SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Abhinav Kumar (Dr.) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The Petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashment of Regulation 9(3) of the Postgraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2018 (as amended on 05.04.2018) to the extent that it provides for minimum marks of 50th percentile as a mandatory requirement for admission to postgraduate courses, on the ground that the said requirement is arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to Article 14, Article 19 (1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation by three doctors seeking admission into postgraduate courses. The Petitioner No.1 obtained his MBBS Degree in the year 2018 and appeared in the NEET PG Entrance Test on 05.01.2020. He secured 180 marks in the NEET PG Entrance Test, and is working at GB Pant Hospital. The Petitioner No.2 obtained his MBBS Degree in June 2018 and, thereafter, appeared in the NEET PG Entrance Test, scoring 108 marks. Similarly, the Petitioner No.3 also appeared in the NEET PG Entrance Test and scored 160 marks. He is also wor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top