Siddhant Mahajan vs. The State Of Rajasthan

NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1458




IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION



CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) …………….……. OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 14014-14019 OF 2023)



SIDDHANT MAHAJAN AND ORS. …APPELLANT(S)



VERSUS



THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)


WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO …………….……. OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.11988-11990 OF 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. …………….……. OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.12372-12373 OF 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. …………….……. OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO(S).11566-11568 OF 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. …………….……. OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO(S).12440-12447 OF 2023)
Signature Not Verified

CIVIL APPEAL NO. …………….……. OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.24550 OF 2023)
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
Date: 2025.12.18
17:32:02 IST
Reason:

1


CIVIL APPEAL NO. …………….……. OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.2837 OF 2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. …………….……. OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.2724 OF 2024)



J U D G M E N T

VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present batch of appeals concerns the legality of the Bachelor
of Dental Surgery (hereinafter referred to as “ BDS ”) course
admissions granted in the State of Rajasthan for the academic year
2016-17 after lowering of the minimum percentile as prescribed
for the National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred
to as “ NEET ”) UG examinations.

3. The appeals have been preferred against the final Judgment and
Order dated 04.05.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “ impugned
judgment ”) passed in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 911/2018, D.B.
Spl. Appl. Writ No. 957/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.
958/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 959/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl.
2


Writ No. 963/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 964/2018, D.B.
Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1155/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.
1184/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1272/2018, D.B. Spl.
Appl. Writ No. 1273/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1287/2018,
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1288/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.
1289/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1304/2018, D.B. Spl.
Appl. Writ No. 1310/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1311/2018,
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1316/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.
1317/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1340/2018, D.B. Spl.
Appl. Writ No. 1349/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1749/2018
and D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 387/2018 (hereinafter referred to
as “ the writ appeals ”) by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred as “ the High Court ”).
The Division Bench of the High Court, thereby dismissed the said
writ appeals preferred by the appellants herein against the
Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the Single Judge
Bench of the High Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13776 of
2017 and other connected petitions, whereby the said petitions
were partly allowed and it was ordered that the admissions granted
by applying the relaxation to the extent of 10 percentile and 5
3


percentile stood regularized and the students who had been
admitted beyond the said relaxation stood discharged.

4. The appellants before us can be classified into the following three
categories:

A. In appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.14014-14019 of 2023,
11988-11990 of 2023, 12372-12373 of 2023, 11566-11568 of
2023 and 24550 of 2023: Students, who were granted
admission beyond the relaxation of 10 percentile and additional
5 percentile as was granted by the State of Rajasthan, are
aggrieved by the impugned judgment for directing their
discharge from the BDS course with immediate effect.

B. In appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.12440-12447 of 2023: The
Dental Colleges of the State of Rajasthan, which granted
admissions to the students, beyond the relaxation that was
granted by the State of Rajasthan, are aggrieved by the
impugned judgment, whereby the respective Colleges were
penalised with costs of Rs.50,00,000/- each and were directed
to pay compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- to every such student,
4


who was made to suffer on account of being illegally admitted
to the BDS course.

C. In appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2837 of 2024 and 2724 of
2024: The Dental Council of India is challenging the impugned
judgment so far as it regularises the admissions of students who
were admitted to the BDS course on account of lowering the
minimum percentile, beyond what is provided under sub-
regulation 5 of Regulation II of the Revised BDS Course
Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “ the 2007
Regulations ”), by the State of Rajasthan.


FACTUAL MATRIX
5. The Dental Council of India (hereinafter referred to as “ the DCI ”)
is a body constituted under the provisions of the Dentists Act,
1948 (hereinafter referred to as “ the Act ”). With the aim of
maintaining uniform standards for dental education at the
undergraduate and postgraduate level in the country, the DCI, in
exercise of the rule-making powers vested in it under Section 20
of the Act, framed the 1983 Regulations with the previous sanction
of the Central Government. Thereafter, in the year 2007, the 2007
5


Regulations were introduced and amended from time to time, with
the previous sanction of the Central Government. However, vide
th
notification dated 31.05.2012, the 5 Amendment Regulations
were introduced whereby sub-regulation 5 of Regulation II has
been deleted and substituted with a new provision. The relevant
th
provision of the 5 Amendment Regulations of 2007 is reproduced
hereinbelow:
6.
“ In the existing Sub-regulation 5 of Regulation II, under
the heading “Procedure for selection to BDS course” shall be
as follows:- shall be deleted and substituted as under:-
(i) There shall be a single eligibility-cum-entrance
examination, namely “National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test
for admission to BDS course in each academic year”.
(ii) In order to be eligible for admission to BDS Course for a
particular academic year, it shall be necessary for a
th
candidate to obtain a minimum of marks at 50 percentile
in “National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test to BDS course”
held for the said academic years. However, in respect of
candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes, Other Backward Classes, the minimum marks shall
be at 40th percentile. In respect of candidates with
locomotory disability of lower limbs terms of sub-regulation
4 above, after the commencement of these amendments, the
minimum marks shall be at 45th percentile. The percentile
shall be determined on the basis of highest marks secured
in the All-India common merit list in “National Eligibility-cum-
Entrance Test for admission to BDS course”.
Provided when sufficient number of candidates in the
respective categories fail to secure minimum marks as
prescribed in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test held for
any academic year for admission to BDS Course, the Central
Government in consultation with Dental Council of India may
at its discretion lower the minimum marks required for
admission to BDS Course for candidates belonging to
6


respective categories and marks so lowered by the Central
Government shall be applicable for the said academic year
only.
(iii) The reservation of seats in dental colleges for respective
categories shall be as per applicable laws prevailing in
States/Union Territories. An all-India merit list as well as
State-wise merit list of the eligible candidates shall be
prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in National
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test and candidates shall be
admitted to BDS course from the said lists only.
( iv) No Candidate who has failed to obtain the minimum
eligibility marks as prescribed in Clause (ii) above shall be
admitted to BDS course in the said academic year.
(v) All admissions to BDS course within the respective
categories shall be based solely on marks obtained in the
National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test.
(vi) To be eligible for admission to BDS course, 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 and Biology/Biotechnology at the
qualifying examination as mentioned in Sub Regulation 2 of
Regulation I and in addition must have come in the merit list
of “National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test” for admission to
BDS course. In respect of ‘candidates belonging to
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or other Backward
Class’ the minimum marks obtained in Physics, Chemistry
and Biology/bio-technology taken together in qualifying
examination shall be 40% instead of 50%. In respect of
candidates with locomotory disability of lower limbs in terms
of sub-regulation 4, after the commencement of these
amendments, of Regulation I above, the minimum marks in
qualifying examination in Physics, Chemistry and
Biology/Bio-technology taken together in qualifying
examination shall be 45% instead of 50%.
Provided that a candidate who has appeared in the
qualifying examination the result of which has not been
declared, he/she may be provisionally permitted to take up
the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test and in case of
selection for admission to the BDS Course, he/she shall not
7


be admitted to that course until he fulfills the eligibility
criteria under Regulation I.
(vii) The Central Board of Secondary Education shall be the
organization to conduct National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test for admission to BDS course.”

6. Further, the Act was amended vide ordinance dated 24.05.2016 to
introduce Section 10D, which provides for a uniform entrance
examination for all dental educational institutions, with the
proviso appended to the Section clarifying that the said provision
was not applicable to a State, which had not opted for such
examination. The relevant provision reads thus:
“There shall be conducted a uniform entrance examination
to all dental educational institutions at the undergraduate
level and post-graduate level through such designated
authority in Hindi, English and such other languages and in
such manner as may be prescribed and the designated
authority shall ensure the conduct of uniform entrance
examination in the aforesaid manner:
Provided that notwithstanding any judgment or order of any
court, the provisions of this section shall not apply, in
relation to the uniform entrance examination at the
undergraduate level for the academic year 2016-17
conducted in accordance with any regulations made under
this Act, in respect of the State Government seats (whether
in Government Dental College or in a private Dental College)
where such State has not opted for such examination.”

Subsequently, this Court in Sankalp Charitable Trust and
Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2016) 7 SCC 487,
8


directed that the admissions to the MBBS and BDS course in the
country can only be held through NEET and the State of Rajasthan
also issued directions to this effect to all the government and
private medical colleges that the admissions to the MBBS and BDS
courses would only take place through NEET.
7. In the meantime, an advertisement was issued by the Federation
of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan (hereinafter,
referred to as “ the Federation ”) on 19.04.2016 regarding
admissions to MBBS/BDS Courses for the Academic Session
2016-17. However, as observed earlier, in terms of the directions
issued by this Court as well as the State of Rajasthan, admissions
to the BDS course were required to be made solely through the
NEET examination.

8. The substituted sub-regulation 5(ii) of Regulation II of the 2007
Regulations prescribes a minimum eligibility of the 50th percentile
in NEET for admission to the BDS course for candidates in the
unreserved category, with the eligibility fixed at the 40th percentile
for SC/ST/OBC candidates and at the 45th percentile for
candidates with locomotory disability of the lower limbs. The
9


proviso to clause (ii) of the sub-regulation 5 of Regulation II further
provides that the Central Government, in consultation with the
DCI, could lower the minimum marks required for admission to
the BDS course at its discretion, when a sufficient number of
candidates in their respective categories fail to secure the
minimum marks as prescribed for qualifying the NEET
examination in a particular academic year.

9. It is not in dispute that the Appellant/students appeared in the
NEET 2016, and failed to secure the minimum percentile, as per
the eligibility criteria laid down for admission in the course in
question, and as such, they were not qualified to be admitted to
the BDS course.

10. The State of Rajasthan vide letter dated 16.08.2016 informed the
Convenor, NEET Counselling Board-2016, that 85% seats were
required to be filled on the basis of combined counselling and the
remaining 15% seats were to be filled by the private institutions in
pursuance of the NEET Examination-2016. It was further directed
that the admission process be completed by 30.09.2016.

10


11. The Federation issued a prospectus on 02.09.2016 regarding the
counselling for MBBS/BDS courses. The counselling took place
according to the said prospectus, wherein in the first round of
counselling, against 892 seats in 11 dental colleges within the
State of Rajasthan, only 225 candidates opted for the BDS course,
and the same were accordingly allotted to the said 11 dental
colleges.

12. In such circumstances, considering that a large number of BDS
seats remained vacant, the Federation addressed representation
dated 23.09.2016 to the Central Government and the DCI to lower
the minimum NEET qualifying percentile required for admission
to the BDS course in order to fill up the huge number of vacant
seats.

13. In the meanwhile, this Court in Ashish Ranjan & Ors. v. Central
Government & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 76/2015] vide order dated
27.09.2016 extended the deadline for admissions to the BDS
course up to 07.10.2016.


11


14. The Central Government forwarded the Federation’s
representation dated 23.09.2016 to the State of Rajasthan vide
communication dated 29.09.2016 for taking necessary action as
deemed fit. The relevant portion of the said letter is extracted
hereunder:
“... I am directed to forward herewith a copy of the
representation of Federation of Private Medical and Dental
Colleges of Rajasthan vide no. FPMDCR/Admn/2016-
17/223 dated 23.09.2016 received in this Ministry on the
subject cited above for necessary action as deemed fit...”


15. After receiving the letter dated 29.09.2016, the State of Rajasthan,
through its letter dated 30.09.2016 addressed to the Federation,
permitted the lowering of the NEET qualifying percentile by 10
percentile, while clarifying that the said relaxation would be
applicable only for the concerned academic year, i.e. Session 2016-
17. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced
hereinbelow:
“...With reference to the subject cited above you are hereby
permitted to lower the marks to an extent of 10 percentile so
that the optimal number of seats is filled through
transparent and fair process without compromising merit.
This will be applicable for this academic year only, will not
be used as precedent for next and further academic years...”


12


16. The Federation, in pursuance of the said order by the State of
Rajasthan, conducted the counselling process for admissions to
the BDS course across 11 private dental colleges in the State of
Rajasthan. The students who had appeared in NEET examination-
2016 and possessed the required 10+2 qualifications, though not
originally qualified as per the minimum stipulated percentile, were
allotted seats based on merit from the NEET rank list after giving
a relaxation of 10 percentile.

17. Meanwhile, in its meetings held on 30.09.2016 and 01.10.2016,
the General Body of the DCI, while noting that the State
Government had already reduced the NEET qualifying percentile
by 10 percentile for the academic year 2016-17 vide letter dated
30.09.2016, thereby bringing it down to 40th percentile for the
general category and 30th percentile for the reserved category,
through its letter dated 03.10.2016, informed the Central
Government of this development and requested the Central
Government to take an early final decision with a recommendation
that relaxation up to 10 percentile be granted only for that
particular year and not be treated as a precedent for the future.
13


The DCI also took note of the fact that there were a large number
of vacant BDS seats across the country and the last date of
admission, i.e. 07.10.2016 was approaching. The relevant portion
of the said letter is reproduced hereunder:
“... I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to say
that the General Body in its meeting of its 136th session
scheduled at New Delhi on 30th September and 1” October,
2016, considered the representation received from various
States (copies enclosed) including dental colleges, to lower
down the percentile to fill up the seats lying vacant in BDS
Course after exhausting State Lists. The General Body, in
conformity with the provisions that when sufficient number
of candidates in the respective categories fail to secure
minimum marks as prescribed in National Eligibility Cum
Entrance Test held for any academic year for admission to
MBBS/BDS Courses, the Central Government, in
consultation with Medical Council of India and Dental
Council of India, may at its discretion lower the minimum
marks required for 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.
2. This issue came up for kind consideration of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on 23.9.2016 in the matter of Federation of
Pvt. Medical and Dental Colleges for Rajasthan (FPMDCR) &
Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors. in WP No. 747/2016 and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was pleased however to dispose of as
withdrawn but without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case, directed Central Government to decide the
representation of petitioner Federation from the date of
receipt of it.
3. The Govt. of Rajasthan, Director of Medical Education,
vide its communication No. F7(119)DME/Acad/2015-pt-
1/6777 on 30.09.2016 (copy enclosed) addressed to the
Chairman, Federation of Medical and Dental Colleges of
Rajasthan, has, inter-alia permitted to lower the marks to an
extent of 10 percentile so that the optimal number of seats is
filled through transparent and fair process without
compromising merit. This will be applicable for the academic
14


year only, will not be used as precedence for next and
further academic years.
4. The General Body after taking into consideration the fact
that the CBSE has, by and large, prescribed the course
curriculum/syllabus of the NEET purely based on its
syllabus and the CBSE Board is existing most properly in
urban areas not in rural areas. The students of rural areas
are rarely enrolled with CBSE Board and they have pursued
their courses from the board constituted by the respective
state or any other board. The issue has now been considered
th
by the General Body in its meeting held on 30 September
st
and 1 October, 2016 and decided to recommend to the
Central Government in terms of the proviso (b) of the
Eligibility Criteria has prescribed in Chapter 6 captioned as
MERIT LIST AND QUALIFYING CRITERIA, that in order to fill
up the seat lying vacant in BDS Course as reported from the
different part of the country, the 50th percentile prescribed
for general category and 40th percentile for reserve category
be reduced by 10th percentile. The student secured 40th
percentile in general category and 30th percentile for
reserved category be made eligible for admission in BDS
Course only for the current academic session 2016 not to be
quoted as precedent in future, provided that there shall be
no deviation or relaxation from academic qualification and
percentage as prescribed by the Dental Council of India in
its Revised BDS Course Regulation, 2007 and all the
students shall be made only from the students who have
appeared in NEET purely on their order of merit. These
recommendations be sent to Central Government to take its
final decision in the matter so as to cope with the last date
i.e. 7.10.2016 for completion of admission in BDS Course.
5. In view of the above, decision taken by the General Body
is communicated to the Central Government to take its final
decision in the matter as early as possible ...”



18. On the very next day, i.e. 04.10.2016, the State of Rajasthan
granted a further relaxation of 5 percentile for special exigency
cases, citing that a large number of seats remained vacant despite
granting relaxation up to 10 percentile. As such the total reduction
15


allowed by the State of Rajasthan added up to 15 percentile. It was
also clarified by the State of Rajasthan that the said arrangement
will be applicable to the concerned academic year only and will not
be used as a precedent for future academic years. The said letter
dated 04.10.2016 was sent to the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare and not to the Federation and the private dental colleges
and through this letter, the State of Rajasthan also sought post-
facto approval from the Central Government of the relaxations
allowed by it vide letter dated 30.09.2016 and 04.10.2016. The
relevant portion of the letter is extracted below:
“...With reference to the subject cited above looking to the
large number of seats remaining vacant after initial rounds
of counseling State has permitted to lower the qualifying
marks to an extent, of 10 percentile, and additional 5
percentile in special exigency cases to that general number
of seats is filled through transparent and fair process
without compromising merit. This will be applicable to this
academic years only, will not be used as precedence for the
following and further academic years. This is submitted for
post facto approval...”




19. Though, the DCI vide an earlier letter dated 03.10.2016 had
already recommended to the Central Government for granting a
relaxation of 10 percentile, but subsequently addressed a letter
dated 05.10.2016 to the Central Government, stating that the
16


relaxation granted by the State of Rajasthan was void ab initio , as
the State of Rajasthan had no authority to lower the minimum
NEET qualifying marks. The DCI further emphasized that such
power is vested solely with the Central Government. The relevant
extract of the said letter is provided hereinbelow:
“... In continuation of this Council's letter No.DE-130-
2016/7312 dated 3.10.2015, on the subject mentioned
above, I am directed to state that the Government of
Rajasthan vide its fetters No F.7(119)/DME/Acad./2015-pt-
1/8777 on 30.09.2018 and
No.F.7(118)/DME/Acad./2018/ 6053 dated 4.10.2016 has
lower down the qualifying marks to an extent of 10
percentile and additional 5 percentile in special exigency
cases in gross violation of the conditions contained 180 in
Clause (b) of Chapter 6 of Prospectus/Information Bulletin of
NEET-II (2016) published on 24.05.2016 after promulgation
of the Ordinance by the President of India in this regard. The
Clause (b) of Chapter 6 of the Prospectus la reproduced
below:-
“(b) Provided when sufficient number of candidates in the
respective categories fail to secure minimum marks as
prescribed in National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test held for
any academic year for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses,
the Central Government in consultation with Medical Council
of India and Dental Council of India may at its discretion
lower the minimum marks required for 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."
2. In view of the above, the power to lower down the
percentile is vested only with the Central Government net
with any State Government and in case of any admission is
made, in terms of such relaxation, such admissions may be
void ab initio.
3. This is being communicated to the Central Government
only for its Information and necessary action, if any, in the
matter.
17


4. This issue with the approval of the Executive Committee
of DCI by circulation ...”



20. Taking cognizance of the letter dated 05.10.2016, the Central
Government directed the State of Rajasthan vide letter dated
06.10.2016 to withdraw or cancel its earlier orders dated
30.09.2016 and 04.10.2016, while clarifying that the power to
lower the minimum percentile is vested exclusively with the
Central Government and not with State of Rajasthan, and any
admission made pursuant to such unauthorized relaxation shall
be void ab initio . The relevant extract of the said letter is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“...I am directed to refer to your letter No.
F.7/(119)/DME/Acad./2015-pl-l/6777 dated 30.9.2016
and No. F.7/(119)/DME/Acad./2016/6583 dated
04.10.2016 and Dental Council of India’s letter No. DE-130-
2016/7493 dated 05.10.2016 (copy enclosed) on the subject
cited above and to say that the State Government of
Rajasthan, instead of taking action as per the provisions of
the Dental Council of India Revised BDS Course (5th
Amendment) Regulation, 2012, issued the above Order
dated 30.9.2016 and 04.10.2016, inter alia, lowering the
percentile to an extent of 10 percentile and additional 5
percentile in special exigency in gross violation of conditions
contained in Clause (b) of chapter b of
Prospectus/Information Bulletin of NEET-II (2016) published
on 24.5.2016 after promulgation of the Ordinance by the
President of India in this regard.
2. In view of the above, DCI in its letter dated 05.10.2016
has also observed that the power to lower down the
percentile is vested only with the Central Government and
not with any State Government and in case of any
18


admission is made in terms of such relaxation, such
admission is void ab initio.
3. The State Government of Rajasthan is requested to
withdraw/cancel immediately its Orders No.
F.7/(119)/DME/Acad./2015-pl-l/6777 dated 30.9.2016
and No. F.7/(119)/DME/Acad./2016/6583 dated
04.10.2016...”


21. On the next day i.e., on 07.10.2016, the Central Government also
rejected the recommendation of the DCI and the request of the
State of Rajasthan for lowering the minimum percentile, noting
that there were a sufficient number of qualified candidates
available for admission to the BDS course. It further advised the
DCI to seek an extension of the admission deadline from this Court
by filing an Interlocutory Application in the matter of Ashish
Ranjan (supra) to fill the remaining vacant seats. The relevant
portion of the letter is extracted hereinbelow:
“... I am directed to your letter No.DE-130-2010/7312 dated
03.10.2016 on the subject mentioned above on to say that
the mailer has born examined in this Ministry and since,
there are adequate number of candidates who have
qualified NEET-UG for the academic session 2016-17, the
proposal for lowering of percentile is not acceded to.
However, it has been decided with the approval of
competent authority that DCI may seek extension for
completion of admission of BDS course beyond 7th October,
2016 only for academic session 2016-17 with the approval
of Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing an IA in the matter of
Ashish Ranjan & Ors. Vs. UOI.

5. In view of this, DCI may take further necessary
action in approaching the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
this regard ...”
19


22. Even after receiving the letter dated 06.10.2016, the State of
Rajasthan kept quiet and did not inform the colleges regarding the
decision of the Central Government. In the meantime, acting upon
the relaxation granted by the State of Rajasthan vide letters dated
30.09.2016 and 04.10.2016, the colleges proceeded to admit
students by granting a relaxation of 15 percentile in the NEET
qualifying marks. It appears from the pleadings that only on
07.11.2016, through a communication that is not on record, the
State of Rajasthan finally informed the colleges about the position
taken by the DCI and the Central Government. However, there is
no clarity on whether the State of Rajasthan directed the colleges
to cancel the unauthorised admissions or discharge the students.

23. It is pertinent to note that by the time, i.e. 07.11.2016, the State
of Rajasthan informed the colleges about the position taken by the
DCI and the Central Government, the dental colleges proceeded
with the admissions of the students under the State of Rajasthan’s
relaxation policy, which lowered the qualifying percentile by 15
percentile and further, went a step ahead and admitted students
by giving additional relaxations beyond the limit prescribed by the
20


State of Rajasthan, solely relying on the marks obtained by the
students at the 10+2 level. As a result, even students who had
secured zero or negative percentiles in the NEET examination were
admitted to the BDS course. Thus, the students, who were not
qualified and granted admission under the State of Rajasthan’s
relaxation policy and beyond the relaxation of 15 percentile,
continued with their first year BDS curriculum in the respective
colleges.


24. In the above scenario, the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences
(hereinafter referred to as “ the RUHS ”), being the affiliating
University, refused to issue enrolment IDs to some of the first-year
BDS students, who as per it were illegally admitted. On such
denial by the RUHS to issue enrolment IDs to some of the first-
year BDS students, the Federation submitted a representation
dated 20.04.2017 requesting the State of Rajasthan to intervene
and to direct the RUHS to enroll all such students provisionally.


25. Meanwhile, the State of Rajasthan, again on 27.06.2017, wrote to
the Central Government, seeking post-facto approval for its earlier
decisions of relaxing the NEET qualifying percentile up to 15
21


percentile. In support, it cited the Central Government’s own
action in lowering the qualifying NEET-PG marks in the year 2017-
18 for the Master of Dental Surgery (hereinafter referred to as
“ MDS ”) course.

26. There is nothing on record which suggests that the Central
Government has either accepted or acceded to the request made
by State of Rajasthan through letter dated 27.06.2017. However,
it appears that the State of Rajasthan also sought a similar post
facto approval from DCI and the DCI vide letter dated 28.08.2017
rejected the said request for ex-post facto approval for lowering the
NEET percentile for BDS admissions of Session 2016-17, stating
that once the State had opted for NEET, it could not alter the
qualifying marks. The relevant portion of said letter is extracted
hereunder:
“... I am directed to refer to letter No. V. 12025/181/2016-
(DE-FTS 3075124) dated 02-08-2017 Sh. Pradip Kumar Pal,
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare, New Delhi thereby forwarding copy of your
letter no. F7(19)DME/2015/PART-1/4223 dated 26-06-
2017 thereby reeking ex-post facto approval of the State
Government decision vide its order dated 30-09-2016 for
lowering down the percentile for BDS admissions for the
academic session 2016-17 in the State of Rajasthan and
requesting the DCI expedite the status of admissions visiting
the prescribe requirement under NEET 2016-17 to the
Ministry urgently.
22


In this connection, I am directed to say that the Executive
Committee of the DCI in its meeting held on 15-08-2017 at
New Delgi, considered letter referred to above and noted the
following relevant extract of the Dentists (amendment) Act,
2016.
“Provided that notwithstanding my judgement or order of
any count, the provisions of this section shall not apply in
relation to the uniform entrance examination at the
undergraduate level for the academic year 2016-17
conducted in accordance with any regulations made under
this Act, In respect of the State Government seats (whether
in Government Dental Colleges or in a private Dental College)
where such State has net opted for such examination"
The Executive Committee after discussion & deliberations
decided as under:
“The request of State Govt of Rajasthan to grand ex-post
approval for lowering down the percentile for BDS admission
for the academic session 2016-17 in the State of Rajasthan
is not accepted since the State Govt. of Rajasthan
themselves had opted for NEET 2016 for admission in BDS
course where they bad and opportunity to opt out the
conduct of NEET in their State for the academic session
2016-17 as per Dentists (Amendment) Act, 2016.”
The above said decision of the Executive Committee of the
Dental Council of India is communicated to you for your
information and necessary action in the matter. ...”

27. Finally, on 20.09.2017, the DCI directed the Dental Colleges of
Rajasthan to discharge all students admitted under the State of
Rajasthan’s relaxation policy for the 2016-17 session. Acting upon
the said letter, the RUHS, on 10.10.2017, issued an order
declaring all such students ineligible for enrollment on the ground
that they did not fulfill the NEET eligibility criteria as prescribed
by the DCI, thus refusing to issue the enrollment certificates to
23


some of the students, thereby preventing the students from
appearing in their first-year BDS examinations.

28. At this stage, the students of one of the private colleges preferred
S.B Civil Writ Petition No.13776 of 2017 and other similarly
situated students of the other colleges have also preferred
connected writ petitions bearing Nos. S.B. Civil W.P. No.
12907/2017, S.B. Civil W.P. No. 13305/2017, S.B. Civil W.P.
No. 13422/2017, S.B. Civil W.P. No. 13432/2017, S.B. Civil
W.P. No. 13450/2017, S.B. Civil W.P. No. 13491/2017, S.B.
Civil W.P. No. 13492/2017, S.B. Civil W.P. No. 13494/2017,
S.B. Civil W.P. No. 13564/2017 and S.B. Civil W.P. No.
13580/2017, S.B. Civil W.P. No. 13590/2017, challenging the
letters issued by the DCI directing the colleges to discharge those
students who had been admitted in the BDS course beyond the
minimum percentile and also being aggrieved with the action of
the RUHS of not enrolling those students.

29. In the writ petitions, the Single Judge of the High Court passed an
interim order dated 27.10.2017 stating that the students can
appear for the first-year BDS examination, however, the result of
24


the same shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions.
It was clarified that such students shall not claim any equity based
on the said order. The relevant portion of the Order passed by the
Single Judge is reproduced below:
“...Issue notice. Notices be given Dasti as well.
Meanwhile, the respondents are directed to accept the
examination forms of the petitioners and to allow the
petitioners to take the examination at their own risk.
However, the result of the same shall be subject to the final
outcome of the present writ petitions.
It is, however, made clear that the petitioners shall not claim
any equity on the basis of this interim order. The result of
the petitioners shall not be declared without permission of
this Court.
Put up on 07.11.2017 along with SBCWP Nos. 13422/2017
& 13305/2017 and other connected matters...”


29.1. The Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated
20.04.2018 partly allowed the said writ petitions, thereby
protecting the admissions to the BDS course that were granted
after giving a relaxation up to 10+5 percentile and ordering for
discharge of all those students who were admitted to the BDS
course by granting relaxation beyond 10+5 percentile. The
directions by the Single Judge are reproduced as under:
“ (i) The students who have been granted admission by
th
applying the relaxation to the extent of 10 percentile and
th
5 percentile shall not be disturbed and their admission
stands regularized. The result of these students be declared
forthwith.
(ii) All students who have been admitted after giving
25


relaxation beyond 10% and additional 5% shall stand
discharged from the BDS course with immediate effect.
(iii) The above arrangement shall be applicable only to the
academic year 2016-2017 and will not be used as precedent
for the following and further academic years.
(iv) The Central Government is directed for the future
to take decision in view of proviso (ii) of Regulation 6
th
of the 5 Amendment of Regulations, 2007 well on
time to avoid harassment and confusion.”

The Single Judge held that the criteria of attaining 50th
percentile for the unreserved category and 40th percentile for the
reserved category is not mandatory. At the same time, the Single
Judge also held that the minimum percentile for qualifying the
NEET exam was already on the lower side and reducing it by 10
percentile and additionally by 5 percentile and finally till the very
last seat gets filled was excessive. However, the Single Judge
opined that it was the Central Government who was required to
take a decision, in consultation with the DCI, regarding reduction
in the minimum marks required for BDS admissions, and its
failure to take a timely decision resulted in the present situation
because it kept open for the State of Rajasthan to take a decision
“ as deemed fit ”. Taking note of such circumstances, the Single
Judge opined that, it was too late to contend that the Central
Government could not delegate its discretion to reduce the
26


minimum marks because the State of Rajasthan had acted to
reduce the minimum percentile only after the Central Government
permitted it to do so, and such action could not be revoked on the
ground of lack of authority.
The Single Judge also observed that relaxation to the extent of
10 percentile and an additional 5 percentile was found
understandable in view of the vacant seats, but reducing it to a
level where persons with even zero and minus percentile were
admitted was held to be too far. It was also observed by the Single
Judge that the permission to reduce the percentile could not be
misused to admit students who had no marks or even received
minus marks in NEET, and that the institutions, driven by greed
to fill every seat, ignored that admission of weak students would
ultimately result in sub-standard dentists.
The Single Judge attributed this entire disarray to the fact that
the NEET was conducted for the first time in the academic year
2016-17 and remained at an experimental stage, resulting in
several States not opting for NEET, 2016.

27



30. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2018 passed
by the Single Judge, the Appellants herein preferred the writ
appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The High
Court vide order dated 01.06.2018, as an interim measure, stayed
the operation of the direction given by the Single Judge to
discharge the students who had been admitted after giving
relaxation beyond 10 percentile and additional 5 percentile. The
relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereinbelow:
“...List on 06.07.2018. In the meantime, the effect and
operation of the direction No.(2) “All students who have
been admitted after giving relaxation beyond 10% and
additional 5% shall stand discharged from the BDS
course with immediate effect)” given in the judgment
dated 20.04.2018 in SBCWP No.13776/2017 and
connected matters, shall remain stayed...”

30.1. The Division Bench another interim order dated 03.08.2018
vide
directed that the results of students admitted to the first year BDS
course be provisionally declared, and those who had passed the
first-year examination be permitted to pursue the second year and
also to appear in the II Year BDS examination. The Court, however,
made it clear that no equities shall be claimed or created in favour
of the students on the strength of this interim permission. The
relevant portion of the said Order is extracted hereinbelow:
28


“11. Meanwhile, we direct that the result of the students
admitted in the first year examination be provisionally
declared and those who have cleared the first year
examination be permitted to pursue the second year course
as well. The students would be permitted to take part in the
II Year BDS Examination as well. We clarify that no equities
will be created in favour of the students.”

30.2. While concurring with the observations made by the Single Judge,
the Division Bench, after hearing the contentions of all the parties
passed the impugned judgment, affirming the judgment passed by
the Single Judge, while issuing further directions directing the
concerned private colleges to discharge the students who had been
granted admissions in the BDS course by giving relaxations
beyond 10+5 percentile and imposing costs upon the said colleges.
The said directions of the impugned judgment are reproduced
hereinbelow:
“(a) All the students, who have been admitted after giving
relaxation beyond 10% and additional 5%, if not discharged,
shall stand discharged from the BDS course with immediate
effect; in case any of such student(s) has already been
awarded the Degree of the BDS Course, beyond the
relaxation granted by the respondent-State, the same, if not
already procured and deposited, shall be required to be
procured by the concerned College, who in turn shall deposit
the same with the concerned University within a period of
one month from today, failing which the concerned
University would be at liberty to initiate contempt
proceedings against the College, who fails to do so.

(b) Each of such College(s), who have granted relaxation,
beyond the one already granted by the respondent-State,
are also liable to deposit a cost of Rs.50,00,000/- with the
29


Rajasthan High Court Legal Services Committee (RHCLSC),
Jodhpur within a period of two months from today; the
RHCLSC shall recover the same from the concerned
College(s), strictly in accordance with law.

(c) The said College(s) shall pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to
each of such student(s) within a period of three months from
today, as compensation, as the student(s) have been made
to suffer on count of being given admission by the College(s),
while extending the relaxation beyond the one already
granted by the respondent- State. The respondent-State is
directed to ensure the same.

(d) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment
to the RHCLSC and the concerned authority of the
respondent-State to ensure the compliance of this judgment.

(e) All pending applications stand disposed of.”

The Division Bench held the entire action undertaken by the
State of Rajasthan of lowering the minimum NEET qualifying
percentile, upon delegation of the requisite power by the Central
Government, as justified in law, in view of the fact that the Central
Government directed the State of Rajasthan to take the “ necessary
action as deemed fit ”.
Further, the Division Bench took grim note of the fact that
students, who had secured much lower percentile in the NEET
examination than the relaxation already granted by the State of
Rajasthan, including zero/(-) percentile, had been given
admissions to the BDS course by the private dental colleges for the
30


purpose of filling each of their vacant seats, and held that such
relaxation as granted by the colleges without obtaining any prior
approval or sanction was unacceptable and unsustainable in the
eyes of law, capable of having an adverse impact on the high and
uniform standards in the field of medical education.
31. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the students, dental
colleges and the DCI approached this Court in the present appeals.

32. During the pendency of these appeals, this Court vide order dated
03.01.2024 issued notice and directed that any further steps
taken in pursuance of the impugned judgment would be made
subject to the outcome of the present proceeding. The relevant
portion of the said Order is reproduced hereunder:
“... Taking note of the above, let notice, returnable in four
weeks, be issued.
Any subsequent steps taken in pursuant to the impugned
judgment dated 04.05.2023 is made subject to the outcome
of the present proceeding. ”

33. Further, this Court vide order dated 16.09.2025, ordered the
parties to file details of firstly, those students who got admitted
pursuant to the relaxation of 10 percentile and 5 percentile
granted by the State of Rajasthan , including the details of the
31


completion of their degrees and further studies. Secondly, this
Court directed the filing of similar statements pertaining to
students who were admitted beyond the relaxations given by the
State of Rajasthan and those who had subsequently completed
their BDS course. Pursuant to the said directions, the State of
Rajasthan as well as the RUHS had submitted the relevant
compliance affidavits giving the details of students admitted in the
Academic Session 2016-2017.


SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. On Behalf of the Students
34. The learned Counsels appearing for the aggrieved students have
submitted that due to the impugned judgment, grave hardship and
prejudice has been caused to the students, who were admitted to
the BDS course in 2016 through counselling under the bona fide
belief that their admissions were valid and in accordance with law.
It was argued that these students have since completed their BDS
courses, especially in light of the interim order dated 01.06.2018
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, staying the
32


discharge of such students and interim order dated 03.08.2018,
thereby allowing such students to continue their course.

34.1. It was further submitted that many of these students have been
issued their provisional degrees, on the strength of which some are
pursuing or preparing for postgraduate studies, some are
practicing as Dentists now and several have dependents or
families relying on them. The learned Counsels further submitted
that in the aftermath of the pandemic, the financial and emotional
strain has only deepened, and cancelling their degrees at this stage
would irreparably damage their lives and careers, despite there
being no fault attributable to them.
34.2. The learned Counsel further contended that in view of the
thousands of BDS course seats lying vacant across the country
after NEET UG-2016, the Appellant/students did not in any
manner impair the right or entitlement of any meritorious
students, as they merely occupied unfilled seats. The learned
Counsel vehemently argued that it cannot be lost sight of the fact
that the real test of merit is their consistent academic performance
across 5 years, and not a single NEET score in 2016. In the
33


alternative, it was argued that reducing the minimum percentile
for admission to the first-year BDS course does not amount to
lowering the standards of education in light of the judgment of this
Court in Harshit Agarwal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. ,
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 710.
34.3. It was submitted that the students are qualified dental
professionals now, having invested almost a decade of their lives
to earn their qualifications, and hence, their degrees deserve to be
safeguarded in exercise of this Court’s power under Article 142.
The learned Counsel has relied upon the decisions of this Court in
Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust and Anr. vs. Union
of India and Ors., reported in (2021) 18 SCC 779 and Rajiv
Gandhi University of Health Science vs. Bapuji Dental College
and Hospital and Ors. [SLP (C) Nos. 2597-2610/2015] in this
regard.
B. On Behalf of the DCI

35. The learned Counsel for the DCI argued that the High Court erred
in holding that the Central Government had delegated its power to
lower the minimum percentile required to qualify NEET UG-2016
34


to the State of Rajasthan. It was submitted that as per the proviso
to clause (ii) of the Sub-regulation 5 of Regulation II of the 2007
Regulations, such power only vested in the Central Government,
to be exercised in consultation with the DCI. It was thus argued
that the said Regulation never endowed such power upon the State
of Rajasthan and the admissions undertaken by lowering the
minimum percentile in exercise of such power were nothing but
backdoor admissions. Therefore, the learned Counsel has
submitted that the DCI is aggrieved by the impugned judgment to
a limited extent insofar as it regularizes the BDS admissions
granted in pursuance of the State-sanctioned relaxation of 15
percentile in the minimum percentile of the NEET-UG 2016.
35.1. Further, the learned Counsel submitted that that the students in
the present case had taken admissions with the knowledge that
their admissions were irregular and that they may be discharged
from the BDS course at any time, and the same was apparent from
the affidavit supplied by Maharaja Ganga Singh Dental College &
Research Centre, wherein the College has stated that the students
were duly informed about the conditions of their admission. Thus,
35


the learned Counsel has contended that no sympathy can be
shown to students securing admission through backdoor entry,
relying on the judgment of this Court in Abdul Ahad and Ors. v.
Union of India and Ors., reported in (2022) 18 SCC 108.
35.2. It has also been contended by the learned Counsel for the DCI that
the outer limit for completion of the BDS course according to the
2007 Regulations is 9 years, and hence, the students who had not
completed the BDS course including the one-year compulsory
rotatory internship within the period of 9 years from the date of
their admission i.e. from 2016, were bound to be discharged from
the BDS course.
C. On Behalf of the Colleges
36. The learned Counsels appearing for the colleges have submitted
that the colleges have incurred substantial financial expenditure
in establishing and maintaining the requisite infrastructures
including the faculty, laboratories, library and other academic
facilities and has also taken considerable loans for the same. The
DCI after an inordinate delay of about five months issued a
direction regarding discharge of students, whose admissions were
36


made under the relaxed criteria, disregarding the principle of
promissory estoppel.

36.1 Further, it was submitted that the admissions granted to the
students, after extending relaxation beyond 10+5 percentile, were
justified. The admitted students had already secured the requisite
qualifying marks in their 10+2 examination and had duly
participated in NEET. Initially, admissions were granted strictly
according to the centralised counselling, and only after the
centralised counselling process was completed and yet a large
number of seats remained vacant, admissions were granted against
the remaining seats, for which no candidate was available. The
colleges relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in State
of H.P. and Ors. v. Himachal Institute of Engg. and
Technology, Shimla, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 501, wherein filling

of vacant seats was permitted even without insisting on appearance
at the entrance examination. It was further stated that the
judgment in Abdul Ahad (supra) relied upon by the High Court
was wholly inapplicable, as the said case concerned admissions
made before the conclusion of the centralised counselling, whereas
37

36.2 Further, the learned Counsels submitted that the impugned
judgment directing each college to pay Rs. 50 lacs to the Rajasthan
High Court Legal Services Committee, Jodhpur and Rs. 25 lacs per
student is arbitrary and disproportionate as the circumstances of
disputed admissions arose because of the official acts of the
authorities themselves. The colleges have at all relevant times acted
in good faith and in accordance with the directions of competent
authorities. The students admitted under the relaxed criteria have
also pursued and completed their studies relying upon the official
approvals and communications duly issued by the concerned
authorities and the dental colleges are being subjected to punitive
consequences for no fault of their own.

D. On Behalf of the RUHS
37. The learned Counsel for RUHS submitted that the students and
the colleges were fully aware that the admissions to the BDS
38


course were made illegally and in direct violation of the mandatory
NEET eligibility criteria. The colleges admitted students on their
own, without following the centralized counselling, even though
many students did not secure the minimum qualifying percentile
in NEET, and some had extremely low or even negative marks.
Despite this, the colleges went ahead with admissions, and the
students consciously accepted these admissions, knowing that
they were not eligible. These facts have been recorded by both the
Single Judge and the Division Bench, which clearly held that the
admissions were illegal and that no equity could be claimed by the
students.

37.1 The learned Counsel further submitted that the claim made by
the students regarding enrollment in post-graduation or even
dental practice is misleading on account of the fact that the
Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 10.04.2023 had
declined to give any interim validity to the provisional degrees
obtained by the students. Thus, it was argued that none of these
students could have legally enrolled for higher studies and/or
taken employment as a dentist. In light of the same, any relief
39


given to the students in the peculiar circumstances of this case,
in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India, would be a case of misplaced sympathy.

D. On Behalf of the State of Rajasthan
38. The learned Counsel for the State of Rajasthan submitted that the
State of Rajasthan acted bona fide and strictly in accordance with
the directions issued by the Central Government. The Central
Government directed the State of Rajasthan to take the necessary
steps with respect to the vacant seats in the BDS course vide letter
dated 29.09.2016. In pursuance of this communication, the State
of Rajasthan, by its letters dated 30.09.2016 and 04.10.2016,
granted a reduction of 10 percentile and 5 percentile respectively
in the minimum qualifying percentile for NEET, only to the extent
necessary to fill the seats through a transparent counselling
process. However, the said relaxations were withdrawn in
compliance of the letter dated 06.10.2016 issued by the Central
Government. There was no malafide or arbitrary action on part of
the State of Rajasthan while allowing reduction of the minimum
qualification marks, as the same was done on a bona fide
40


impression that the Central Government has delegated the power
to take such a decision.

ANALYSIS
39. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record.

40. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it is imperative to
clarify that admissions to MBBS and BDS courses in all
government and private medical colleges are to be undertaken
solely on the basis of NEET merit. This position has been settled
in the case of Sankalp Charitable Trust (supra). The relevant
portions of orders passed in the said case are reproduced as
follows:

41


41. The NEET examination functions as a mechanism which not only
upholds the high standards of medical education across the
country through its recognition of merit but also ensures a level-
playing field for medical aspirants. Consequently, all admissions
to medical institutions must strictly conform to the standards and
regulations prescribed for the conduct of NEET, so as to safeguard
the primacy of merit. A three-Judge Bench of this Court, while
upholding the constitutional validity of NEET in Christian
Medical College Vellore Association v. Union of India and
Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 705, also laid emphasis on the
significance of regulatory norms in enhancing the quality of
professional education in the country. The relevant portions of the
said judgment are reproduced for your perusal hereinbelow:
“55. The prescription of NEET is definitely in order to
improve the medical education, co-related to the
improvement of public health, thus, it is a step in furtherance
of the duty of the State enshrined in the directive principles
of State policy contained in Article 47 of the Constitution of
India. Similarly, Article 46 aims at promotion of educational
and economic interests of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes, and other weaker sections. By prescription of one
equivalence examination of NEET, the interest of their merit
is also equally protected and its aims of preventing various
malpractices, which crept into the system and prevent
economic exploitation by selling seats with which malady
the professional medical education system suffered. Article
51-A(j) deals with the duty to strive towards excellence in all
spheres of individual and collective activity so that the
42

43

admission to the BDS course is 50th percentile in NEET for
44


candidates in the unreserved category, 40th percentile for
SC/ST/OBC candidates and 45th percentile for candidates with
locomotory disability of the lower limbs. We have no hesitation in
affirming that the said can be reduced in accordance with the
proviso attached to the sub-regulation 5(ii) of Regulation II of the
2007 Regulations, only when a sufficient number of candidates in
the respective categories fail to secure the prescribed minimum
cut-off marks for the concerned academic year. However, from the
language of the said proviso, it is apparent that the power to
undertake such a reduction in the qualifying percentile is only
vested in the Central Government, to be exercised in consultation
with the DCI. It must be stated in no uncertain terms that such a
power cannot be exercised by any other authority or the State
Government, as was done in the instant case.

43. The said Regulation has been dealt with and interpreted by this
Court in Harshit Agarwal (supra), as follows:

45

was lowered by the State of Rajasthan by 10 percentile and
subsequently, by an additional 5 percentile. That is to say, that
such a reduction was undertaken by the State of Rajasthan not
once but twice. It is the case of the State of Rajasthan that its
action was supported by the delegation said to arise from the letter
dated 29.09.2016 issued by the Central Government. The Single
Judge and the Division Bench, construing the expression
“ necessary action as deemed fit ” occurring in the letter dated
29.09.2016 as a delegation of power, accordingly upheld the State
of Rajasthan's decision to lower the minimum percentile. In
consequence, the Single Judge and the Division Bench secured the
admissions of students who had been granted relaxations under
the State of Rajasthan’s policy to the extent of 10+5 percentile,
treating such admissions as lawful and sustainable. However, we
cannot come to terms with such a view.
46


45. The interpretation adopted by both the Courts, in holding that the
State of Rajasthan had been delegated the power to lower the
minimum marks by relying on the phrase “ necessary action as
deemed fit ”, cannot be approved. There is no such provision which
permits the delegation of this power within the Act or the 2007
Regulations, and the words “ necessary action as deemed fit” in
terms of the Central Government’s letter dated 29.09.2016 can
under no circumstances be stretched to confer such authority
upon the State of Rajasthan. Acting on this purported delegation,
the State of Rajasthan reduced the prescribed NEET percentile by
10 percentile and thereafter by a further 5 percentile. This action
was manifestly illegal and the admissions granted pursuant
thereto cannot be treated as valid.


46. At best, the State of Rajasthan could have made a representation
to the Central Government or a recommendation to the DCI to take
the appropriate steps in view of the large number of vacant seats.
However, the State of Rajasthan took it in its own hands to proceed
with the reductions, which cannot be justified by any means.


47


47. In the case of Rishabh Choudhary v. Union of India and Ors.,
reported in (2017) 3 SCC 652, a medical college of the State of
Chhattisgarh conducted its own examination, namely, CGMAT-
2016 for the MBBS course, with the approval and under the
supervision of the State Government, despite there existing a
Notification dated 21.10.2010 issued by the Medical Council of
India (hereinafter referred to as “the MCI ”), stipulating that the
admissions to the MBBS course shall be based solely on marks
obtained in NEET. The 2010 Notification was also upheld by this
Court. As a result, this Court held that the said college and the
State Government had acted in defiance of the law and it was a
clear case of maladministration on part of the State. The relevant
portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:

48

percentile was already excessive, the private colleges in the State
of Rajasthan, driven by their greed to fill every last seat,
overstepped the relaxations already granted by the State of
Rajasthan and undertook further admissions by giving relaxations
beyond 10+5 percentile. These colleges have granted admissions
to students from the NEET merit list relying solely on their 10+2
scores, which resulted in students with even zero and negative
scores being admitted. Thus, admissions granted beyond
relaxations of 10+5 percentile were also wholly untenable and
49


unlawful. This whole exercise amounted to making a mockery of
the rules and regulations prescribed by the DCI for effective dental
education in the country.

49. As regards the contention of the colleges that the principle of
promissory estoppel has been disregarded, it is settled law that the
doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to sustain an
action taken in contravention of a statutory mandate. The said
principle has been upheld by this Court in Maharishi Dayanand
University v. Surjeet Kaur , reported in (2010) 11 SCC 159. In the
present case, the colleges granted admissions based on the
relaxations given by the State of Rajasthan, despite the fact that
such relaxations were in contravention of the 2007 Regulations,
which do not confer any power upon the State of Rajasthan to
reduce the prescribed minimum percentile. Consequently, the plea
of promissory estoppel is devoid of merit. The relevant portions of
Maharishi Dayanand University (supra) are reproduced
hereinbelow:
“ 16. A bare perusal of the same would demonstrably make
it clear that the said provision was not meant for candidates
like the respondent. As a matter of fact, under the garb of
the said notification, the respondent managed to get her
form registered with the appellant and when this
50

students were well-aware and informed while being admitted to
the BDS course that their admissions were irregular, we did not
find any materials on record that substantiate such a claim.

51


51. What has transpired in the facts before us is egregious and cannot
be condoned in any circumstances whatsoever. The State of
Rajasthan as well as the private colleges have not followed the law
and there were also some lapses on the part of the DCI as well as
the Central Government. When the Federation on 23.09.2016
made a request to the Central Government for lowering the
percentile in view of a large number of unfilled seats in the BDS
course, the Central Government was not supposed to forward the
said representation to the State of Rajasthan for taking “ necessary
action as deemed fit ”. Instead, the Central Government could have
asked the State of Rajasthan to verify about the position of vacant
seats and thereafter, taken a decision regarding any reduction in
the percentile, in consultation with the DCI.


52. As observed earlier, the State of Rajasthan on its own acted in
haste and interpreted the action of the Central Government of
forwarding the representation of the Federation with suggestion to
take “ necessary action as deemed fit ” as delegation of power,
whereas the Central Government under the Act or the 2007
Regulations cannot delegate its power to any other authority.
52


Further, the State of Rajasthan, having already granted the
relaxations, continued to seek post-facto approval from the
Central Government for the reductions of 10 percentile and 5
percentile, and informed the colleges of the positions taken by the
Central Government and the DCI only belatedly. The DCI is also
at fault to some extent, as it first recommended a relaxation of 10
percentile and thereafter reversed its position by recommending
the cancellation of all admissions below the minimum percentile.


53. In all this, the only victims are the students who obtained
admissions despite not securing the minimum prescribed
percentile, possibly on the assurance extended by the colleges as
well as under the belief that, once the percentile had been lowered
by the State of Rajasthan and also recommended by the DCI, their
admissions would stand regularised. It is also not in dispute that
during the pendency of the proceedings, many of the students
have pursued the BDS course pursuant to the interim orders
passed by the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the
High Court, and completed the said course, and even been granted
their degrees. Though the exact number of candidates is not
53


available, it has been urged that many of these candidates are
presently practicing as dentists or pursuing postgraduate studies,
and some have already completed their postgraduate courses.
Additionally, it cannot be overlooked that the students were
charged hefty fees by the colleges for pursuing the BDS course and
have further spent a considerable amount of time and money in
the present litigation. In such circumstances, the question that

now arises is what relief can be granted to the students and what
steps are to be taken to prevent the situation that has occurred in
this case.

54. In the case of Deepa Thomas and Ors. v. Medical Council of
India and Ors., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 430, when admissions
were granted to students with less than 50% marks in the
competitive entrance examination (“ CEE ”) as was mandated by the
Medical Council Regulations on Graduate Medical Education,
1997 (hereinafter referred to as “ the 1997 MCI Regulations ”), due
to a bona fide omission in the Prospectus by several private
medical colleges of Kerala, this Court permitted the students to
complete their MBBS course, in view of the fact that they had
54


already completed more than 4 years of the course and that they
were unaware of the irregularity of their admissions. In such
circumstances, this Court exercised its extraordinary powers
under Article 142 to provide such a relief. The relevant portions of
the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow:

55

55. In the case of Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust (supra),
wherein 132 students were admitted to the Saraswati Medical
College on its own, without requesting the Director General of
Medical Education to send more candidates, contrary to the 1997
MCI Regulations, it was observed that such students were fully
aware that their admissions were irregular in terms of the 1997
MCI Regulations. However, taking note of the fact that they had
already completed their second year MBBS course, this Court
allowed them to continue with their studies, while imposing a two-
year community service punishment on them to be undergone post
the completion of their course. The relevant parts of the said
judgment are reproduced hereunder:
“ 14. The College ought not to have admitted 132 students
by conducting a selection on its own without requesting the
third respondent to send more candidates. The third
respondent cannot be blamed for any delay on his part in
carrying out the directions issued by this Court by its order
dated 1-9-2017 in Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust
v. Union of India [Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust v.
Union of India, (2017) 16 SCC 637] . The College sent an
email to the third respondent at 6.32 p.m. on 1-9-2017.
Admittedly, 2nd and 3rd September were not working days.
The third respondent acted swiftly on 4-9-2017 and sought
for applications from interested students for admission to
the college in the first year MBBS course. 735 students made
applications. 150 meritorious students out of 735 were
56

57

56. Similarly, in the case of Ebtesham Khatoon v. Union of India
and Ors. , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 380, wherein students
were enrolled in undergraduate AYUSH courses without having
appeared for NEET UG-2019, this Court directed for their exam
results and degrees to not be withheld, on the grounds that on the
strength of the interim order, they had already completed their
AYUSH course and withholding results at this stage would have
been futile. The relevant portion of the said order of this Court is
reproduced hereinbelow:

xxx
58


5. By now, the petitioners have completed their AYUSH
course for which they were granted admission. It would
therefore be futile to withhold their results.

57. After a thorough perusal of the aforesaid cases and in order to do
complete justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case, we deem it fit to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution of
India in the instant matter. As a result, the admissions of the
Appellant/students who have passed the BDS course and received
their degrees stand regularised. Nonetheless, all Appellant/
students who are being benefitted by these directions shall file an
affidavit with the Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur, within a period of eight weeks from the date of
pronouncement of this judgment, giving an unconditional
undertaking that whenever they are required to render
their pro-bono services to the State of Rajasthan during their entire
lifetime in exceptional circumstances involving natural calamities,
man-made disasters/accidents, health emergencies comprising
epidemics, pandemics, disease outbreaks or public health crises
59


declared by competent authorities, or any other situation of
similar gravity that threatens public health, safety or welfare as
notified by the State of Rajasthan, they shall do so without
charging any remuneration for a maximum cumulative period of 2
years. The Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur,
shall forward those affidavits to the concerned authority of the
State of Rajasthan for their record. It is made clear that if any
Appellant/student fails to file the aforesaid affidavit within the
stipulated time, the Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur, shall intimate this Court through proper channel and
the Registry of the Supreme Court shall place the said information
before this Court for further directions.

58. As far as other students, who have still not cleared the BDS course
or whose degrees have not been issued yet, are concerned, they
are not entitled to any relief by this Court, having regard to the
2007 Regulations, which explicitly provide that any student who
fails to complete the BDS course within a period of 9 years from
the date of their admission shall be discharged from the course.
Thus, the students before us, who were admitted in the Academic
60


Year 2016-17, and have still not cleared the BDS course, cannot
be conferred any relief from this Court, as was rightly pointed out
by the learned Counsel for the DCI.

59. As a matter of caution, we must state that this direction is issued
only to save the efforts, time and resources of the students that
have gone into achieving their BDS degrees and shall not be
treated as a precedent.


60. We are constrained to express our displeasure at the manner in
which the standards of medical education have been undermined
in the present case. The colleges committed blatant illegality and
willful violation of the 2007 Regulations while admitting students
beyond 10+5 percentile, thus warranting strict punitive action.
Further, the State of Rajasthan also acted without any authority
of law while granting relaxations and failed to timely inform the
colleges of the decisions of the Central Government and the DCI.

61. This Court, in Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. ,
reported in (2012) 7 SCC 433, has emphasized the need for strict
adherence to the admission procedure prescribed under the MCI
61


Regulations in order to ensure that merit is not compromised. It
further held that those who flagrantly violate such Regulations
must be appropriately punished. The relevant observations from
the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:
“72. Balancing of equities by the Court itself is inequitable.
Some party or the other would suffer a setback or adverse
consequence from the order of the Court. On the one hand, if
admissions are cancelled, the students who have practically
completed their MBBS course would lose their professional
education as well as nearly five years of their life spent in
such education. If their admissions are protected, then the
standard of education, the merit of the candidates and the
desirability of the persons of higher merit becoming doctors
is negated. The best solution to such problems is strict
adherence to the time schedule, procedure for
selection/admission and strict observance of the Medical
Council of India Regulations, by all concerned. Once these
factors are adhered to, not only would such a situation not
arise, but also it will prevent avoidable litigation before the
courts. The persons who violate the time schedule to grant
admissions in an arbitrary manner and by colourable
exercise of power, who are not adhering to the Medical
Council of India Regulations and the judgments of this Court,
should be dealt with strictly by punishment in accordance
with law, to prevent such mischief from repeating.”


62. In view of the above and considering the facts of this case,
especially taking note of the manner in which the 2007
Regulations have been flouted, the Appellant-Colleges are directed
to deposit a cost of Rs. 10 crores each, and the State of Rajasthan
is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lacs with the Rajasthan State
Legal Services Authority within a period of eight weeks from the
62


date of pronouncement of this judgment. It is made clear that the
Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority shall invest the said fund
in a short-term fixed deposit account, in a Nationalized Bank, with
auto-renewal facility.


63. The Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority shall utilize the
amount of interest accrued on the said fixed-term deposit for the
maintenance, upgradation and improvement of One Stop Centres,
Nari Niketans, Old Age Homes as well as Child Care Institutions
established by the State of Rajasthan within the state. The said
interest amount can also be utilised for setting up of new
infrastructure for the said social welfare institutions. However, we
direct the utilisation of the said amount only with the advice of a
committee of the judges of the Rajasthan High Court to be
constituted for the said purpose. In furtherance of the said
objective, we request the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Rajasthan
High Court to constitute a Committee comprising five judges of the
High Court, including at least one woman judge, in order to ensure
the effective utilization of the interest amount accrued on the fixed
deposit, for the purposes outlined hereinabove.
63


64. With these observations and modifications in the impugned
judgment, the present appeals and all pending/interim
applications stand disposed of.






………………………. J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)








………………………. J.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)
NEW DELHI,
th
Dated: 18 DECEMBER, 2025
64