(NEET-PG) Delhi High Court dismissed a plea challenging the criteria of minimum marks of 50th percentile

Delhi High Court

NEW DELHI:  Recently a Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad of Delhi High Court observed that the practice of medicine involves a matter of life and death, and therefore, it would be unconscionable for the Court to interfere with the standards duly and diligently set by the governing authority of the Exams.

Advocate Varun Singh appeared for the petitioner’s side and Advocates Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, T Singhdev, Michelle Biakthansangi Das and Sumangla Swami appeared for the respondents.

The Court Observed – “This Court, therefore, cannot issue a mandamus directing the Respondents to fill up the seats, especially when the persons concerned have not obtained the minimum percentile as this Court is dealing with admissions to postgraduate courses in various medical colleges, and there cannot be any compromise on the issue of quality of doctors/ specialists as it involves a risk to human lives,”

The Court gave the orders while dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by three doctors seeking admission into postgraduate courses. The petition sought quashing of the Regulation 9(3) of the PG Medical Education Rules (amended in 2018). The Regulation made minimum marks of 50th percentile a mandatory criterion for admission into the PG courses for the general category and 40th percentile for reserved categories.

It was argued that this admission criterion is riddled with faults and it is because of such ‘arbitrary’ regulation that many seats in PG courses are going vacant, which is resulting in a lack of qualified teachers in courses that have already been approved by the Medical Council of India (MCI).

However, the Court has said that the petitioners were not able to make a case of unreasonableness, arbitrariness, violation of fundamental rights, or of lack of legislative competence and violation of any provision of the Constitution.

“Therefore, the question of quashing the statutory provision in the peculiar circumstances of the case does not arise merely because a large number of seats are lying vacant,” the judges said.

The petition was, therefore, dismissed.

We hope that this article helped you In some way or another! For more such information, follow us on InstagramFacebookTwitterYoutubeTelegram, or subscribe to our newsletter.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here