LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court should direct the lowering of the cut-off percentile for admission to Super Specialty courses and direct the Medical Counselling Committee to conduct a mop-up round to fill vacant seats.
CASE TYPE: Education Law, specifically relating to medical admissions.
Case Name: NIMS University vs. Union of India and Others
Judgment Date: May 9, 2022
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: May 9, 2022
Citation: WP (C) No 316 of 2022
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Surya Kant, J
Should the Supreme Court interfere with the government’s decision not to lower the cut-off percentile for NEET Super Specialty admissions, especially when many seats remain vacant? This question was at the heart of a recent case before the Supreme Court of India. The Court was asked to direct the lowering of the cut-off percentile for admission to Super Specialty courses and to order the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) to conduct a mop-up round to fill vacant seats. The bench, comprising Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant, delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The petitioner, NIMS University, approached the Supreme Court seeking directions to lower the cut-off percentile for admission to Super Specialty courses. They also requested that the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) conduct a mop-up round of NEET-Super Specialty counselling to fill the vacant seats for DM/MCh courses. The core of the issue was that a significant number of Super Specialty seats were vacant for the academic year 2021-2022, and the petitioners argued that these seats would be wasted if not filled.
The Medical Council of India (now National Medical Commission) had issued a notification on April 5, 2018, stating that candidates needed to obtain a minimum of the 50th percentile in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for postgraduate courses to be eligible for admission. This percentile was reduced to the 40th for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes and 45th for candidates with benchmark disabilities for the General Category and 40th for SC/ST/OBC. The notification also included a provision allowing the Central Government, in consultation with the Medical Council of India, to lower the minimum marks if sufficient candidates did not meet the criteria.
For the academic year 2021-2022, the respondents declined to use the above provision to lower the eligibility percentile below 50. The petitioners argued that this decision led to a large number of vacant seats, which would be a waste of resources. They highlighted that in previous years (2019-2020 and 2020-2021), the cut-off percentile had been reduced to 30 and 45, respectively, for postgraduate courses.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 5, 2018 | Medical Council of India issued a notification setting the minimum percentile for NEET postgraduate admissions. |
| 2019-2020 | Cut-off percentile for postgraduate courses was reduced to 30. |
| 2020-2021 | Cut-off percentile for postgraduate courses was reduced to 45. |
| May 4, 2022 | Meeting convened by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare decided against lowering the percentile for Super Specialty courses. |
| May 9, 2022 | Supreme Court disposes of the writ petition, ordering a mop-up round while maintaining the 50th percentile. |
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the following:
-
Gazette Notification No. MCI-19(I)/2018-Med./100818, issued by the Medical Council of India on April 5, 2018. This notification specifies the minimum percentile required for admission to postgraduate courses. It states:
“In order to be eligible for admission to Postgraduate Course for an academic year, it shall be necessary for a candidate to obtain minimum of marks at 50th percentile in the ‘National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate courses’ held for the said academic year. However, in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, the minimum marks shall be at 40th percentile. In respect of candidates with benchmark disabilities specified under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, the minimum marks shall be at 45th percentile for General Category and 40th percentile for SC/ST/OBC. The percentile shall be determined on the basis of highest marks secured in the All India Common merit list in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate courses.
Provided when sufficient number of candidates in the respective categories fail to secure minimum marks as prescribed in National Eligibility-cum-Entrances Test held for any academic year for admission to Postgraduate Courses, the Central Government in consultation with Medical Council of India may at its discretion lower the minimum marks required for admission to Post Graduate Course for candidates belonging to respective categories and marks so lowered by the Central Government shall be applicable for the academic year only.” - The proviso to Regulation 9(3) of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000, which allows the Central Government to lower the minimum marks for admission to PG courses in consultation with the National Medical Commission when a sufficient number of candidates fail to secure minimum marks.
Arguments
The arguments presented by both sides are summarized below:
Petitioner’s Arguments
-
The petitioner argued that 940 Super Specialty seats were vacant for the academic year 2021-2022. They contended that not filling these seats would be a waste of valuable resources.
-
The petitioner highlighted that in previous academic years (2019-2020 and 2020-2021), the cut-off percentile was reduced for postgraduate courses. They argued that there was no reason to treat Super Specialty courses differently.
-
The petitioner relied on the decision in Harshit Agarwal and Others v Union of India and Others [(2021) 2 SCC 710], where the Court had directed the lowering of the minimum marks for BDS courses.
Respondent’s Arguments
-
The respondents stated that a significant portion of the vacant seats were in specialized fields like Cardiology, Pediatric Surgery, Neurology, and Nephrology, where vacancies are common.
-
For the academic year 2021-2022, 13,000 candidates appeared for the NEET-Super Specialty examination, and 9,850 were eligible for 4,691 seats.
-
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare convened a meeting on May 4, 2022, and decided against lowering the cut-off percentile to maintain the standards of Super Specialty courses.
-
The respondents argued that lowering the cut-off would compromise merit, which is essential for doctors dealing with life-and-death situations in Super Specialty courses.
-
The respondents distinguished the case of Harshit Agarwal and Others v Union of India and Others [(2021) 2 SCC 710], stating that the Dental Council of India had recommended lowering the cut-off percentile for BDS courses, which was not the case for Super Specialty courses.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Petitioners | Sub-Submissions by Respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Lowering of Cut-off Percentile | ✓ 940 Super Specialty seats are vacant. ✓ Previous years saw reduction in percentile for PG courses. ✓ Relied on Harshit Agarwal and Others v Union of India and Others [(2021) 2 SCC 710]. |
✓ Vacancies are in specialized fields. ✓ Sufficient candidates were eligible. ✓ Lowering percentile would compromise merit. ✓ Distinguished Harshit Agarwal and Others v Union of India and Others [(2021) 2 SCC 710]. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the Court should direct the lowering of the cut-off percentile for admission to Super Specialty courses.
- Whether the Court should direct the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) to conduct a mop-up round of NEET-Super Specialty counselling to fill up vacant seats.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether to direct lowering of cut-off percentile | No | The Court held that the decision to not lower the percentile was a matter of academic policy and the reasons given by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare were neither extraneous nor arbitrary. Super Specialty courses cannot be equated with postgraduate courses and maintaining standards is paramount. |
| Whether to direct a mop-up round | Yes | The Court directed that a mop-up round of counselling be held for the vacant seats, including stray vacancies, while maintaining the 50th percentile for the year 2021-2022. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Type | How it was used | Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harshit Agarwal and Others v Union of India and Others [(2021) 2 SCC 710] | Case Law | The court distinguished this case, noting that the Dental Council of India had recommended lowering the cut-off percentile for BDS courses, which was not the case for Super Specialty courses. | Supreme Court of India |
| Gazette Notification No. MCI-19(I)/2018-Med./100818 | Notification | The court considered the notification issued by the Medical Council of India on April 5, 2018, which specified the minimum percentile required for admission to postgraduate courses. | Medical Council of India |
| Regulation 9(3) of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000 | Regulation | The court considered the proviso that allows the Central Government to lower the minimum marks for admission to PG courses in consultation with the National Medical Commission. | National Medical Commission |
Judgment
The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Petitioners’ request to lower the cut-off percentile | Rejected. The Court upheld the decision of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare not to lower the percentile, stating it was a matter of academic policy and not arbitrary. |
| Petitioners’ request for a mop-up round | Accepted. The Court directed the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) to conduct a mop-up round of counselling for the vacant seats, including stray vacancies, while maintaining the 50th percentile. |
The Court viewed the authorities as follows:
- Harshit Agarwal and Others v Union of India and Others [(2021) 2 SCC 710]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the Dental Council of India had recommended lowering the cut-off percentile for BDS courses, which was not the case for Super Specialty courses.
- Gazette Notification No. MCI-19(I)/2018-Med./100818: The Court acknowledged the notification that specifies the minimum percentile required for admission to postgraduate courses but did not find it necessary to deviate from the stated percentile for Super Specialty courses.
- Regulation 9(3) of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000: The Court acknowledged the provision that allows the Central Government to lower the minimum marks for admission to PG courses but did not find this provision applicable in the present case.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain the standards of Super Specialty medical education. The Court emphasized that these courses are at the apex of the academic spectrum and that compromising on merit would be detrimental to the quality of healthcare.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of maintaining standards in Super Specialty courses | 40% |
| The decision of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was not arbitrary | 30% |
| Distinction between Super Specialty and postgraduate courses | 20% |
| Need to fill vacant seats | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was as follows:
The Court considered the argument that the cut-off percentile had been reduced for postgraduate courses in previous years but rejected it, stating that Super Specialty courses are different. The Court also considered the fact that many seats were vacant but ultimately prioritized maintaining standards over filling all seats.
The Court stated:
“The reasons which have weighed with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in declining to reduce the percentile cannot be regarded as extraneous or arbitrary.”
The Court also observed:
“Super specialty courses cannot be equated with post graduate courses or for that matter with the percentile fixed for under graduate admission.”
Further, the Court noted:
“If a considered decision is taken not to lower standards by reducing the percentile fixed for eligibility, such a decision cannot be faulted.”
There were no dissenting opinions.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare not to lower the cut-off percentile for NEET Super Specialty admissions for the academic year 2021-2022.
- The Court emphasized that maintaining standards in Super Specialty courses is paramount and cannot be compromised.
- The Court directed the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) to conduct a mop-up round of counselling to fill the vacant seats, including stray vacancies, while maintaining the 50th percentile.
- This judgment reinforces the importance of merit in medical education, especially at the Super Specialty level.
- The decision highlights the difference in treatment between postgraduate and Super Specialty courses.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) to conduct a mop-up round of counselling for the vacant seats, including stray vacancies, while maintaining the 50th percentile for the academic year 2021-2022.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the decision to not lower the cut-off percentile for Super Specialty courses is a matter of academic policy and not arbitrary. The Court emphasized the need to maintain standards in Super Specialty medical education and distinguished it from postgraduate courses. This decision reinforces the principle that merit is a crucial factor in medical admissions, especially at the highest levels of specialization. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare not to lower the cut-off percentile for NEET Super Specialty admissions for the academic year 2021-2022. While acknowledging the large number of vacant seats, the Court prioritized maintaining the standards of Super Specialty medical education. The Court did, however, direct the MCC to conduct a mop-up round of counselling to fill the vacant seats, while maintaining the 50th percentile. This judgment underscores the importance of merit and standards in medical education, particularly at the Super Specialty level.