Supreme Court of India
NIMS UNIVERSITY versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS on 9 May 2022
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
A
NIMS UNIVERSITY
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No 316 of 2022)
B
MAY 09, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDSURYA KANT, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions: Medical admission –CAdmission to NEET-super specialty courses – Lowering of cut offpercentile – Permissibility of – Held: Reduction of the percentile isa matter of academic policy – Super specialty courses cannot beequated with post graduate courses or under graduate admission –Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that Super Specialty coursesare at the apex of the academic spectrum – Reasons given by theDMinistry of Health and Family Welfare in declining to reduce thepercentile cannot be regarded as extraneous or arbitrary – Thus,writ petition seeking lowering of cut off percentile for admission inNEET Super Speciality courses not interfered with – Constitutionof India – Art. 32.
EDisposing of the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1.1 The question as to whether the percentile shouldbe reduced is a matter of academic policy. The reasons whichhave weighed with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare indeclining to reduce the percentile cannot be regarded asFextraneous or arbitrary. Super specialty courses cannot be equatedwith post graduate courses or for that matter with the percentilefixed for under graduate admission. In the circumstances, it isnot possible for this Court to entertain the request of thepetitioner by directing a reduction in the percentile. The CourtGcannot be unmindful of the fact that Super Specialty courses areat the apex of the academic spectrum. If a considered decision istaken not to lower standards by reducing the percentile fixed foreligibility, such a decision cannot be faulted. The reasonsfurnished are not extraneous or arbitrary. [Para 9][589-E-G]
H
1.2 In regard to the alternate prayer, since a second roundof counselling has been held at the end of which 940 seats stillremain vacant, the Additional Solicitor General has informed theCourt that a mop up round of counselling would be held for thoseseats including for the stray vacancies, while maintaining theeligibility percentile at 50 for the year 2021-2022. [Para 10][589-H; 590-A]
Union of India and others vs. Dinesh EngineeringCorpn. and another (2001) 8 SCC 491; Vice-Chairman& Managing director, City and Industrial DevelopmentCorporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and Another vs.Shishir Realty Private Limited and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3956-57 of 2017 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2001) 8 SCC 491referred toPara 42
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.316of 2022.
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Prashant Kumar, Aditya Dev Triguna,Ms. Awantika Manohar, M/s Ap & J Chambers, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Aman Sharma, Ms.Srishti Mishra, Manvendra Singh, Ms. Shivika Mehra, Advs. for theRespondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
1
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. In these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution, thepetitioners seek directions (a) for the lowering of the cut off percentilefor admission to Super Specialty courses; and (ii) to the MedicalCounselling Committee (MCC) to conduct a mop up and stray vacancyround of the NEET - Super Specialty counselling to fill up seats whichare vacant for the DM/MCh courses.
2. On 5 April 2018, Gazette Notification No MCI-19(I)/2018-Med./100818 was issued by the then Medical Council of India in the followingterms:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A“In order to be eligible for admission to Postgraduate Course foran academic year, it shall be necessary for a candidate to obtainminimum of marks at 50[th] percentile in the ‘National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate courses’ held for the saidacademic year. However, in respect of candidates belonging toScheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other BackwardBClasses, the minimum marks shall be at 40[th] percentile. In respectof candidates with benchmark disabilities specified under the Rightsof Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, the minimum marks shallbe at 45[th] percentile for General Category and 40[th] percentile forSC/ST/OBC. The percentile shall be determined on the basis ofChighest marks secured in the All India Common merit list in NationalEligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate courses.
A
Provided when sufficient number of candidates in the respectivecategories fail to secure minimum marks as prescribed in NationalEligibility-cum-Entrances Test held for any academic year forDadmission to Postgraduate Courses, the Central Government inconsultation with Medical Council of India may at its discretionlower the minimum marks required for admission to Post GraduateCourse for candidates belonging to respective categories andmarks so lowered by the Central Government shall be applicablefor the academic year only.”E
3. The respondents have declined to exercise the power underthe above proviso to reduce the eligibility percentile below 50 for thecurrent year. This has resulted in the invocation of the jurisdiction underArticle 32.
F4. Mr P S Patwalia, senior counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioners submitted that 940 Super Specialty seats are vacant foracademic year 2021-2022 and that it will be a colossal waste of scarceresources if these seats are not filled up. Moreover, it was submittedthat during the previous academic years, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, thecut off percentile which was initially fixed at 50 was reduced to 30 (forG2019-2020) and 45 (for 2020-2021). Moreover, it has been submittedthat the cut off percentile has been reduced in the case of admissions inrespect of post graduate medical courses and hence there is no reasonwhy a distinction should be made for Super Specialty courses.
5. Ms Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General has tenderedHa note on record. The note contains the following comparative tables:
NIMS UNIVERSITY v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
C
6. The above table indicates that during 2019-2020, the eligibilitypercentile of 50 was reduced to 30 as a result of which the number ofvacant seats came down by 272 from 809 to 537. For 2020-2021, thepercentile was reduced from 50 to 45, as a result of which the numberof vacancies reduced from the original 916 seats to 825. For the currentacademic year 2021-2022, the percentile has been maintained at 50 forSuper Specialty courses resulting in 940 vacant seats. The table is onlya broad indication because the percentile was reduced for the generalcategory and for reserved seats to a differing extent.
D
E
7. The note which has been submitted by the Union Governmentindicates that:
(i) A major part of the seats which have remained vacant is insubjects such as Cardiology, Pediatric surgery, Neurologyand Nephrology, where seats do remain vacant as a matterof contemporary experience; F
(ii) For the current year 2021-2022, 13,000 candidates appearedfor the NEET - Super Specialty examination, out of which9850 candidates were eligible for 4691 seats;
(iii) A meeting was convened by the Ministry of Health andGFamily Welfare on 4 May 2022 comprising of other stakeholders and after considering whether a reduction in thepercentile should be made, it was decided against doing sosince a lowering of the cut off in the NEET - Super Specialtyexamination would lead to a compromising of the standards;andH
H
A(iv)A sufficient number of candidates was available forundertaking the counselling for vacant seats and the decisionnot to reduce the percentile is based on the rationale of notcompromising on merit. Doctors have to deal with life anddeath situations and merit cannot be disregarded in the SuperSpecialty courses.
B
8. Mr P S Patwalia, senior counsel, in the course of his submissionshas relied upon the earlier decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Courtin the case of Harshit Agarwal and Others v Union of India andOthers[1]. This decision has been recently considered by this Court inNeppali Sai Vikash and Others vs Union of India and Others[2]:C
“8. The counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of atwo-Judge Bench of this Court in Harshit Agarwal v. Union ofIndia, where the petitioners had sought a direction to lower theminimum marks by 20 percentile in each category for NEET-UG2020 for admission to the BDS course. Allowing the writ petition,Dthe decision of the Central Government dated 30 December 2020to not reduce the minimum marks for admission to the BDS coursewas set aside on the ground that it suffered from illegality andirrationality. This Court directed that the vacant seats in first yearBDS course for 2020-21 were to be filled after reducing theEpercentile by 10 points. However, the circumstances were differentin that case. The Dental Council of India had recommended thelowering of the qualifying cut-off percentile to the BDS coursesfor the year 2020-21. The petitioners then submitted arepresentation to the Union Government seeking a 2 WP(C) 54of 2021 5 reduction in the qualifying percentile based on theFrecommendation of the Dental Council of India. Sub-Regulation(ii) of Regulation II of the Dental Council of India, Revised BDSCourse Regulations 2007 stipulates that the Central Governmentin consultation with the Dental Council of India may at itsdiscretion, lower the minimum marks required for admission if aG‘sufficient’ number of candidates fail to secure the minimum marks.This Court in that case was deciding on the limited question ofwhether the decision of the Union Government to not reduce thepercentile in spite of the recommendations of the Dental Council 1 (2021) 2 SCC 710H2 MA No 735 of 2022 In WP (C) No 124 of 2022.
of India was arbitrary. It was observed that the contention of theUnion of India that the percentile was not reduced because therewere sufficient eligible candidates was erroneous since it had notconsidered vital facts on the ratio of seats available vis-à-vis eligiblecandidates:
[…]
9. The proviso to Regulation 9(3) of the Post-Graduate MedicalEducation Regulations 2000 stipulates that the Central Governmenthas the power to lower the minimum marks for admission to PGcourses in consultation with the National Medical Commissionwhen a sufficient number of candidates fail to secure minimummarks. On 12 March 2020, the Central Government in exerciseof this power reduced the minimum marks in consultation withthe National Medical Commission. After the stray rounds wereconducted on the reduction in the percentile, only 282 seats areleft vacant. The Union of India has taken a considered decision tonot reduce the minimum marks further. As submitted by therespondent, the vacancy in the seats does not arise from non-fulfillment of minimum marks but also from course preferencesand college preferences of the students. This Court would not beinclined to interfere unless there is a manifest arbitrariness in thedecision making process or in the decision.”
9. The question as to whether the percentile should be reduced isa matter of academic policy. The reasons which have weighed with theMinistry of Health and Family Welfare in declining to reduce the percentilecannot be regarded as extraneous or arbitrary. Super specialty coursescannot be equated with post graduate courses or for that matter with thepercentile fixed for under graduate admission. In the circumstances, it isnot possible for this Court to entertain the request of the petitioner bydirecting a reduction in the percentile. The Court cannot be unmindful ofthe fact that Super Specialty courses are at the apex of the academicspectrum. If a considered decision is taken not to lower standards byreducing the percentile fixed for eligibility, such a decision cannot befaulted. The reasons furnished are not extraneous or arbitrary.
10. However, in regard to the alternate prayer, since a secondround of counselling has been held at the end of which 940 seats stillremain vacant, the Additional Solicitor General has informed the Court A
BC
DE
F
G
H
Athat a mop up round of counselling shall be held for those seats includingfor the stray vacancies, while maintaining the eligibility percentile at 50for the year 2021-2022.
11. The Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
12. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.B
Nidhi Jain
Writ petition disposed of.
C
D
E
F
G
H