Education/Educational Institutions: Admission – Eligibility criteria – Formulation of eligibility standards for admission is within the domain of executive and regulatory authorities. Education/Educational Institutions: NEET-PG 2022 – Admission – Writ petition instituted by doctors, aspirants of NEETPG 2022 challenging the deadline set for completion of internship for appearing for NEET-PG 2022 – Students claimed that the commencement of internships was delayed due to Covid situation and as a consequence they would not be able to fulfill the cut-off date and therefore, sought extention of cut-off date to accommodate them in NEET-PG 2022 – In the alternative, it was alleged that the period spent on Covid duties should be allowed to be counted towards the internship requirements – Held: The authorities have provided cogent reasons as to why the deadline for completing the internship cannot be extended – An extension of the cut-off any further would result in the disruption of the educational schedule, as indicated to the Court by the Additional Solicitor General – Moreover, students who have qualified in terms of the cut-off of
31 July 2022 will be prejudiced by the inevitable postponement of the schedule – Hence, no such directions can be passed – The alternative prayer for inclusion of period of Covid duties in the internship requirements would also involve this Court in micromanaging the curriculum for the completion of medical courses – This is a function which should not be assumed by the Court – Hence, though hardship has been caused to those students whose internship commenced much later, it would not be possible, at this stage, to disturb the schedule as it would affect the other students who fulfill the cut-off date of 31 July 2022 – Petition under Art.32 & ORS.
of the Constitution cannot be entertained – Constitution of India – Art.32.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 While the present cut-off date for the completion of the internship would put certain students at a disadvantage, it is the domain of the executive and regulatory authorities to formulate appropriate eligibility standards for admission. Whenever a cut-off is extended, some students are likely to fall on the other side of the dividing line. [Paras 9, 12][923-A; 925E] Shivam Satyarthee v. Union of India Writ Petition (C) No. 68 of 2022; Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur & Ors. v. Soutrik Sarangi (2021) SCC OnLine SC 826; All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan (2009) 11 SCC
726 : [2009] 3 SCR 859; Rachna v. Union of India & Ors. (2021) 5 SCC 638; State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad (1990) 3 SCC 368 : [1990] 2 SCR 468; Hirandra Kumar v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr. (2020) 17 SCC 401 : [2019] 2 SCR 608 – relied on.
1.2 In the present case, cogent reasons have been provided as to why the deadline for completing the internship cannot be extended. An extension of the cut-off any further would result in the disruption of the educational schedule, as indicated to the Court by the Additional Solicitor General. Moreover, students who have qualified in terms of the cut-off of 31 July 2022 will be prejudiced by the inevitable postponement of the schedule. Hence, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue any such direction. The alternative prayer for the inclusion of the period of Covid duties in the internship requirements would also involve this Court in micro-managing the curriculum for the completion of medical courses. This is a function which should not be assumed by the Court. Hence, though hardship has been caused to those students whose internship commenced much later, it would not be possible, at this stage, to disturb the schedule as it would affect the other students who fulfill the cut-off date of 31 July 2022. [Para 14][927-E-H]
Poulami Mondal & Ors. v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors. 2022 (6) SCALE 70 – distinguished.
2. Crucially, the case dealt with conducting of an examination during a pandemic where strict lockdowns were in place. It did not relate to fixing of a cut-off date, which is bound to exclude some aspirants and include others. The law is clear that such exclusion will always be incidental to fixing of any cut-off date and cannot be termed arbitrary. Thus, it would not be appropriate to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. [Paras 15 and 16][928-G-H; 929-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.