Join our WhatsApp Group
Latest
Sunday, October 18, 2026
EN हिं Sign In Contribute
Rajasthan High Court
High Courts

Dental Colleges Cannot Relax NEET Percentile Beyond State's Limit: Rajasthan High Court Discharges Students, Orders Compensation

Published: · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed 23 special appeals over BDS admissions for 2016-17. It held that the State validly lowered the NEET percentile by 10, plus 5 in special exigency, under power delegated by the Union, but dental colleges could not relax it further on their own (paras 10.1, 13). Students admitted below that cut-off stand discharged, and each such college must pay ₹50 lakh in costs and ₹25 lakh compensation to each such student (para 18).

Dental Colleges Cannot Relax NEET Percentile Beyond State's Limit: Rajasthan High Court Discharges Students, Orders Compensation

Judgment Intelligence

Petition Dismissed
Harsh Raj Verma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2023/RJJD/012321
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 911/2018 with 22 connected special appeals (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ Nos. 957, 958, 959, 963, 964, 1155, 1184, 1272, 1273, 1286, 1287, 1288, 1289, 1308, 1310, 1311, 1316, 1317, 1340, 1349 and 1749 of 2018 and 387/2023)
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
4 May 2023
Bench
Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Relevant Acts & Sections
Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007 (as amended by the 5th Amendment, 2012) — Regulation II, sub-regulation 5, clauses (ii) and (iv)
Final Outcome

All the special appeals were dismissed (paras 17-18). Students admitted beyond the 10 plus 5 percentile relaxation stand discharged; degrees already awarded must be deposited with the University within a month. Each such college must deposit ₹50 lakh costs and pay ₹25 lakh to each such student (para 18).

View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

  1. NEET exists to maintain high and uniform standards in medical education (para 6).
  2. The Union's letter of 29.09.2016 delegated the relaxation power; the State's 10 plus 5 percentile cut was justified (paras 10-10.1).
  3. Orders the Supreme Court directed not to be treated as precedent cannot be cited (paras 11-12).
  4. Admissions below the relaxed cut-off, even at zero or negative percentile, are invalid; degrees already awarded must be deposited (paras 14.1, 18).
  5. A college that relaxed further pays ₹50 lakh costs and ₹25 lakh to each such student (para 18).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

After counselling for 2016-17, only 225 of 892 BDS seats in 11 dental colleges in Rajasthan were filled (para 2.2). On the Union of India's letter of 29.09.2016 forwarding a representation of the colleges' Federation, the State permitted lowering the NEET percentile by 10, plus 5 in special exigency (paras 2.1.1, 2.3, 8). The Union later asked the State to withdraw it (para 2.3). The Dental Council of India directed the discharge of students who had not qualified NEET; the University declared them ineligible (paras 2.4-2.5). A Single Judge regularised admissions within the 10 plus 5 relaxation and discharged those admitted beyond it (para 2.5). Students, colleges and the Dental Council appealed (para 1.3).

Court's Findings

The Bench noted that NEET was introduced in 2016 to maintain high and uniform standards in medical education, as upheld in Modern Dental College and reiterated in Abdul Ahad (para 6). Regulation 6(ii) of the Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007 lets the Central Government, in consultation with the Dental Council, lower the minimum marks for an academic year (para 7). Agreeing with the Single Judge, it held that the Union's letter of 29.09.2016 delegated that power to the State, so the State's reduction by 10 and a further 5 percentile was justified, since the Union itself had said "necessary action as deemed fit" (paras 10-10.1). Bapuji Dental and V.S. Subeeksha could not be cited, as the Supreme Court had directed that those orders not be treated as precedent (paras 11-12). No relaxation could go beyond the State's limit (para 13). The colleges had admitted students with much lower marks, including zero or negative percentile, without any approval; such relaxation could not be sustained, as it would harm the standards of medical education (paras 14.1-15). Recalling Madhu Saini on backdoor entries (para 16), it granted no relief to any appellant (para 17).

Legal Principle

Where the regulations let the Central Government lower the NEET minimum, a State acting under its delegation may relax the cut-off to that extent, but a college cannot go further on its own. Admissions below the relaxed cut-off cannot stand; the students are discharged and the college pays costs and compensation (paras 10.1, 13, 14.1, 18).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. Modern Dental Medical College & Research Center & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 353
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 6

    Constitution Bench upheld the conduct of NEET, introduced in 2016 to enhance and maintain high and uniform standards in medical education.

  2. Abdul Ahad & Ors. v. Union of India (2020) 1 SCC OnLine SC 627
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 6

    Reiterated with approval the Modern Dental College principle of a common entrance test for medical admissions.

  3. Karnataka State Private Homeopathic Medical College Managements Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. W.P. No. 25723 of 2022 (EDN-RES), Karnataka High Court (Division Bench), decided on 03.03.2023
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 6

    Reasons, drawn from Abdul Ahad and Modern Dental College, why a common entrance test with centralised counselling secures merit-based admissions.

View all precedents (25)
  1. Madhu Saini v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1046/2022 and connected matters, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, decided on 25.11.2022
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 4.4, 4.4.1, 16

    Backdoor admissions contrary to the regulations must be stopped; the college that admitted ineligible students was ordered to deposit costs. Cited by the respondents and reproduced by the Court.

  2. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences v. Bapuji Dental College and Hospital & Ors. Special Leave Petition Nos. 2597-2610/2015, decided on 28.08.2018
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 3.11, 11

    Relied on by the appellants; held to have no precedence, as the Supreme Court directed that its order not be treated as precedent in any other case.

  3. V.S. Subeeksha v. Dental Council of India W.P. Nos. 14342 to 14349 of 2018, Madras High Court, decided on 17.07.2018
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 3.12, 12

    Relied on by the appellants; cannot be cited as precedent, as the Supreme Court, while not interfering with it, directed that it not be treated as precedent and kept the question of law open.

  4. Dental Council of India v. V.S. Subeeksha Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 16390/2019, decided on 03.07.2019
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 3.12, 12

    Supreme Court declined to interfere in the peculiar facts, directing that the orders not be treated as precedent; relied on by the appellants, held not citable as precedent.

  5. Harshit Agarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 710
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 3.9, 4.8

    Cited by the appellants: the Central Government may lower the minimum BDS marks in consultation with the Dental Council of India; also mentioned by the respondents.

  6. Mriga Ravi Swamy v. State of Gujarat Special Civil Application No. 18440 of 2016, Gujarat High Court, decided on 14.12.2016
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 3.13

    Cited by the appellants; the special leave petition against it was dismissed as withdrawn.

  7. Dental Council of India v. Mriga Ravi Swamy Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18289/2017, decided on 31.07.2017
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 3.13

    Cited by the appellants as the withdrawn challenge to the Gujarat High Court judgment.

  8. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Gopal D. Tirthani & Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 83
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.7.1, 4.10

    Cited by the respondents: the State cannot dilute the minimum qualifying marks prescribed by the regulator.

  9. Neppali Sai Vikash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Misc. Application No. 735/2022 in W.P. (Civil) No. 124/2022, decided on 02.05.2022
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.8

    Cited by the respondents: directing a further reduction of the percentile in judicial review would trench upon the academic/policy domain.

  10. Visveswaraiah Technological University & Anr. v. Krishnendu Halder & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 606
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.10

    Cited by the respondents in a list of authorities (para 4.10); not discussed further in the judgment.

  11. Priya Gupta v. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 433
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.10

    Cited by the respondents in a list of authorities (para 4.10); not discussed further in the judgment.

  12. A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (1986) 2 SCC 667
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.10

    Cited by the respondents in a list of authorities (para 4.10); not discussed further in the judgment.

  13. Regional Officer, CBSE v. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran & Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 719
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.10

    Cited by the respondents in a list of authorities (para 4.10); not discussed further in the judgment.

  14. Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr. v. GIS Jose & Ors. (2008) 17 SCC 611
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.10

    Cited by the respondents in a list of authorities (para 4.10); not discussed further in the judgment.

  15. Maharishi Dyanand University v. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.10

    Cited by the respondents in a list of authorities (para 4.10); not discussed further in the judgment.

  16. Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal & Anr. (1993) 4 SCC 401
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.10

    Cited by the respondents in a list of authorities (para 4.10); not discussed further in the judgment.

  17. Harish Verma & Ors. v. Ajay Srivastava & Anr. (2003) 8 SCC 69
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.10

    Cited by the respondents in a list of authorities (para 4.10); not discussed further in the judgment.

  18. National Council for Teachers Education & Anr. v. Venus Public Education Society & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 223
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.10

    Cited by the respondents in a list of authorities (para 4.10); not discussed further in the judgment.

  19. Barium Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. v. Company Law Board & Ors. AIR 1967 SC 295
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.10

    Cited by the respondents in a list of authorities (para 4.10); not discussed further in the judgment.

  20. Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 305
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.10

    Cited by the respondents in a list of authorities (para 4.10); not discussed further in the judgment.

  21. Shreya Basnet v. Union of India & Ors. S.B.C.W.P. No. 102/2018, decided on 05.02.2018
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.10

    Cited by the respondents in a list of authorities (para 4.10); not discussed further in the judgment.

  22. Rishabh Choudhary v. Union of India (2017) 3 SCC 652
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.10

    Cited by the respondents in a list of authorities (para 4.10); not discussed further in the judgment.

Topics: Medical Education Regulation Delegation of Statutory Powers Imposition of Costs Merit-Based Admissions
NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: May 4, 2023 Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Yogendra Kumar Purohit
WhatsApp Telegram X / Twitter LinkedIn

✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt