Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2019 INSC 128
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2019 INSC 128
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Smart Summary

Association of Managements of Homeopathic Medical Colleges of Maharashtra v. Union of India & Ors.

Civil Appeal No. 1393 of 2019 (with Civil Appeal Nos. 1395 and 1394 of 2019) | Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Coram: L. Nageswara Rao, J.; M.R. Shah, J. | Date: February 1, 2019 | Disposition: Appeals disposed of

Factual and Procedural Background

The Ministry of AYUSH (Government of India) issued letters dated 12 February 2018 and 5 June 2018 instructing all State Governments and concerned universities to admit students to AYUSH undergraduate courses on the basis of the NEET merit list for the academic year 2018–19. On 11 June 2018, the Government of India informed State Governments that candidates seeking admission to AYUSH undergraduate courses must obtain a minimum of the 50th percentile in NEET. Pursuant to this, Respondent No. 3 issued a notice dated 15 June 2018 announcing the changed eligibility criteria (50th percentile for open category; 40th percentile for reserved category).

Earlier, on 5 February 2018, Respondent No. 3 had issued an information brochure for NEET UG-2018 for admission to various Health Science courses including BHMS, scheduling the entrance test for 6 May 2018 with results to be declared in the first week of June 2018. After declaration of results, Respondent No. 3 issued a notice on 6 June 2018 for online registration. The change to percentile-based eligibility followed on 11 June 2018.

The Appellant Association made a representation to Respondent No. 1 on 28 August 2018 expressing concerns that many seats would remain unfilled if the altered standards were strictly followed. Receiving no response, the Appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging Respondent No. 1’s letter dated 11 June 2018 and Respondent No. 3’s consequential notice. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the student community knew of the criterion before the last date of registration (17 June 2018) and that introducing a minimum percentile in a merit-based selection was not unjustified; it also rejected the contention that regulations were altered by executive fiat. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed these Civil Appeals in the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the introduction on 11 June 2018 of a minimum percentile in NEET as an eligibility criterion could be applied to the ongoing 2018–19 BHMS admissions in Maharashtra.
  2. In view of directions issued by several High Courts in other States permitting admissions without reference to NEET UG-2018 results, whether the Appellant institutions could be permitted, for 2018–19, to admit students based on the eligibility criteria in the 5 February 2018 information brochure rather than the 11 June 2018 letter and 15 June 2018 notice.
  3. Whether relief could be granted notwithstanding the nominal last date for AYUSH undergraduate admissions (15 November 2018), considering extensions granted by a High Court and the existence of vacant seats.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant-Management and Students

  • The grievance was against introducing the percentile method in June 2018 in the midst of the admission process, rendering many candidates ineligible for BHMS and resulting in vacant seats for 2018–19.
  • Various High Courts had permitted admissions based on marks in the qualifying examinations without reference to NEET UG-2018 results; similar relief was sought.
  • Leaving seats unfilled benefits no one and deprives aspiring students of admission opportunities for the 1st year BHMS course.

Respondents (Union of India and Others)

  • The last date for AYUSH undergraduate admissions was 15 November 2018; no relief should be granted after expiry of the deadline.
  • The policy decision to stipulate a minimum percentile for admission was justified; although the minimum was revised from the 50th to the 35th percentile to address concerns about vacancies, any further reduction would compromise educational standards.
  • Colleges should not be permitted to admit students after the deadline, and students admitted late would not meet the minimum number of working days.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Patna High Court, CWJC No. 2018, dated 10.10.2018 Directions permitting admissions based on qualifying examination marks without reference to NEET UG-2018. Noted to show that in some States NEET minimum marks were not required, leading to non-uniformity.
Karnataka High Court, WP Nos. 41486-534/2018, 43286-287/2018 & 43304-308/2018, dated 11.10.2018 Same principle: admissions permitted without reference to NEET UG-2018 marks. Considered to justify parity in relief due to differing standards across States.
Madras High Court, WP No. 27006/2018 with WMP Nos. 31410, 31417, 31419/2018, dated 22.10.2018 Same principle. Relied upon to demonstrate lack of uniformity in admissions for 2018–19.
Rajasthan High Court, S.B. Civil Writ No. 16430/2018, dated 24.10.2018 Same principle. Used to support granting relief similar to that granted in other States.
Punjab & Haryana High Court, CWP No. 22482/2018 and connected CMs, dated 26.10.2018 Same principle. Considered as part of the body of High Court orders not challenged by the Union.
Allahabad High Court, Misc. Single Nos. including 31973/2018 & 32653/2018, dated 15.11.2018 Same principle; also extended the last date for admissions to 20.12.2018. Noted for both non-uniformity and extension of the admission deadline in that State.
Calcutta High Court, WP 22539(W)/2018 & WP 22542(W)/2018, dated 05.12.2018 Same principle. Contributed to the Court’s conclusion that uniform relief was warranted.

The learned Additional Solicitor General stated that none of the above High Court judgments/orders had been challenged.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

  • The Court acknowledged that the last date for admissions was 15 November 2018, but noted that the Allahabad High Court had extended the last date to 20 December 2018.
  • It was common ground that there were vacant seats for 1st year BHMS admissions in Maharashtra.
  • The Court reviewed multiple High Court orders from different States permitting admissions based on qualifying examination marks without reference to NEET UG-2018 results. These orders, which were not challenged, meant that in some States securing minimum marks in NEET was not required for 2018–19.
  • Given this lack of uniformity in admissions across States and the existence of vacant seats, the Court held that the Appellants were entitled to relief for the 2018–19 academic year in Maharashtra.
  • Accordingly, the Court directed that admissions to 1st year BHMS for 2018–19 be conducted on the basis of the eligibility criteria in the information brochure dated 5 February 2018, without reference to Respondent No. 1’s letter dated 11 June 2018 and Respondent No. 3’s consequential notice. It specified that a candidate who has secured minimum marks in NEET UG-2018 shall be eligible for admission.
  • Recognizing the delay beyond the usual timelines, the Court set a firm schedule to complete admissions and required colleges to hold extra classes to satisfy minimum working day requirements.
  • The Court expressly stated that the order was passed in the peculiar facts of the case, should not be treated as a precedent, and that it expressed no opinion on the introduction of a minimum percentile as an eligibility criterion in NEET.
  • In a related appeal concerning Ayurvedic medical colleges, the Court, after noting the submission that they stand on a different footing, concluded that the issue was the same (introduction of minimum percentile in NEET for 2018–19 UG admissions) and disposed of that appeal on the same terms.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeals were DISPOSED OF. For the 2018–19 academic session in Maharashtra, the Appellant-Association is permitted to admit students to the 1st year BHMS course based on the eligibility criteria in the 5 February 2018 information brochure, without reference to Respondent No. 1’s 11 June 2018 letter and Respondent No. 3’s 15 June 2018 notice. Candidates who have secured minimum marks in NEET UG-2018 are eligible. Admissions must be completed strictly on merit by 15 February 2019, and colleges must conduct extra classes to meet minimum working days. The related appeal concerning Ayurvedic colleges is disposed of on the same terms.

Implications: The decision provides one-time, parity-based relief for 2018–19 due to non-uniform admission practices across States and the existence of vacant seats. It permits admissions beyond the usual deadline under court supervision. The Court emphasized that this order is confined to the peculiar facts, is not a precedent, and it expressed no opinion on the broader validity of introducing a minimum percentile in NEET. Consequently, no new legal principle was established; the direct effect is limited to the parties and the specified academic session.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Association Of Managements Of Homeopathic Medical Colleges Of Maharashtra v. Union Of India And Others

    Non -Reportable

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1393 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 766 of 2019 ] Association of Managements of Homeopathic Medical Colleges of Maharashtra .... Appellant Versus

    Union of India & Ors. ….Respondents

    W I T H

    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1395 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 767 of 2019 ] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1394 of 2019

    [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 158 of 2019 ]

    J U D G M E N T

    L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

    Leave granted.

    1. The Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Homoeopathy (AYUSH), Government of India by letters dated 12th February, 2018 and 5thJune, 2018 instructed all the State Governments and the concerned universities to admit students in AYUSH under-

    1

    graduate courses on the basis of the in NEET merit list for the academic year 2018-19. By a letter dated 11thJune, 2018, the Government of India informed the State Governments that a candidate seeking admission to AYUSH under-graduate courses shall obtain minimum of marks at 50thpercentile in NEET. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.3 by a notice dated 15thJune, 2018 informed all the candidates about the changed eligibility criteria, namely, the introduction of the requirement of 50thpercentile for open category and 40thpercentile for reserved category. The Appellant-Association filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the legality of the aforementioned letter dated 11thJune, 2018 of Respondent No.1 and notice dated 15thJune, 2018 of Respondent No.3 which was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, these Appeals have been filed.

    2. According to the Central Council of Homoeopathy (Degree Course) B.H.M.S. Regulations, 1983, a candidate should have passed the 10+2 or other equivalent examination after a period of 12 years' study with the last two years of study comprising of Physics, Chemistry and Biology for admission to 1styear BHMS course. On 5thFebruary, 2018, an information brochure was issued by Respondent No.3 for NEET UG - 2018 for admission to Health Science courses i.e. MBBS/

    2

    BDS/ BAMS/ BHMS/ BUMS/ BPTh/ BOTh/ BASLP/ BP&O/ B.Sc. (Nursing) in all Medical Educational Institutions in a State/ Union territory, including Medical Educational Institutions established by the Central Government, State Government, University, Deemed University, Trust, Society/ Minority Institutions/ Corporations/ Corporations or a company. The schedule for the entrance examination for admissions for the year 2018-19 was given in the information brochure. The entrance test was scheduled to be conducted on 6thMay, 2018 and the results were to be declared by the first week of June, 2018. After the declaration of results of NEET UG - 2018, a notice was issued on 6thJune, 2018 by Respondent No.3 for online registration. In the meanwhile, the eligibility criteria for admission to BHMS Degree Course was altered by Respondent No.1 by a letter dated 11thJune, 2018 pursuant to which a notice was issued by Respondent No.3. As per the changed criteria in the letter dated 11thJune, 2018, a candidate from the open category will be eligible for admission only if he/she secured not less than 50thpercentile of the marks in NEET-2018. A candidate belonging to the reserved category should secure not less than 40thpercentile of the marks which shall be determined on the basis of highest marks secured in the all India common merit list in NEET- 2018.

    3

    3. The Appellant-Association made a representation to the Respondent No.1 on 28thAugust, 2018 in which they stated that a large number of seats will remain unfilled if the altered standards are strictly followed. As there was no response from the Respondent, the Appellant-Association filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the letter dated 11thJune, 2018 of Respondent No.1 and the consequential notice of Respondent No.3. The main contention of the Appellant in the Writ Petition was that the altered standards for admission introduced by letter dated 11thJune, 2018 should not be applied to the ongoing admission process and that the admissions for the year 2018-19 should be conducted in accordance with the information brochure which was issued on 5th February, 2018. The Appellant-Association was not aggrieved by the introduction of the NEET examination for admission into the BHMS course. The only submission made on behalf of the Appellant was that the percentile method should not have been prescribed after the commencement of the admission process. The High Court rejected the said submission by holding that the student community was aware about the criterion fixed for the admissions on 11thJune, 2018 before the online process started much before the last date of registration on 17thJune, 2018. As the selection is on the basis of merit, according to

    4

    the High Court, introduction of minimum percentile cannot be said to be unjustified. The point urged on behalf of the Appellant that the relevant regulations have been altered or modified by an executive fiat was also rejected by the High Court.

    4. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Management and Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the students submitted that the grievance is regarding the introduction of the percentile method in June, 2018 in the midst of the admission process thereby making a large number of candidates ineligible for admission to the BHMS course. Such introduction of the percentile method resulted in a number of seats remaining vacant for the academic session 2018-19. They have referred to several orders passed by the various High Courts permitting admission of candidates on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examinations without taking into account the result of NEET UG-2018. It was further submitted that it is to nobody's benefit that a large number of seats remain unfilled for this academic session. On the other hand, several aspiring students would be deprived of an opportunity for admission to the 1styear BHMS course. Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Respondent No.1, supported the judgment of the High Court stating

    5

    that the last date for admission to the AYUSH undergraduate courses was 15thNovember, 2018 and no relief can be granted to the Appellants. She supported the policy decision of the Respondents on the basis of which the minimum percentile was stipulated for admission to the 1styear BHMS course. She submitted that the minimum of 50thpercentile in NEET was revised to 35thpercentile on the basis of the representation made on behalf of the Appellants that several seats would remain unfilled. She further stated that any further reduction in the minimum percentile would adversely affect the standards of education. Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, and Mr. Vinay Navare, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3, supported the learned Additional Solicitor General. They contended that the colleges should not be permitted to make admissions as the last date for admissions had expired long back on 15thNovember, 2018. Mr. Navare submitted that the students will not be able to complete the minimum number of working days.

    5. We have perused the judgments and orders passed by the High Courts of Patna1, Karnataka2, Madras3, Rajasthan4, Punjab & Haryana5,

    1 CWJC No. 201 8 dated 1 0.1 0.201 8

    2 WP Nos. 41486-534/2 018, WP Nos. 432 86-2 87/2 018 & WP Nos. 43304-308/ 2 018 dated 11.10.2018

    3 WP No.27006/2018, WMP Nos. 3 1410, 3 1417 and 3 1419/ 2018 dated 22.10.2018

    4 S.B. Civil Writ No.164 30/2018 dated 24 .10.2018

    5 CWP No.22482/2018, CM-15 991-CWP-2018, CM-15 992-CWP-2018, CM-16065 -CWP-2018 & CM- 16066-CWP-2018 dated 26.10.2018

    6

    Allahabad6and Kolkata.7Directions were issued in favour of the students permitting admissions on the basis of the marks in the qualifying examination without reference to the marks secured by them in the NEET UG-2018 examination. The learned Additional Solicitor General fairly submitted that none of the judgments or orders passed by the High Courts have been challenged.

    6. Though the last date for admission to the BHMS course was 15th November, 2018, we are informed that the last date was extended till 20thDecember, 2018 by the Allahabad High Court. Though there is no agreement on the exact number of vacant seats, it is common ground that there are vacant seats for admission to the 1styear BHMS course in the State of Maharashtra. As there is no uniformity in the matter of admission to the 1styear BHMS course for the year 2018-19, as securing minimum marks in NEET is not required in some States pursuant to orders of the High Courts, we are of the opinion that the Appellants are entitled to the relief of admissions being made without reference to the letter dated 11thJune, 2018 of Respondent No.1 and the consequential notice of Respondent No.3. In other words, the Appellant-Association should be permitted to make admissions to the

    6 MISC. Single Nos .1846 4/2018, 17541/2018, 18747/2018, 31305/2018, 31306 /2018, 31308/2018, 31309/2018, 31310/2018, 31311/2018, 31312/2018, 31313/2018, 31314/2018, 31315/2018, 31316/2018, 31317/2018, 31318/2018, 31319/2018, 31320/2018, 31321/2018, 31322/2018, 31323/2018, 31324/2018, 31727/2018, 31733/2018, 31741/2018, 31749/2018, 31753/2018, 31757/2018, 31761/2018, 31901/2018, 31973/2018 & 32653/2018 dated 15.11.2018.

    7 WP 22539(W)/ 2018 & WP 22542 (W) 2018 dated 05.12.2018

    7

    1styear BHMS course for the academic session 2018-19 on the basis of the eligibility criteria mentioned in the information brochure dated 5th February, 2018. A candidate who has secured minimum marks in the NEET UG-2018 shall be eligible for admission to the 1styear BHMS course for the academic year 2018-19.

    7. As two months have passed after the last date of admission to the 1styear BHMS course i.e. 15thNovember, 2018, we direct the Appellants to complete the process of admissions strictly on the basis of the merit by 15thFebruary, 2019. The Managements of the colleges are directed to hold extra classes for students who will be admitted pursuant to this order to comply with the requirements of minimum working days. This order which is passed in the peculiar facts of the case shall not be treated as a precedent. No opinion is expressed by us regarding the introduction of the minimum percentile as an eligibility criteria in the NEET examination.

    8. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.

    CIVIL APPEAL NO.______________ of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 158 of 2019 ]

    Leave granted.

    8

    Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Respondent No.1, pointed out that the Ayurvedic medical colleges stand on a different footing in comparison to the Homoeopathy medical colleges. We have carefully examined the material on record and we are convinced that the issue in this Appeal is the same as that of Homoeopathy colleges, namely, the introduction of minimum percentile in the NEET for admission to the UG courses for the year 2018-19. Therefore, this Appeal is disposed of in terms of the judgment in Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 766 and 767 of 2019.

    ..................................J.

    [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

    ..................................J.

    [M.R. SHAH]

    New Delhi, February 1, 2019.

    9

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Association Of Manag... v. Union Of India And O...
    (Feb 1, 2019)