Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Abhinav Kumar (Dr.) - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 4852 of 2020 & CM Appl. 5299 of 2021, CM Appl. 41013 of 2021
Decided On : 29-07-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of petition under articles 226 and 227. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contentions regarding the legality of percentile system. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. background on medical council amendments and neet. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. grievance about vacant seats due to percentile. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. prayers for relief from percentile criterion. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. respondent's stance on the admissions process. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. legal sanctions and reliance on precedents. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. rationale behind neet and percentile. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 9. details of percentile adjustments and judicial observations. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 10. validity of percentile adjustments. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 11. eligibility data presented. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 12. statistical evidence on candidate eligibility. (Para 31 , 32) |
| 13. constitutional examination of statutes. (Para 33 , 34) |
| 14. argument regarding judicial review parameters. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 15. judicial interpretations on legislative functions. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 16. subordinate legislation and its scrutiny. (Para 42 , 43) |
| 17. criteria for evaluating legality of regulations. (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 18. final observations on case validity. (Para 47 , 48) |
| 19. comparative standards in medical admissions. (Para 49 , 50) |
| 20. rejection of petitions due to non-compliance. (Para 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 21. role of medical council in standards maintenance. (Para 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 22. universality of standards in medical admissions. (Para 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 23. historical context of admission criteria. (Para 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 24. precedent on non-issuance of directions to alter standards. (Para 63 , 64) |
| 25. assessment of prior relevant legal cases. (Para 65 , 66) |
| 26. evaluation of reliance on differing case findings. (Para 67 , 68) |
| 27. discussion of individual metrics in legal challenges. (Para 69 , 70) |
| 28. summary of legal reasoning for rejection. (Para 71 , 72) |
| 29. final decision and reasoning. (Para 73) |
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 working at GB Pant Hospital.
3. The Petitioners' contention is that the Medical Council of India (MCI) introduced an All-India Entrance Examination called as National Eligibility-cum Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to MBBS and postgraduate courses by amending the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations on 21.12.2010. The Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations were again amended on 15.02.2012, and the percentile system was introduced which provided that in order to obtain admission to a postgraduate course in an academic year, a student must obtain minimum marks at 50th Percentile in the NEET.
4. The Petitioners' further contention is that the amending Regulation was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by some institutions and, in the case of Christian Medical College, Vellore and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2014)2 SCC 305, the Re
The court upheld the minimum percentile requirement for postgraduate medical admissions, asserting the importance of maintaining high educational standards in medical education, which cannot be compr....
: 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....
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....
Section 55(1) of 2020 Act empowers Commission to make regulations to carry out provisions.
Admission regulations for homeopathy postgraduate courses must comply with statutory procedures; deviations are not permissible, especially post cut-off date.
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....
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining high standards in AYUSH education and the expertise of NCISM in making policy decisions. It also highlighted the potential risk of compromising medi....
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 ....
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
