ORDER :

1. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Harsh Raj Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.911/2018 and other connected matters, on 04.05.2023, which reads as follows:

“5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

6. This Court observes that the NEET has been introduced in the country in the year 2016, as an entrance examination for admission in the MBBS/BDS Courses; the whole purpose of the NEET is to enhance and maintain the high standards, in uniformity, in the field of medical. The exercise of conducting the NEET has been uphold by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Modern Dental Medical College & Research Center & Ors., Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 353. The same principle has been reiterated with approval by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abdul Ahad And Ors. Vs. Union of India (2020) 1 SCC OnLine SC 627 and also, by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Karnataka State Private Homeopathic Medical College Managements Association and Ors Vs Union of India & Ors (W.P. No. 25723 of 2022 (EDN-RES), decided on 03.03.2023).

Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in Karnataka State Private Homeopathic Medical College Managements Association (Supra) is reproduced as hereunder;

“25. In ABDUL AHAD AND ORS. Vs. UNION ON INDI(A2020) 1 SCC ONLINE SC 627, a three Judge Bench of Supreme Court has approved the principles laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE supra, upholding the introduction of common entrance examination for the following reasons:

1. The legislature in its wisdom has taken the view that merit-based admissions can be ensured only through a common entrance test followed by centralised counselling either by the State or by an agency authorised by the State.

2. In order to ensure rights of the applicants aspiring for medical courses under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India, legislature by the impugned legislation introduced the system of common entrance test (CET) to secure merit-based admission on a transparent basis.

3. If private unaided educational institutions are given unfettered right to devised their own admission procedure and fee structure, it would lead to situation where it would impinge upon the "right to equality" of the students who aspire to take admission in such educational institutions.

4. Common entrance test by State or its agency will ensure equal opportunity to all meritorious and suitable candidates and meritorious candidates can be identified for being allotted to different institutions depending on the courses of study, the number of seats and other relevant factors.

5. Having regard to the larger interest and welfare of the student community to promote merit and achieve excellence and curb malpractices, it would be permissible for the State to regulate admissions by providing a centralised and single-window procedure.

6. Holding such CET followed by centralised counselling or single window system regulating admissions does not cause any dent on the fundamental rights of the institutions in running the institution.

7. While private educational institutions have a "right of occupation" in running the educational institutions, equally they have the responsibility of selecting meritorious and suitable candidates, in order to bring out professionals with excellence. Rights of private educational institutions have to yield to the larger interest of the community.

8. The freedom of private educational institutions to establish and run institution, impart education, recruit staff, take disciplinary action, admit students, participate in fixation of fees is