Medical / Dental Education — NEET — BDS Admissions — Lowering of Minimum Percentile — Power of Central Government — State Government — Illegality of State-level Relaxation — Equity in Favour of Students — Article 142 — Penalty on Colleges

Medical / Dental Education — NEET — BDS Admissions — Lowering of Minimum Percentile — Power of Central Government — State Government — Illegality of State-level Relaxation — Equity in Favour of Students — Article 142 — Penalty on Colleges

1. NEET — Sole mode of admission to BDS course
   Admissions to BDS courses in all Government and private dental colleges must be made strictly on the basis of NEET merit, and no parallel or alternative mechanism is permissible. (Paras 40–41)

2. Power to lower minimum NEET percentile — Vests only in Central Government
   Under the proviso to Regulation II(5)(ii) of the Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007, the discretion to lower the minimum qualifying percentile is vested exclusively in the Central Government, to be exercised in consultation with the Dental Council of India. (Paras 42–43)

3. State Government — No authority to reduce NEET percentile
   Any reduction of the minimum qualifying percentile by a State Government, even if purportedly based on Central Government communication, is without jurisdiction and illegal. (Paras 44–46)

4. Expression “necessary action as deemed fit” — No delegation of statutory power
   The phrase “necessary action as deemed fit” used by the Central Government cannot be construed as delegation of statutory power to lower the qualifying percentile under the Regulations. (Paras 45–46)

5. Admissions based on illegal relaxation — Void ab initio
   Admissions granted pursuant to unauthorised reduction of NEET qualifying percentile are invalid and cannot be regularised as a matter of right. (Paras 45–48)

6. Private colleges — Admissions beyond even State relaxation — Gross illegality
   Admissions granted by private dental colleges beyond the relaxation of 10+5 percentile, including admissions of candidates with zero or negative percentiles, are wholly impermissible and driven by commercial considerations. (Paras 48–49)

7. Equity in favour of students — Limited application
   Equity cannot ordinarily operate to validate admissions made in breach of mandatory statutory provisions, particularly in professional education. (Paras 47–48)

8. Article 142 — Discretionary and exceptional
   Power under Article 142 cannot be exercised to legitimise illegal admissions or dilute statutory standards governing professional education. (Paras 47–48)

9. Liability of colleges — Costs and compensation justified
   Colleges admitting students in violation of NEET norms are liable to be penalised with costs and directed to compensate affected students. (Paras 30.2, 48–49)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The dispute relates to BDS admissions in Rajasthan for Academic Year 2016–17, where a large number of seats remained vacant after NEET counselling (Paras 2, 11–12).

2. The State of Rajasthan, acting on a communication dated 29.09.2016 from the Central Government, lowered the NEET qualifying percentile by 10 percentile, and later by an additional 5 percentile, claiming exigency (Paras 15–18).

3. Acting on this relaxation, private dental colleges admitted students, and some colleges went further by admitting students beyond the 10+5 percentile relaxation, including candidates with zero or negative NEET percentiles (Paras 23, 48).

4. The Dental Council of India objected, stating that the State lacked authority to lower the percentile and that such admissions were void ab initio (Paras 19–20).

5. The Single Judge partly regularised admissions up to 10+5 percentile and ordered discharge of students admitted beyond that limit (Para 29.1).

6. The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s view and imposed heavy costs and compensation on colleges (Para 30.2).

7. Students, colleges, and the DCI challenged the High Court judgment before the Supreme Court (Paras 31–38).

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. Statutory framework
   Regulation II(5)(ii) of the 2007 Regulations clearly vests the power to lower NEET percentile only in the Central Government, not in States (Paras 42–43).

2. Invalid delegation
   The Court rejected the interpretation that the Central Government’s letter authorised the State to reduce the percentile, holding that statutory power cannot be delegated by implication (Paras 45–46).

3. Rule of law in professional education
   Strict adherence to NEET standards is essential to maintain uniformity, merit, and quality in medical and dental education (Paras 40–41).

4. Equity vs legality
   While students may have suffered hardship, sympathy cannot override mandatory statutory requirements, especially in professional courses impacting public health (Paras 47–48).

5. Conduct of colleges
   The Court strongly deprecated the conduct of private colleges that admitted ineligible students to fill seats, holding them responsible for the consequences (Paras 48–49).

---

FINAL RESULT

• The Civil Appeals were dismissed.

• The impugned judgment of the Rajasthan High Court was upheld.

• Admissions granted on the basis of unauthorised lowering of NEET percentile by the State of Rajasthan were held illegal.

• Students admitted beyond the 10+5 percentile relaxation stood discharged.

• Costs of ₹50,00,000 per college and compensation of ₹25,00,000 per affected student, as directed by the High Court, were affirmed.

• No further equitable relief was granted under Article 142.