Supreme Court Dismisses Petition for Lowering Cut Off Percentile in Medical Admissions — Upholds Merit Standards. The decision to maintain the eligibility percentile was based on sound academic policy and not arbitrary.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by NIMS University against the Union of India and others, seeking directions to lower the cut off percentile for admission to Super Specialty courses and to conduct mop up counselling for vacant seats. The Medical Council of India had set a minimum eligibility percentile of 50 for general candidates and lower percentiles for reserved categories. The respondents declined to reduce the eligibility percentile below 50 for the current academic year, resulting in 940 vacant seats for the 2021-2022 academic year. The petitioners argued that previous years saw reductions in the cut off percentile, which led to fewer vacant seats, and contended that not filling these seats would waste resources. The Additional Solicitor General presented data showing that a significant number of seats remained vacant in certain specialties and that a meeting had concluded against lowering the percentile to maintain merit standards. The court analyzed the arguments, referencing previous decisions, and concluded that the decision to maintain the percentile was not arbitrary and was based on sound academic policy. The court did, however, allow for a mop up round of counselling for the vacant seats while keeping the eligibility percentile unchanged. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Article 32 - Jurisdiction for Directions - The petitioners sought directions for lowering the cut off percentile for Super Specialty admissions and conducting mop up counselling. The court held that the decision not to lower the percentile was based on maintaining academic standards and was not arbitrary (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the cut off percentile for admission to Super Specialty courses should be lowered.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court dismissed the petition, upholding the decision to maintain the cut off percentile at 50 while allowing for a mop up round of counselling for the vacant seats.

Law Points

  • Article 32 of the Constitution
  • Medical Council of India regulations
  • NEET Super Specialty counselling
  • academic policy
  • merit standards
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (SC) (05) 220

WP 316/2022

2022-05-09

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant

Mr P.S. Patwalia, Ms Aishwarya Bhati

NIMS University

Union of India and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking directions regarding admission criteria for Super Specialty courses.

Remedy Sought

Directions to lower the cut off percentile and conduct mop up counselling.

Filing Reason

Respondents declined to reduce the eligibility percentile below 50.

Previous Decisions

Previous years saw reductions in cut off percentiles leading to fewer vacant seats.

Issues

Whether the cut off percentile for admission to Super Specialty courses should be lowered.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that maintaining the cut off at 50 led to a significant number of vacant seats. Respondents maintained that lowering the percentile would compromise academic standards.

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to maintain the eligibility percentile was based on sound academic policy and not arbitrary, emphasizing the importance of merit in Super Specialty courses.

Judgment Excerpts

The court held that the decision not to lower the percentile was based on maintaining academic standards and was not arbitrary. Super specialty courses cannot be equated with post graduate courses or for that matter with the percentile fixed for undergraduate admission.

Procedural History

The petition was filed under Article 32, and the court heard the arguments from both sides before disposing of the petition.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 32
  • Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act:
  • Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations: Regulation 9(3)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Majority Arbitral Award in Maritime Demurrage Dispute — Claim Time-Barred Under Charterparty Clause 24. The court upheld the majority arbitrators' finding that the demurrage claim was received beyond the 45...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Civil Court's Lack of Jurisdiction in Company Dispute — Section 430 of Companies Act, 2013 Does Not Bar Civil Suit for Declaration and Injunction Regarding Sale of Company Property Without Board Re...