A.No.1568 of 2021 :: 4 :: admission criteria for Indian Nationals shall be at least two years of education, inclusive of 11[th] and 12[th] or equivalent (not beyond), in a Foreign Country during the last 8 years and must pass the qualifying examination from abroad. The appellant/writ petitioner is a candidate who has completed her schooling in a Foreign Nation in Standards 8, 9 and 10. The appellant/writ petitioner participated in the qualifying examination which held in India. 4. Prayers sought for in the writ petition are as follows: “(i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for records leading to the drafting of Exhibit P3 information brochure and set aside the condition mandating Indian Nationals to complete at & 12[th] or least two years of education, inclusive of 11[th] equivalent (not beyond), in a foreign country during the last 8 and further the years mandating passing qualifying examination from abroad in the DASA scheme. (ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to reply to Ext.P7 representation and permit the petitioner to participate in the DASA scheme for the academic year 2021-22. (iii) allow the writ petition with costs.” 5. After considering the rival submissions and materials available on record, writ court disposed of the writ petition with the following observations: W.A.No.1568 of 2021 :: 5 :: “5. Aggrieved by the condition stipulated in Clause 2.1.3 providing the aforesaid residential requirements, the petitioner has filed Ext.P7 representation before the respondent. Ext.P7 was mailed on 09.10.2021. Unless the respondent consider the issue and take a decision on Ext.P7, the petitioner and similarly situated students will be put in hardship and loss. In such circumstances, that the petitioner is before this Court. 6. The learned ASGI appeared in the writ petition and contested the matter. The learned ASGI controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that this is purely a policy matter relating to the sphere of education. Therefore, this Court shall not interfere in the matter and pass orders. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the respondents. 8. The petitioner had her schooling for a considerable period abroad. The petitioner appeared in the JEE Examination and has been ranked in the selected list as 63025th rank. In view of Clause 2.1.3 of Ext.P3 Information Brochure, the petitioner will not be eligible for Direct Admission of Students Abroad (DASA) program of the Ministry of Education. The petitioner alleges that the conditions stipulated in Ext.P3 is highly arbitrary and irrational. 9. As rightly pointed out by the ASGI, this is a matter coming within the realm of policy of the Central Government. Therefore this Court will not be justified in adjudicating the issue involved unless the policy is totally irrational. The petitioner has already approached the respondent highlighting the grievance. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent shall consider the grievance raised by the petitioner in Ext.P7. In that view of the matter, a direction to the respondent is necessary. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation submitted by the petitioner within a period of one month. The entitlement of the petitioner for admission under DASA will be subject to the orders to be passed in Ext.P7.” 6. Mr.Haris Beeran, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that insistence on residential requirement for completion of W.A.No.1568 of 2021 :: 6 :: qualifying examination has absolutely no nexus to the objective sought to be achieved by the scheme, which is to encourage PIO/OCI/NRI/Foreign Nationals to be a part of the Indian educational system. 7. According to the learned counsel, learned Single Judge ought to have considered the question of judicial interference in policy decisions in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister of Civil Service (1984) 3 All ER 935**_ ; _**Union of India v. International Trading Co. (2003) 5 SCC 437; DDA v. Joint Action Committee; Allotee of SFS Flats, (2008) 2 SCC 672; Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2017) 6 SCC 408**_ . The writ court erred in refusing to strike down the impugned Clause 2.1.3 in the DASA Scheme by not exercising its power to judicial review on finding the arbitrariness and irrationality of the said condition. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. Material on record shows that information brochure regarding the admission under Direct Admission of Students Abroad W.A.No.1568 of 2021 :: 7 :: (DASA) scheme 2021-22 has been issued in September 2021 fixing the eligibility of candidates to apply for admission under the Scheme, which includes that all Foreign Nationals studying in any country including India or Indian Nationals studying abroad who fulfil prescribed admission criteria shall be eligible. Prescribed admission criteria for Indian Nationals shall be at least two years of education, inclusive of 11[th] and 12[th] or equivalent (not beyond), in a Foreign Country during the last 8 years and must pass the qualifying examination from abroad. 10. Knowing fully well the said condition, appellant has taken the Joint Entrance Examination for admission to Engineering Courses. Thereafter, coming to know that her application under DASA could not be completed, has filed the writ petition on 21.10.21, for the abovesaid reliefs. As per the tentative schedule of DASA 2021 UG Counselling, office of DASA will declare the DASA rank (based on JEE Main rank declared by NTA) for only those students who have filled and finally submitted their online registration form for DASA-2021. 11. Reasons assigned by the writ court for declining to grant the first reliefs sought are as hereunder: “The petitioner had her W.A.No.1568 of 2021 :: 8 :: schooling for a considerable period abroad. The petitioner appeared in the JEE Examination and has been ranked in the selected list as 63025th rank. In view of Clause 2.1.3 of Ext.P3 Information Brochure, the petitioner will not be eligible for Direct Admission of Students Abroad (DASA) program of the Ministry of Education. The petitioner alleges that the conditions stipulated in Ext.P3 is highly arbitrary and irrational. As rightly pointed out by the ASGI, this is a matter coming within the realm of policy of the Central Government. Therefore this Court will not be justified in adjudicating the issue involved unless the policy is totally irrational. The petitioner has already approached the respondent highlighting the grievance. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent shall consider the grievance raised by the petitioner in Ext.P7. In that view of the matter, a direction to the respondent is necessary. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation submitted by the petitioner within a period of one month. The entitlement of the petitioner for admission under DASA will be subject to the orders to be passed in Ext.P7.” W.A.No.1568 of 2021 :: 9 :: 12. Though discrimination was raised as a core ground, giving due consideration to the material on record and the reasons, stated supra, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment, warranting interference. Writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. **SD/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** SD/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** jes