The court established that compliance with statutory provisions is essential in medical admissions, and that reducing qualifying percentiles can be justified to address vacancies in medical education.

ORDER

1. In wake of onslaught of C0VID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

2. The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions, in sum and substance, claiming the following reliefs:

"(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to lowering the qualifying percentile for admission in BAMS & BHMS courses in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act of 1970 and the Act of 1973 and the regulations framed thereunder with all consequential benefits.

(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner to take admission of students who are NEET appeared, in case the NEET qualified students are not available for admission in BAMS & BHMS courses.

(iii) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

(iv) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has shown the alarming statistics for the colleges in Rajasthan, where out of 153, 83 seats in Unani colleges are vacant, out of 745 seats, 482 seats in Homoeopathy colleges are vacant and out 700 seats, 606 seats in Yoga and Naturopathy are vacant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the requirement of NEET for Unani and Homoeopathy colleges, the compulsory mode of filling the seats being Unani and Homoeopathy colleges, the number of vacant seats reflects that there is a grave loss of manpower and infrastructure being caused due to the qualifying percentile, which was 50% and has been reduced to 40% by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the order passed by the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.100652/2021 on 26.02.2021, which reads as under:

"Heard Sri M.R.Naik, learned Senior Counsel along with learned counsel Sri.Sharanabasavaraj C.S. and Sri.M.B.Kanavi, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel.

Learned counsel Sri.J.M.Gangadhar takes notice on behalf of respondent No.5 and the learned counsel Sri.R.M.Kulkarni takes notice on behalf of respondent No. 6.

Issue notice to respondent No. 2.

Learned Senior Counsel would invite the attention of this Court to Annexure-K, The Homoepathy Central Council Act, and would take the Court through the provisions of Section 20 (2)relating to framing of regulations. He would contend that the issue was raised before the Hon'ble Apex Court, where it was contended that there is no compliance with the mandate of Section 20(2) while imposing the stipulation of qualifying in the NEET examinations. Hence, has minimum percentile being contrary to the statute the same is vitiated as being contrary to the very provisions of the Act. Learned counsel would takes this Court through order of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.603/2020, wherein at paragraph No. 13 the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:

13. The notification dated 14.12.2018 pertaining to the Homoeopathy courses is similar to that of the AYUSH Courses. It was contended on behalf of Homoeopathy colleges that the procedure prescribed in Section 20(2) of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (for short, 1973' Act) was not followed before the amendment was carried out to the Regulations. In view of the paucity of time, no response was filed by the Central Council of Homoeopathy or by the Union of India clarifying the factual position pertaining to the non-compliance of the procedure prescribed under the 1973 Act for making Regulations. In view of the same, we are not in a position to decide the issue raised by the Petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 1461 of 2019. We leave it open to the Petitioners to raise these issues before the High Court, if they deem it fit and proper it is not necessary to deal with various submissions made by the Appellants in