Harshit Agarwal v. Union of India
In short. The case involves two writ petitions concerning the eligibility criteria for admission to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course based on the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) results for the academic year 2020-2021. The core issue is whether the Union of India should lower the qualifying cut-off percentile for BDS admissions as recommended by the Dental Council of India. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the decision of the Union of India not to lower the cut-off, reasoning that sufficient candidates were available to fill the seats without compromising educational standards.
Facts
The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 54 of 2021 are students who did not meet the minimum marks required for BDS admission as per the Dental Council of India’s regulations. They sought a reduction in the qualifying cut-off percentile after the Dental Council recommended such a change. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 95 of 2021 are dental colleges from Andhra Pradesh, also requesting a reduction in the cut-off percentile. The Union of India, however, decided against lowering the cut-off, leading to the filing of these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Arguments
Petitioner Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Central Government has the authority to lower the minimum marks for BDS admission in consultation with the Dental Council. They contended that the Union's refusal to act on the Council's recommendation was arbitrary and unreasonable. They highlighted that a significant number of BDS seats were vacant and that lowering the percentile would not compromise educational standards. The petitioners also pointed out that precedents existed where the cut-off was lowered in previous years for other courses.
Respondent Arguments
The respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, argued that the decision not to lower the cut-off was informed and based on the availability of sufficient candidates to fill the seats. They stated that 7.71 lakh candidates were eligible for the available seats in MBBS and BDS courses, indicating that there was no need to lower the cut-off. The respondents maintained that the integrity of educational standards would be upheld without the need for a reduction in the qualifying marks.
Precedents considered
The court referenced previous instances where the cut-off was lowered for other medical courses, suggesting that such actions were taken based on specific circumstances. However, the court emphasized that the current situation did not warrant a similar approach, given the adequate number of eligible candidates.
Legal principles
The court considered the legal principle that the Central Government has the discretion to set admission criteria in consultation with the Dental Council. The court also evaluated the importance of maintaining educational standards while addressing the issue of vacant seats in dental colleges.
Decision and reasoning
Rationale
The court reasoned that the Union of India's decision was based on a thorough assessment of the candidate pool and the need to maintain educational standards. The court found no arbitrary action in the refusal to lower the cut-off, as sufficient candidates were available to fill the seats. The court also noted that the petitioners did not provide compelling evidence that lowering the cut-off would not affect educational standards.
Outcome
The Supreme Court dismissed both writ petitions, affirming the Union of India's decision not to lower the qualifying cut-off percentile for BDS admissions for the academic year 2020-2021. The court did not provide specific instructions for an appeal process, as the petitions were dismissed.
Conclusion
The judgment underscores the balance between maintaining educational standards and addressing the issue of vacant seats in professional courses. It reinforces the authority of the Central Government in setting admission criteria and highlights the importance of a sufficient candidate pool in making such decisions.
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)
Find the judgments that followed or distinguished it, with the paragraph relied on in each. Two answers free on WhatsApp, no signup.