Lowering medical education standards can wreak havoc on society: Delhi HC dismisses plea challenging 50th minimum percentile in NEET PG
New Delhi: Referring to the potential ill effects of lowering the standards of medical education, the Delhi High Court bench recently dismissed a plea challenging a regulation that requires minimum marks of 50th percentile in National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to Postgraduate medical courses in India.
Opining that the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI), now National Medical Commission (NMC) has the authority to ensure highest standards of medical education, the HC bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that, "this Court emphasizes that the lowering of the standards of medical education has the potential of wreaking havoc on society at large due to the risk that practice of medicine entails; it involves in its ambit the matter of life and death, and therefore, it would be unconscionable for this Court to interfere in the standards duly and diligently set by the governing authority."
"This Court, therefore, cannot issue a mandamus directing the Respondents to fill up the seats, especially when the persons concerned have not obtained the minimum percentile as this Court is dealing with admissions to postgraduate courses in various medical colleges, and there cannot be any compromise on the issue of quality of doctors/ specialists as it involves a risk to human lives. Resultantly, no case for interference is made out in the matter," added the Court.
Three petitioner doctors had filed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking admission into postgraduate courses. They had challenged the Postgraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2018 (as amended on 05.04.2018) and its requirement for minimum marks of 50th percentile as a mandatory requirement for the general category and 40th percentile for the reserved category for admission to postgraduate courses. They claimed that the requirement was arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to Article 14, Article 19 (1) (g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
It was the grievance of the petitioners that the percentile system prescribed under Regulation 9(3) of the amended amended Regulation is a faulty system as due to the percentile system, a large number of seats are lying vacant even though candidates who are efficient and willing are available.
They further claimed that by way of the amendment in the Regulations, arbitrary percentile systems had been introduced which results in lack of availability of the qualified teachers in the disciplines which are already approved by the MCI itself for being filled up in the year. It was further contended by them that the percentile system also results in medical colleges filling up the posts of teachers in biochemistry and microbiology by appointing M.Sc/ PhD holders in the said subject due to lack of availability of qualified postgraduate medical students in the above subjects.
The main grievance of the petitioners is that the introduction of percentile system of judging the merit and providing a minimum 50th percentile to obtain admission is illegal, arbitrary, and the object of the statutory provision could have never been to non-suit any candidate who is otherwise eligible for admission to the post-graduate course.
On the other hand, the Union Health Ministry and other concerned authorities submitted that as per the amendment in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, which came into force with effect from 24.05.2016, the provisions of Section 10D and Section 33(mb) were incorporated, after which NEET became the uniform entrance examination for admission to MBBS and PG Medical Courses in all the medical colleges of the country.
The Ministry also referred to the National Board of Examinations notice clarifying the minimum eligibility criteria for admission to Postgraduate Medicine courses, and also pointed out the minimum marks after lowering the cut off. Referring to this minimum eligibility criteria, the Ministry contended that the petitioners, who obtained only 180, 108 and 160 marks, were far below the merit to even be considered for admission.
It was further submitted by the Ministry that the number of eligible students exceeds the number of seats in the Postgraduate Medicine Courses in the country and NEET ensures that only meritorious students are selected for admission to Postgraduate Medicine Courses in the country.
Referring to vacant seats, the Ministry submitted that the vacant seats are mostly in the Pre & Para Clinical subjects such as Microbiology, Biochemistry, Pathology, Pharmacology, Physiology, Anatomy, etc. and the candidates who are appearing in the NEET are registered medical practitioners who have already obtained the MBBS Degree. They want to enhance their academic qualifications in order to become a specialist in a particular discipline/ subject of medicine, and the postgraduate qualifications in the subjects like Microbiology, Biochemistry, Pathology, Pharmacology, Physiology, Anatomy, etc do not enable the candidates to function as a specialist in a particular discipline/ subject of medicine, and most of them only become eligible to be appointed as teachers. Therefore, the candidates do not opt for such subjects which are non-clinical subjects, submitted the Ministry.
After considering the matter, the bench referred to Regulation 9(2) of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 2000, the concerned year of NEET examination, and also the Supreme Court order made in reference to discuss the scope of judicial review to strike down a statutory provision/ to declare it as ultra vires.
Therefore, the Court noted that while considering the validity of subordinate legislation, will have to consider the nature, object and scheme of the enabling Act and, the field over which power has been delegated.
"When the rule is directly inconsistent with mandatory provisions of the statute, it is an easy task for the Court. However, when inconsistency is not with reference to a specific provision, but rather object and scheme of parent Act, then the Court is required to proceed with caution while discerning if the said provision is unconstitutional," noted the court.
Referring to several judgments made by the Supreme Court and High Courts, the bench noted,
"Flowing from the aforesaid judgments, the Petitioners have not been able to establish any legislative incompetence, violation of Fundamental Rights, violation of any provision of the Constitution of India, arbitrariness or unreasonableness. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that as the Petitioners have failed to discharge the burden upon them to successfully attack the validity of the impugned Regulations, the interference of the Court is not warranted in the instant case."
Noting that the Medical Council of India, now the National Medical Commission is the statutory authority created and constituted under an Act of Parliament, namely the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, which had the responsibility of discharging the duty of maintaining the highest standards of medical education, the bench also pointed out that previously in the State entrance examination as well, the minimum qualifying marks was same.
"It is also pertinent to note that the earlier selection of post graduate students was done in various disciplines of medicine based upon a Common Entrance Test held by a State Government or a university, and the minimum percentage of marks for eligibility for admission to postgraduate medical course was 50% for general category students, and 40% for candidates belonging to the SC/ST and other backward classes," noted the bench.
Therefore, dismissing the plea, the HC bench observed,
"This Court, keeping in view the various judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is of the considered opinion that the Petitioners have not been able to make out a case of unreasonableness, manifestly arbitrariness, lack of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights, violation of any provision of the Constitution of India, repugnancy of the laws, warranting interference by this Court in respect of the statutory provision which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. Therefore, the question of quashing the statutory provision in the peculiar circumstances of the case does not arise merely because a large number of seats are lying vacant."
To view the order click on the link below.
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/delhi-hc-neet-182247.pdf
