A 60% academic cutoff for coaching sponsorship does not violate Article 14.

The Tribal Welfare Department of the Government of Tripura introduced the “Super 100 Scheme” from the financial year 2025–26 to provide coaching and mentoring to Scheduled Tribe students for JEE, NEET, and Civil Services examinations.

The scheme limited sponsorship to 60 students for JEE/NEET coaching and 40 students for Civil Services coaching, with selection based on a competitive test.

However, eligibility for the Civil Services stream required at least 60% marks in graduation, while eligibility for the JEE/NEET stream required 60% marks in Science and Mathematics in Class IX.

The petitioner, who had not secured 60% marks in his B.A. (Honours) course, challenged the eligibility condition as arbitrary and contended that candidates scoring below 60% could also succeed in competitive examinations.

1. Whether the State Government’s prescription of a minimum 60% qualifying-mark requirement for participation in the selection test under the “Super 100 Scheme” was arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the Court could interfere with the State Government’s choice of eligibility criteria as part of its administrative policy for limiting the benefit of the coaching scheme to 100 students.

The Court applied the principle that eligibility criteria formulated by the State in implementing a welfare or educational scheme constitute matters of administrative policy and ordinarily warrant judicial restraint.

Such criteria may be invalidated only if they are manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, illogical, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court further recognised that the State may adopt a reasonable cutoff to restrict beneficiaries where financial and administrative resources are limited, and that the mere existence of exceptions or candidates who succeed despite lower marks does not, by itself, render the classification unconstitutional.

The Court accepted that the State had limited the scheme to 100 students because of its financial constraints and had provided for selection through a merit-based examination.

The 60% qualifying-mark requirement was viewed as an administrative device intended to manage the number of applicants and identify students whom the State considered more likely to benefit from the coaching programme.

The Court held that the presumption that students obtaining 60% or more marks would possess sufficient academic ability and better prospects of succeeding in professional courses or Civil Services examinations was not arbitrary or illogical.

Although candidates scoring below 60% might also succeed in such examinations, that possibility did not establish that the eligibility condition was unreasonable or violated Article 14.

Accordingly, the Court declined to substitute its judgment for that of the executive on the scheme’s eligibility criteria.

The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit, without costs.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.