Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Challenge Against Minimum Age Condition In NEET [Read Order]

Update: 2017-06-03 05:30 GMT
story

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the minimum age criteria to participate in NEET.According to the criteria, the candidate must have completed age of 17 years at the time of admission or will complete the age on or before December 31, 2017, i.e., the year of his/her admission to the 1st year M.B.B.S./B.D.S. course.Kuldeep Singh Malik had challenged the...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the minimum age criteria to participate in NEET.

According to the criteria, the candidate must have completed age of 17 years at the time of admission or will complete the age on or before December 31, 2017, i.e., the year of his/her admission to the 1st year M.B.B.S./B.D.S. course.

Kuldeep Singh Malik had challenged the said condition on the ground that no minimum age has been prescribed in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

Terming this contention ‘fallacious’, Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain observed that Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations specifically provided that a candidate, who wanted to seek admission in the MBBS course, should be 17 years of age on the entry date of the admission.

The court also referred to decisions of other high courts in this aspect wherein vires of the Regulations of 4(1) of the Regulations has already been tested and held that the minimum age of a candidate at the time of passing of the qualifying examination, specified by MCI, is neither unseasonable nor arbitrary.

The court also refused to allow the prayer of the petitioner that he be allowed to withdraw the plea and be allowed to avail three chances to appear in NEET and the chance availed of by him, under the order of the court, may not be counted. The court observed that since one chance, availing benefit of court order, by misrepresenting the facts has already been availed of by him, he could avail of two chances more.

Read the Order here.

Full View

Similar News