Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, Krishna Murari, JJ.
Harshit Agarwal & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No.54 of 2021 & 95 of 2021
Decided On : 08-02-2021
(A) Administrative Law – Administrative Action – Scope of Judicial Review – Judicial review of administrative action is permissible on grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety – An administrative decision is flawed if it is illegal – A decision is illegal if it pursues an objective other than that for which power to make decision was conferred – There is no unfettered discretion in public law – Discretion conferred on an authority has to be necessarily exercised only for the purpose provided in a Statute – Discretion exercised by decision maker is subject to judicial scrutiny if a purpose other than a specified purpose is pursued – If authority pursues unauthorized purposes his decision is rendered illegal – If irrelevant considerations are taken into account for reaching decision or relevant considerations have been ignored, decision stands vitiated as decision maker has misdirected himself in law. (Para 9)
(B) Education – Admission to Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) Course – National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) Examination 2020 – Central Government has discretion to lower minimum marks required for admission to BDS course in consultation with Dental Council of India when sufficient number of candidates in respective categories fail to secure minimum marks in NEET entrance test – Other factor which propelled Central Government to decide that there is no need to reduce minimum mark is that there are sufficient number of Dentists in India – Lack of keenness of students to join BDS, especially in private colleges which charge exorbitant fee, as they are interested in MBBS course is yet another ground which impelled decision of first Respondent – Decision to not reduce minimum marks materially suffers from blemish of overlooking or ignoring, wilfully or otherwise, vital facts bearing on decision is bad in law – Decision of first respondent was propelled by extraneous considerations like sufficient number of Dentists being available in country and reasons for which students were not inclined to get admitted to BDS course which remits in decision being unreasonable – Consideration of factors other than availability of eligible students would be result of being influenced by irrelevant or extraneous matters – There is an implicit obligation on decision maker to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matters only, eschewing irrelevant and the remote – If reducing minimum marks amounts to lowering standards, first Respondent would not do so for super speciality courses – Decision of first Respondent to not reduce minimum marks for admission to BDS course suffers from vices of illegality and irrationality and set aside – Vacant seats in first year BDS course for year 2020-2021 shall be filled up from candidates who have participated in NEET (UG) courses for year 2020-2021 after lowering percentile mark by 10 percentile – Candidates belonging to general category who have secured 40 percentile shall be eligible to be considered for admission in first year BDS course for year 2020-2021 – Likewise, students belonging to SC/ST/OBC categories shall be qualified if they have secured 30 percentile – In so far as General candidates with bench mark disabilities specified under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, they would be eligible if they have secured 35 percentile – Admissions shall be made strictly in accordance with merit and admission process shall be completed by 18.02.2021 – Any other student who has qualified in NEET (UG) - 2020 even without lowering minimum marks and is willing to participate in admission process shall also be considered for admission to BDS course. (Paras 7, 11, 12 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 54 of 2021 are students who appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) examination 2020 for admission to first year of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) conducted on 13-09-2020. They did not obtain the minimum marks prescribed by Sub-Regulation (ii) of Regulation II of Dental Council of India, Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007. Therefore, they were not eligible for admission to BDS course. The second Respondent Dental Council of India, recommended lowering of qualifying cut off percentile for admission to BDS course for the academic year 2020-2021. Petitioners submitted a representation to Respondent No.1 seeking to lower the qualifying cut off percentile on the recommendation of the Executive Committee of Respondent No.2. The recommendation of the Executive Committee was not accepted by the first Respondent. Having no other alternative, the Petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions under Article 32 of Constitution of India.
Findings of Court:
Fee charged by the private dental colleges is a deterrent for seats not being filled up. Only 265 out of 7,000 seats are vacant in government colleges. All the other unfilled seats are in private Dental colleges. The Managements of private Dental Colleges shall consider reducing the fee charged by them to encourage students to join the Colleges.
Result : Writ Petitions allowed.
JUDGMENT :
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 54 of 2021 are students who appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) examination 2020 for admission to the first year of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) conducted on 13-09-2020. They did not obtain the minimum marks prescribed by Sub-Regulation (ii) of Regulation II of the Dental Council of India, Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter, ‘the Regulations’). Therefore, they were not eligible for admission to BDS course. The second Respondent Dental Council of India, recommended the lowering of qualifying cut off percentile for admission to BDS course for the academic year 2020-2021.
2. The Petitioners submitted a representation to Respondent No.1 seeking to lower the qualifying cut off percentile on the recommendation of the Executive Committee of Respondent No.2. The recommendation of the Executive Committee was not accepted by the first Respondent. Having no other alternative, the Petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
3. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 95 of 2021 are Dental Colleges from the State of Andhra Pradesh seeking a similar direction to lower the minimum marks for NEET examination, 2020 for admission to BDS course by 20 percentile in each category based on the recommendation of Respondent No.2.
4. We have heard Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.95 of 2021 and Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 54 of 2021. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the proviso to Regulation II (5) (ii) of the Regulations empowers the Central Government to lower the minimum marks required for admission to BDS course in consultation with the Dental Council of India. In spite of the recommendation made by the Dental Council of India for lowering the qualifying cut off percentile, the first Respondent has arbitrarily and unreasonably not acted upon the recommendation. He stated that the first respondent accepted the proposal of the second Respondent and lowered the cut off percentile for the year 2019-2020. He also relied upon the proceedings relating to the lowering of the minimum marks for the Super speciality courses for the year 2019-2020 and for admission in Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) -UG courses for the year 2020-2021. He contended that percentile is different from percentage and by lowering the percentile there would be no compromise of standards. He argued that 7,000 seats in the first year BDS course are vacant and the available infrastructure would be wasted. Mr. Krishna Dev, learned counsel argued that there is no basis for the assumption that lowering of the percentile would affect standards of education. There is no basis for the allegation that the private colleges have been charging exorbitant fees for which reason seats in the BDS first year are not being filled up, according to him.
5. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the first Respondent has taken an informed decision on 30.12.2020 not to lower the minimum marks for admission to dental surgery course for the year 2020-2021 as sufficient number of candidates are available. She submitted that 7.71 lakhs candidates were found to be eligible for filling up 82,000 MBBS and 28,000 BDS course seats. For each vacant seat seven candidates are available. She further highlighted the point that there are 2.77 lakh Dentists registered with the Dental Council of India. Taking into consideration the availability of 80% of Dentists, there is one Dentist for every 6080 persons which is better than the WHO norms of 1 : 7500. It was further contended by her that the seats in BDS course falling vacant is due to the candidates giving preference to other streams or their disability to pay exorbitant fee charged by the private colleges.
(1) Judicial review of administrative action is permissible on grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety – An administrative decision is flawed if it is illegal.(2) If reducing ....
The Court emphasized the importance of considering vacant seats and previous judgments in making decisions related to re-fixation of admission criteria.
Admissions to BDS courses granted under relaxed percentile criteria by the State were illegal, emphasizing that only the Central Government holds the authority to set qualifying standards for NEET.
The discretion vested by Regulation 2(d) is applicable in a situation where there are insufficient candidates in the respective categories who have scored the minimum marks in the NEET. Interference ....
: If the criteria for minimum percentile is further reduced, this Court is doubtful about the standard of the students taking admission and is wary of their potential to undertake the professional co....
Discretion under regulations for educational admissions must be exercised considering only pertinent factors, and the Union's refusal to further lower NEET percentile requirements was lawful given th....
Merely because interim orders have been passed which were adinterim exparte orders without the benefit of the arguments of the other side on the basis of the replies filed and the pleadings, such int....
The decision of the Union Government to not reduce the percentile for admission to the BDS course was set aside on the ground of illegality and irrationality. The court found that there was no manife....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
