1. Petition under Article 32 seeking reduction of qualifying percentile for Super Specialty medical courses and conduct of mop-up rounds to fill vacant seats. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1466
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant, JJ.
Nims University – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No 316 of 2022
Decided On : 09-05-2022
Important Points
The Court emphasized the need to maintain high standards in Super Specialty courses and declined to reduce the eligibility percentile, citing the apex nature of these courses.
Subject
Medical Law - Admission and Standards
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.32
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA REVISED MDS COURSE REGULATIONS: Reg.2(ii)
POST-GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS: Reg.9(3)
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA REVISED MDS COURSE REGULATIONS: Reg.2(ii)
POST-GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS: Reg.9(3)
Headnote
NEET - Super Specialty - Proviso to Regulation 9(3) of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000 - The Court declined to reduce the percentile for admission to Super Specialty courses, citing the apex nature of these courses and the need to maintain high standards. However, a mop-up round of counselling was ordered to fill the vacant seats.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought directions to lower the cut off percentile for admission to Super Specialty courses and to conduct a mop up and stray vacancy round of the NEET - Super Specialty counselling to fill up vacant seats.
Finding of the Court:
The Court declined to reduce the percentile for admission to Super Specialty courses, citing the need to maintain high standards. However, a mop-up round of counselling was ordered to fill the vacant seats.
Issues: Whether the eligibility percentile for Super Specialty courses should be reduced to fill vacant seats.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the reasons for declining to reduce the percentile were not extraneous or arbitrary, considering the apex nature of Super Specialty courses. A mop-up round of counselling was ordered to fill the vacant seats.
Final Decision: The Court declined to reduce the percentile for admission to Super Specialty courses but ordered a mop-up round of counselling to fill the vacant seats.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argue for percentile reduction to prevent resource waste; Respondents contend that lowering standards for super specialty courses would compromise medical merit. (Para 4 , 7 )
3. The court observed that determining eligibility percentiles is a matter of academic policy and maintaining high standards for apex medical courses is not arbitrary. (Para 9 )
4. Courts will not interfere in academic policy decisions regarding eligibility standards unless the decision is manifestly arbitrary or based on extraneous considerations. (Para 9 )
5. Petition disposed of with directions to conduct a mop-up round for vacant seats while maintaining the eligibility percentile at 50. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. Can the court direct the reduction of qualifying percentiles for medical admissions?
The court held that determining eligibility percentiles is a matter of academic policy. It will not interfere unless the decision is manifestly arbitrary or based on extraneous considerations, particularly for courses at the apex of the academic spectrum. (Para 9 )
7. How does the court view the distinction between super specialty and other medical courses regarding eligibility?
Super specialty courses are at the apex of the academic spectrum and cannot be equated with postgraduate or undergraduate courses, justifying a decision not to lower standards to maintain merit. (Para 9 )
8. What is the threshold for judicial review of government decisions regarding admission percentiles?
The court will not interfere unless there is manifest arbitrariness in the decision-making process or the decision itself, provided the government has taken a considered decision based on a valid rationale. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J - In these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek directions (a) for the lowering of the cut off percentile for admission to Super Specialty courses; and (ii) to the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) to conduct a mop up and stray vacancy round of the NEET - Super Specialty counselling to fill up seats which are 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 following terms:
"In order to be eligible for admission to Postgraduate Course for an academic year, it shall be necessary for a candidate to obtain minimum of marks at 50th percentile in the National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate courses held for the said academic year. However, in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, the minimum marks shall be at 40th percentile. In respect of candidates with benchmark disabilities specified under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, the minimum marks shall be at 45th percentile for General Category and 40th percentile for SC/ST/OBC. The percentile shall be determined on the basis of highest marks secured in the All India Common merit list in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate courses.
Provided when sufficient number of candidates in the respective categories fail to secure minimum marks as prescribed in National Eligibility-cum-Entrances Test held for any academic year for admission to Postgraduate Courses, the Central Government in consultation with Medical Council of India may at its discretion lower the minimum marks required for admission to Post Graduate Course for candidates belonging to respective categories and marks so lowered by the Central Government shall be applicable for the academic year only."
3. The respondents have declined to exercise the power under the above proviso to reduce the eligibility percentile below 50 for the current year. This has resulted in the invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 32.
4. Mr P S Patwalia, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that 940 Super Specialty seats are vacant for academic year 2021-2022 and that it will be a colossal waste of scarce resources if these seats are not filled up. Moreover, it was submitted that during the previous academic years, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, the cut off percentile which was initially fixed at 50 was reduced to 30 (for 2019-2020) and 45 (for 20202021). Moreover, it has been submitted that the cut off percentile has been reduced in the case of admissions in respect of post graduate medical courses and hence there is no reason why a distinction should be made for Super Specialty courses.
5. Ms Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General has tendered a note on record. The note contains the following comparative tables:
"For Academic Year 2019-20
| Total Seats | Percentile | Eligible candidates | Vacant Seats |
| 3183 | 50 | 10,037 | 809 |
| 3183 | 30 | 11,930 | 537 |
For Academic Year 2020-21
| Total Seats | Percentile | Eligible candidates | Vacant Seats |
| 3693 | 50 | 10,359 | 916 |
| 3693 | 45 | 11,149 | 825 |
For Academic Year 2021-22
| Total Seats | Percentile | Eligible candidates | Vacant Seats |
| 4691 | 50 | 9850 | 940 |
6. The above table indicates that during 2019-2020, the eligibility percentile of 50 was reduced to 30 as a result of which the number of vacant seats came down by 272 from 809 to 537. For 2020-2021, the percentile was reduced from 50 to 45, as a result of which the number of vacancies reduced from the original 916 seats to 825. For the current academic year 2021-2022, the percentile has been maintained at 50 for Super Specialty courses resulting in 940 vacant seats. The table is only a broad indication because the percentile was reduced for the general category and for reserved seats to a differing extent.
7. The note
