'Matter Of Life & Death': Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge To Minimum Percentile Criteria For NEET-PG Admissions
The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a plea challenging a regulation mandating minimum marks of 50th percentile in National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test (NEET) as a mandatory requirement for admission to postgraduate courses. A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that there cannot be any compromise with the quality...
The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a plea challenging a regulation mandating minimum marks of 50th percentile in National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test (NEET) as a mandatory requirement for admission to postgraduate courses.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that there cannot be any compromise with the quality of doctors or specialists as it involves a risk to human lives.
"…this Court emphasizes that the lowering of the standards of medical education has the potential of wreaking havoc on society at large due to the risk that practice of medicine entails; it involves in its ambit the matter of life and death, and therefore, it would be unconscionable for this Court to interfere in the standards duly and diligently set by the governing authority," the Court added.
It noted that the Medical Council of India/ The National Medical Commission is the statutory authority created and constituted under an Act of Parliament, namely Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and has been given the responsibility of discharging the duty of maintaining the highest standards of medical education.
The Public Interest Litigation was moved by three doctors seeking admission into postgraduate courses.
The Petitioners sought for quashing of Regulation 9(3) of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, as amended in April 2018, which prescribed for minimum of 50th percentile as a mandatory requirement for admission to postgraduate courses in respect of General category candidates and 40% percentile for reserved category candidates.
It was the petitioners' case that the percentile system prescribed under Regulation 9(3) of the Postgraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2018 was a faulty system as due to the said system, a large number of seats were lying vacant even though candidates who were efficient and willing were available.
The Petitioners further stated that by way of the amendment in the Regulations, arbitrary percentile systems was introduced which resulted in lack of availability of qualified teachers in the disciplines which were already approved by the MCI for being filled up in the year.
The Petitioners further submitted that the percentile system also resulted in medical colleges filling up the posts of teachers in biochemistry and microbiology by appointing M.Sc/ PhD holders in the said subject due to lack of availability of qualified postgraduate medical students in the above subjects.
The respondents, on the other hand, stated that with reference to the minimum eligibility marks for admission to Postgraduate Medicine Courses as declared by the National Board of Examination, the Petitioners had obtained 180, 108 & 160 marks, respectively, and hence, were far below in merit to even be considered for admission.
The Court was of the view that while considering the validity of subordinate legislation, it will have to consider the nature, object and scheme of the enabling Act and the field over which power has been delegated.
"When the rule is directly inconsistent with mandatory provisions of the statute, it is an easy task for the Court. However, when inconsistency is not with reference to a specific provision, but rather object and scheme of parent Act, then the Court is required to proceed with caution while discerning if the said provision is unconstitutional," the Court added.
The Court thus concluded that the Petitioners were not able to establish any legislative incompetence, violation of Fundamental Rights, violation of any provision of the Constitution of India, arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
"This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that as the Petitioners have failed to discharge the burden upon them to successfully attack the validity of the impugned Regulations, the interference of the Court is not warranted in the instant case," it held.
With the said observations, the plea was dismissed.
Case Title: DR. ABHINAV KUMAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 727