Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Sir/Madam, In continuation to this Ministry's letter of even number dated 11.06.2018, it is further clarified that the Ministry has received various representations stating that seats are lying vacant due to less number of qualified students in the NEET-2018.

1 In this regard, the matter regarding qualifying criteria has been examined by the Ministry and decided in order to be eligible for admission, it shall be necessary for a candidate to obtain minimum marks at 35 th percentile in NEET-2018. However, in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled castes, Scheduled tribes, Other Backward castes, the minimum marks shall be at 25 th percentile. In respect of the candidates with bench marked Disabilities specified under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the minimum marks shall be at 30th percentile for General Category candidates and 25th percentile for SC/ST/OBC candidates.

-cum-Entrance Test. They have already been made aware that their ranking in the merit list alone would entitle them to seek admission to BHMS course. Eventually this is a Health Science course and all Health Science courses have been brought under one umbrella as far as admissions are concerned. A Common Admission Process and a Common Entrance Test was held. Once NEET UG - 2018 eligible for admission to MBBS and BDS courses is also the basis for admission to BHMS course, then, merely because the candidate belonging to open category is not required to secure fifty percentile marks in Physics Chemistry and Biology taken together at NEET UG-2018 as notified earlier would not mean that the selection is not merit-based. In that regard, our attention is invited to Rule 4.10 which says that a candidate will be selected on the basis of merit in the NEET and even to BAMS and BHMS courses. Earlier, BAMS and BUMS were brought on par with MBBS and BDS courses. BHMS was not included. Thus, dissimilar or distinct courses have been grouped and brought under one umbrella, namely, Health Science courses. A further clarification or distinction cannot be, therefore, pressed into service to urge that in ASWP10665.18.doc merit-based selection, there cannot be introduction of a percentile marks requirement. According to Mr. Limaye when the NEET Brochure was published by the Central Board for Secondary Education (for short "CBSE"), it was already indicated to all concerned that the National- Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test can be taken assistance of so as to admit students to other Health Science courses. The use of any Entrance Test result by other organisations is permitted expressly. Further, while the instructions were issued for the NEET UG-2018 in Chapter VI of the Brochure in that behalf which was published and brought to the knowledge of all concerned by the CBSE, it has been stated that the eligibility criteria for admission to MBBS/BDS courses for a particular Academic Year may necessitate a candidate to obtain minimum of marks at fifty percentile in NEET. It is in these circumstances that fifty percentile was a requirement already known to all concerned. That is not introduced mid-way, but all the States were earlier informed to introduce and apply it to the on-going admission process. In that regard, Mr. Limaye places reliance upon the communications of 12th February, 2018, 21st February, 2018, ASWP10665.18.doc 5th June, 2018 and 11th June, 2018. He says that on 1st November, 2018, the fifty percentile requirement is relaxed to thirty five percent taking into consideration the representation with regard to the vacant seats due to less number of qualified students in NEET UG-2018. Thus, there are relaxations and concessions already given. None can claim a vested right, much less a fundamental right to such concessions and relaxations. Hence, there is no merit in these writ petitions and they deserve to be dismissed. 23 Mr. Limaye's contentions are adopted by the other advocates appearing for the respondents. 24 For properly appreciating the rival contentions it must at once be clarified that here we are are concerned with the Bachelor's Degree in Homoeopathic medicine. The HCC Act, 1973 is an Act to provide for a constitution of a Central Council for Homoeopathy and for maintenance of a Central Register of Homoeopathy and for matters connected therewith.

ASWP10665.18.doc 34 If the criteria is merit based selection, then, we do not see how AYUSH was barred from introducing a requirement of percentile. That is not even the argument of Mr. Thorat. Pertinently Mr. Thorat has not argued by taking an extreme position. He does not say that NEET should not be prescribed for seeking admission nor can it be termed as a necessary eligibility criteria for admission to BHMS Course. He does not argue that prescribing a percentile is not within the ambit and scope of the powers conferred on the Central Council by the HCC Act and the Regulations. He would urge that percentile can be prescribed, but having prescribed it after the admission process has commenced has caused prejudice and resulted in injustice.

40 If one were to vehemently canvass that this is a change brought about in the midst of the admission process, then, one would have to indicate with certainty and clarity that the admission process had already commenced and had reached a certain point after which the situation was irreversible. Far from such a position, the process had not commenced until the online registration and which itself was to go on till 17th June, 2018. The student community as also the Management was thus aware of the communications from AYUSH and first of which they claim is of 11 th June, ASWP10665.18.doc 2018. That is also patently incorrect for Mr. Thorat has candidly stated before us that the Annexures or Exhibits to the petition filed by the Management denote that the NEET was applied much earlier and that requirement was prescribed by the Ministry of AYUSH way back in January / February, 2018. That the percentile was also a policy decision under consideration but finalised and communicated on 11th June, 2018. It was brought to the notice of all concerned by the State authorities on 15th June, 2018. In such circumstances, to then contend that there is a breach of the mandate of Article 14 whereby Rules of the game are changed mid-way or after the process has begun is not a valid and sound plea particularly in law. It appears to be a clear after-thought. It appears to be raised when the Managements and the students together noticed the vacant seats and the students saw in the same, an opportunity to get on-board. Therefore, such of those students who could not achieve the eligibility criteria of fifty percentile together with the Management filed such petitions. They are but handful. Apart from them, nobody else has complained at all. Even these students have taken their chances after ASWP10665.18.doc discovering that they would not meet the eligibility criteria. Far from satisfying it fully, they have chosen to challenge the communications. We do not think that in our extraordinary equitable and discretionary jurisdiction, we can grant any relief to such parties. In our view, the moot question is whether Managements of Educational Institutions can raise such a plea. At best, a candidate who is part of the admission process and seeking a seat can raise a plea that he is prejudiced by a change in the Rules and brought about after the last date of receipt of the application. At best and assuming that in law the plea of legitimate expectation can be raised, it can be by a genuinely aggrieved student. A long heavy burden is cast on him by law and the student would be obliged to substantiate and prove it with proper pleadings and particulars. Before us, the plea is jointly raised by the Management and a few students. This establishes and demonstrates how a weak and feeble attempt is made to serve the object of the Management, but unfortunately students have allowed themselves to be roped in. 41 Apart from that, on merits also, we find that the ASWP10665.18.doc NEET Rules already indicated and with sufficient clarity, the percentile and the requirement in that regard for satisfying the initial eligibility criteria. That was the XIIth (12th) Standard passing with subjects such as Physics Chemistry and Biology. The percentile of that was notified and in that regard, we find a reference being made to BAMS and BUMS courses. What is left out earlier is the BHMS course and finding that this was a Common Admission Process for all Health Science courses that the clarification had to be issued. That clarification was issued by 11 th / 15th June, 2018. Once we find that the change or modification was notified much before the due date and is clarificatory and there is nothing therein which takes the students by surprise, then, all the more we are disinclined to entertain the grievance of the petitioners as also the Management. Ultimately, the understanding of the Academic bodies and students of this concept of percentile is also relevant. The word "percent" as per the Oxford English Dictionary means "By a specified amount in or every hundred, one part in every hundred, the rate, number or amount in each hundred". So is the meaning of the word "percentile". It is ASWP10665.18.doc also a rate, number or amount in each hundred. The word "percentile" means each of the hundred equal groups into which a population can be divided according to the distribution of the values of a particular variable, each of ninety nine intermediate values of a random variation which divide a frequency distribution into hundred such groups. The words "percent" and "percentile" do not surprise or shock those in the Academic circles at all. This is a well known concept. This is also prescribed by the State Education Boards so as to determine the eligibility criteria for admissions to Junior Colleges post clearance of the SSC (10th Standard) qualifying examination. Hence, we do not think that the change or modification is of such a nature that the petitioners had no opportunity to arrange their affairs in terms thereof. That being introduced for the first time allegedly, took them by surprise. The principle or doctrine of legitimate expectation has no place when we have this factual scenario.