This common order dismisses multiple writ petitions challenging the applicability of NEET-2016 for admission to Category-C seats in Unaided Private Medical Colleges. The High Court held that G.O.Ms.No.129, issued under the Supreme Court direction, was valid and that CBSE had the authority to prescribe minimum percentile marks for eligibility.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
% Date: 28-11-2015
# Betw een:
Bommaku Rohitha
… PETITIONER
And
! Counsel for Petitioner : : Sri T. Lakshminarayana
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao
Mr. Taddi Nagesw ara Rao
Mr. P. Venugopal
< GI ST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.33111/2016 & batch
2
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE G. SHYAM PRASAD
WRI T PETI TI ON Nos. 33111, 34362, 34423, 34424, 34425, 34555, 30608, 32743, 32802, 32803, 32817 & 32837 of 2016
W.P.No.33111/ 2016
Betw een:
Bommaku Rohitha
PETITIONER
And
RESPONSENTS
VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.33111/2016 & batch
3
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE G. SHYAM PRASAD
WRI T PETI TI ON Nos. 33111, 34362, 34423, 34424, 34425, 34555, 30608, 32743, 32802, 32803, 32817 & 32837 of 2016
COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian)
The petitioners in all these writ petitions appeared for NEET-2016 after passing the Intermediate/higher secondary examination and also after passing EAMCET-III. Contending that their mere appearance in EAMCET-III is sufficient and that the respondents cannot insist on any qualifying percentile marks in NEET-2016 to secure admission to Category-C seats under the NRI quota to Private Unaided Medical and Dental Colleges, the petitioners have come up with the present writ petitions.
VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.33111/2016 & batch
4
appearing for Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, and Mr. P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mediciti Institute of Medical Sciences, which is one of the respondents in these writ petitions.
a) That admission to medical courses in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh is governed by G.O.Ms.No.39 Health, Medical and Family Welfare, dated 20.05.2015 and that therefore, even for admission to Category-C seats, the respondents are not entitled to insist upon a rank in NEET-2016, merely on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.129 dated 12.09.2016 and also on the basis of the direction of the Supreme Court issued in Vigyan Bharati Trust v. Union of I ndia and Ors ., dated 11.05.2016;
b) That the respondents have relied upon the instructions issued by the CBSE at the time of conduct of NEET, without taking into account the fact that CBSE has no role to play in the matter of determination of eligibility for admission;
c) That the very prescription contained in the Information Bulletin issued by CBSE, is contrary to the statutory prescription and the CBSE, which has no legislative competency, cannot dictate as to the eligibility criteria for admission to medical courses;
d) That under Section 3A of the A.P. Act 5/1983, which still holds the field, all the admissions to Unaided Private Medical Colleges, to the extent of one half of the total number of seats, can be filled up by the educational institutions;
VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.33111/2016 & batch
5
e) That the direction issued by the Supreme Court on 11.05.2016 cannot be equated to the law laid down by the Supreme Court so as to have a binding effect;
f) That when the petitioners fulfill the eligibility criteria, viz., a pass in the intermediate/higher secondary examination with high marks and a pass in EAMCET as well as NEET, they cannot be disqualified merely on the basis of the instructions issued by the CBSE.
Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, it is submitted by Mr. P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the Private Unaided Medical Colleges, that the Private Unaided Medical Colleges admitted students on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.39 and on the basis of their participation in NEET-2016 apart from the interim directions issued by this Court in several of the writ petitions. Therefore, his contention is that the private institutions were not at fault for admitting the writ petitioners. But now the university has rejected the approval of such admissions, throwing these colleges completely out of gear. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the colleges cannot be punished for something that they were not responsible for.
revolves around G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 20.05.2015. The said Government Order was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 and 15 of the A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and prohibition of capitation fee) Act, 1983, hereinafter referred to as A.P. Act No.5/1983. By the said Government Order certain amendments were made to the Rules issued in 2007. Those rules are known as the A.P.
VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.33111/2016 & batch
6
Unaided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulations of Admissions into Under Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules, 2007. Under paragraph-4 of the amended Rules, the managements of private institutions were permitted to fill up Category-C seats. Under the amended Rule 6 (C), issued under G.O.Ms.No.39, the Private Unaided Institutions were permitted to fill up the seats under Category-C, according to the merit list prepared by the colleges from the applicants.
VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.33111/2016 & batch
7
learned counsel for the petitioners. The rules of the game were never changed after the game started. As a matter of fact, the direction issued by the Supreme Court to follow NEET, was dated 11.05.2016 when the game had not even been commenced. G.O.Ms.No.129, was actually in implementation of the direction issued by the Supreme Court. The last date for admission to medical courses for the current year was 30.09.2016. It was later extended up to 07.10.2016 then to 14.10.2016. G.O.Ms.No.129 was merely a reflection of the direction issued by the Supreme Court in Vignana Bharati Trust v. Union of I ndia and others . This can be verified from the fact that the order of the Supreme Court is cited as the 10th reference under G.O.Ms.No.129. Hence the first contention that G.O.Ms.No.129 cannot hold the field, is liable to be rejected. As a matter of fact, it is not open to the petitioners to take such a contention at all. None of the petitioners challenged G.O.Ms.No.129. All the petitioners appeared for NEET-2016 without challenging the requirement of NEET-2016. Therefore, to say that NEET-2016 is not applicable, is contrary to the very participation of the petitioners in the game, subject to the very same Rule. Hence, the first contention requires to be rejected. Accordingly it is rejected.
VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.33111/2016 & batch
8
VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.33111/2016 & batch
9
admission to MBBS/BDS Courses for candidates belonging to respective categories and marks so lowered by the Central Government shall be applicable for the said academic year only.
c) To be eligible for the admission to MBBS/BDS Courses, a candidate must have passed in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Biotechnology and English individually and must have obtained a minimum of 50% marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Bio-technology at the Qualifying Examination as mentioned in Graduate Medical Education Regulations-1997 and BDS Course Regulations, 2007 and in addition must have come in the merit list of National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses. In respect of the candidates belonging to the SC, ST and OBC category the marks obtained in Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Bio-technology taken in qualifying examination and competitive examination (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) be 40% marks instead of 50%. In respect of candidates with locomotory disability of lower limbs, the minimum of 45% marks for Gen-PH and 40% marks for SC-PH/STPH/OBC-PH are required. Provided that a candidate who has appeared in the qualifying examination the result of which has not been declared, he may be provisionally permitted to take up the competitive entrance examination and in case of selection for admission to the MBBS/BDS courses, he shall not be admitted to that course until he fulfils the eligibility criteria as specified above.
A list of the successful candidates in order of All India Rank based on the score obtained in the examination will be prepared by the Board.
VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.33111/2016 & batch
10
with the task of conducting an examination, especially a competitive examination, is certainly entitled to fix the pass percentage. The prescription of pass percentile or percentage is incidental to the job entrusted to them. Therefore, the third contention is also liable to be rejected.
1 (1992) 3 ALT 99
VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.33111/2016 & batch
11
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by making NEET-2016 mandatory for admission to medical courses. Therefore, the contention that the petitioners have secured high marks in the qualifying examination, does not hold good at all.
“As seen from the results of the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test-2016 released by the Central Board of Secondary Education, the petitioner secured minus 9 (-9) marks out of a total of 180 in Physics, 6 marks out of 180 in Chemistry, 57 out of 360 in combined paper of Botany & Zoology, aggregating to 54 marks out of a total of 720 marks. As per the rules, the percentile score of the petitioner is calculated at 11.465312. The cut off marks for general category candidates is 145, for OBC candidates is 118 and for SC & ST is also 118.”
VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.33111/2016 & batch
12
21. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________ JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN
_______________________ JUSTI CE G. SHYAM PRASAD
28th November, 2016 Js.
L.R. Copy to be marked
VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.33111/2016 & batch
13
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE G. SHYAM PRASAD
WRI T PETI TI ON Nos. 33111, 34362, 34423, 34424, 34425, 34555, 30608, 32743, 32802, 32803, 32817 & 32837 of 2016
Date: 28-11-2016
Js.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether G.O.Ms.No.129 dated 12.09.2016 mandating NEET percentile for Category-C seats holds the field despite petitions appearing after its issue.
Whether the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has the jurisdiction to prescribe minimum percentile eligibility for medical course admissions.
Whether petitioners with high intermediate marks are eligible for admission without meeting NEET percentile requirements.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vigyan Bharati Trust v. Union of India and Ors.Referred¶8
Vigyan Bharati Trust v. Union of India and Ors
Krantі Sangram Parishad v. Sri N.J. ReddyDistinguished¶16
Krantі Sangram Parishad v. Sri N.J. Reddy
State of A.P. and Ors. v. Kondragunta Venkata RaghavendraReferred¶18
W.P.No.34558 of 2016
(1992) 3 ALT 99Referred¶79
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Bommaku Rohitha
Union of India
V. RAMASUBRAMANI
G. SHYAM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
