SHIKHAR & ANR. versus NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION & ORS.
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 918, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
918
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
SHIKHAR & ANR.
v.
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION & ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 208 of 2022)
APRIL 05, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD,
SURYA KANT AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions: Admission – Eligibility
criteria – Formulation of eligibility standards for admission is within
the domain of executive and regulatory authorities.
Education/Educational Institutions: NEET-PG 2022 –
Admission – Writ petition instituted by doctors, aspirants of NEET-
PG 2022 challenging the deadline set for  completion of internship
for appearing for NEET-PG 2022 – Students claimed that the
commencement of internships was delayed due to Covid situation
and as a consequence they would not be able to fulfill the cut-off
date and therefore, sought extention of cut-off date to accommodate
them in NEET-PG 2022 – In the alternative, it was alleged that the
period spent on Covid duties should be allowed to be counted
towards the internship requirements – Held: The authorities have
provided cogent reasons as to why the deadline for completing the
internship cannot be extended – An extension of the cut-off any
further would result in the disruption of the educational schedule,
as indicated to the Court by the Additional Solicitor General –
Moreover, students who have qualified in terms of the cut-off of
31 July 2022 will be prejudiced by the inevitable postponement of
the schedule – Hence, no such directions can be passed
– The
alternative prayer for inclusion of period of Covid duties in the
internship requirements would also involve this Court in micro-
managing the curriculum for the completion of medical courses –
This is a function which should not be assumed by the Court –
Hence, though hardship has been caused to those students whose
internship commenced much later, it would not be possible, at this
stage, to disturb the schedule as it would affect the other students
who fulfill the cut-off date of 31 July 2022 – Petition under Art.32
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 918
918
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
919
of the Constitution cannot be entertained – Constitution of India –
Art.32.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 While the present cut-off date for the completion
of the internship would put certain students at a disadvantage, it
is the domain of the executive and regulatory authorities to
formulate appropriate eligibility standards for admission.
Whenever a cut-off is extended, some students are likely to fall
on the other side of the dividing line. [Paras 9, 12][923-A; 925-
E]
Shivam Satyarthee v. Union of India Writ Petition (C)
No. 68 of 2022; Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur & Ors. v. Soutrik Sarangi (2021) SCC
OnLine SC 826; All India Council for Technical
Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan (2009) 11 SCC
726 : [2009] 3 SCR 859; Rachna v. Union of India &
Ors. (2021) 5 SCC 638; State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad
(1990) 3 SCC 368 : [1990] 2 SCR 468; Hirandra
Kumar v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr.
(2020) 17 SCC 401 : [2019] 2 SCR 608 – relied on.
1.2 In the present case, cogent reasons have been provided
as to why the deadline for completing the internship cannot be
extended. An extension of the cut-off any further would result in
the disruption of the educational schedule, as indicated to the
Court by the Additional Solicitor General. Moreover, students
who have qualified in terms of the cut-off of 31 July 2022 will be
prejudiced by the inevitable postponement of the schedule. Hence,
it would not be appropriate for
this Court to issue any such
direction. The alternative prayer for the inclusion of the period
of Covid duties in the internship requirements would also involve
this Court in micro-managing the curriculum for the completion
of medical courses. This is a function which should not be assumed
by the Court. Hence, though hardship has been caused to those
students whose internship commenced much later, it would not
be possible, at this stage, to disturb the schedule as it would
affect the other students who fulfill the cut-off date of 31 July
2022. [Para 14][927-E-H]
SHIKHAR & ANR. v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION
& ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
920
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
Poulami Mondal & Ors. v. All India Institute of Medical
Sciences & Ors. 2022 (6) SCALE 70 – distinguished.
2. Crucially, the case dealt with conducting of an
examination during a pandemic where strict lockdowns were in
place. It did not relate to fixing of a cut-off date, which is bound to
exclude some aspirants and include others. The law is clear that
such exclusion will always be incidental to fixing of any cut-off
date and cannot be termed arbitrary. Thus, it would not be
appropriate to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution. [Paras 15 and 16][928-G-H; 929-A-B]
Case Law Reference
[2009] 3 SCR 859
relied on
Para 9
(2021) 5 SCC 638
relied on
Para 10
[1990] 2 SCR 468
relied on
Para 12
[2019] 2 SCR 608
relied on
Para 13
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 208
of 2022.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India.
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Dr. Charu Mathur, Sanjay
Kumar Dubey, Ms. Tanvi, Ms. Ishita Chowdhury, Advs. for the
Petitioners.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, B. K. Satija, Rajat Nair, Sandeep
Kumar Mahapatra, Ketan Paul, Aman Sharma, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. The petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been
instituted by doctors who are aspirants of NEET- PG 2022. They have
challenged the deadline set for the completion of internship for appearing
for NEET-PG 2022.
The facts which give rise to the present petition are
set out below.
1 “Information Bulletin”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
921
2. On 15 January 2022, the first respondent released the NEET-
PG 2022-23 Information Bulletin1 providing the examination schedule
and eligibility criteria. Clause 4.4 of the Information Bulletin stipulates
amongst the eligibility criteria that the internship completion certificate
has to be submitted at the time of counselling/admission to the allotted
medical college and that the internship should have been completed by
31 May 2022.
3. On 8 February 2022, this Court, while considering a petition2
under Article 32 of the Constitution, permitted the petitioners, who were
seeking a postponement of the internship deadline, to submit a
representation before the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
This Court observed:
“The issue which has been raised by the petitioners requires a
determination of facts bearing on the position in different parts of
the country. Prescribing a cutoff date pertains to the policy domain.
The ends of justice would be met by permitting the petitioners to
submit a representation to the Union Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare setting out the nature of the hardship which has been
faced by the petitioners and similarly placed candidates. The
representation shall be considered expeditiously, within a period
of one week of the date of its submission, by the competent
authority. Since the Court is leaving it open to the petitioners to
move the MoHFW with a representation, no opinion has been
expressed by this Court on the
merits of the grievance at the
present stage.”
4. After considering the representations which were received,
the National Board of Examination issued a notice on 16 February 2022
extending the cut-off date for completion of internship to 31 July 2022 to
fulfill the eligibility criteria for the NEET-PG examination. The petitioners
are aggrieved by the revised cut-off date and have invoked the jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
5. The grievance of the petitioners is that the extension of the cut-
off from 31 May to 31 July 2022 would still leave out students from
certain States who are unable to complete their internships by the cut-
off date. It has been submitted that on 3 May 2021, the Union Government
in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had authorized the States/
2 Shivam Satyarthee v Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No 68 of 2022
SHIKHAR & ANR. v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION
& ORS. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
922
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
UTs to deploy medical interns in Covid management duties. Besides
this, it was envisaged that the services of final year MBBS students
may be utilized for providing services such as tele-consultation and
monitoring of mild Covid cases.
6. Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan, senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners, submitted that in certain States, the internships of
medical students commenced later as a result of the deployment of final
year medical students on Covid duties. For instance, it has been stated
that in Kerala, the internships commenced in August 2021, in Bihar in
October 2021, in Jharkhand in August 2021, in Uttar Pradesh in
September 2021 and in Jammu and Kashmir in November 2021. The
submission is that the commencement of the internships was delayed in
these States due to the Covid situation and as a consequence, these
students would not be able to fulfill the cut-off date of 31 July 2022.
Hence, it has been urged that the cut-off date should be extended further
to accommodate these students for the NEET-PG 2022. In the alternative,
it has been urged that the period spent on Covid duties should be allowed
to be counted towards the internship requirements.
7. Having due regard to the above submission, this Court had on
30 March 2022 requested the Solicitor General to assist the Court after
seeking the views of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
Ms Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor
General has in the course of
her submissions placed before the Court the practical difficulties in
acceding to the request of the petitioners and the cascading effect if the
submission of the petitioners is accepted. The Additional Solicitor General
stated that the examinations are now scheduled to be held on 21 May
2022; counselling will be expected to commence in the third or fourth
week of July 2022; and, under the time schedule which is proposed,
classes are likely to commence on 1 August 2022. Hence, it has been
submitted that any extension of the internship completion deadline would
result in the disruption of the entire schedule. Moreover, it has been
submitted that if the time schedule which is now prescribed is adhered
to, the next examination is likely to be held in January 2023.
8. Responding to the alternative submission of Mr Gopal
Sankarnarayanan that the period which has been spent on Covid duties
should be treated towards the internship requirements, the Additional
Solicitor General submitted that Covid duties do not cover all specialties
and, hence, the acceptance of this request would result in tinkering with
the educational curriculum.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
923
9. While we understand that the present cut-off date for the
completion of the internship would put certain students at a disadvantage,
we are conscious that it is the domain of the executive and regulatory
authorities to formulate appropriate eligibility standards for admission.
In Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur & Ors. v. Soutrik
Sarangi3, a three-judge Bench of this Court held that courts should be
circumspect in exercising their powers of judicial review in matters
concerning academic policies, including admission criteria. In that case,
this Court refused to interfere with the eligibility criteria for appearing in
JEE (Advanced) 2021 which prevented a candidate who had secured a
seat in one of the IITs from competing in a subsequent examination.
This Court relied on All India Council for Technical Education v.
Surinder Kumar Dhawan4, where it was observed that judicial
interference motivated by concerns of mitigating the hardship faced by
students may result in unintended consequences adversely affecting the
education system. This Court held thus:
“19. The reasoning of the High Court of Criterion 5 not permitting
IIT students to participate in IIT (Advanced) for the second time
being arbitrary, in the opinion of this Court is not supportable.
This Court has repeatedly emphasized that in matters such
as devising admissions criteria or other issues engaging
academic institutions, the courts’ scrutiny in judicial review
has to be careful and
circumspect. Unless shown to be plainly
arbitrary or discriminatory, the court would defer to the wisdom
of administrators in academic institutions who might devise policies
in regard to curricular admission process, career progression of
their employees, matters of discipline or other general
administrative issues concerning the institution or university5. It
was held by this court in All India Council for Technical Education
v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan6
“16. The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic
or technical background to substitute themselves in place of
statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in
academic matters involving standards and quality of technical
education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from
individual institutions or students to permit courses of
3 2021 SCC OnLine SC 826
4 (2009) 11 SCC 726
SHIKHAR & ANR. v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION
& ORS. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate
hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because
they think that one course is equal to another, without
realizing the repercussions on the field of technical
education in general, it will lead to chaos in education
and deterioration in standards of education.”
20. Given this general reluctance of courts to substitute the views
of academic and expert bodies, the approach of the High Court in
proceeding straightaway to characterize the rationale given by
the IIT in fashioning the Criteria No. 5 cannot be supported.”
(emphasis supplied)
10. In Rachna v. Union of India & Ors.5 a petition under Article
32 of the Constitution was instituted before this Court with a prayer to
grant one additional attempt to clear the Civil Services (Preliminary)
Examination 2020 to petitioners who were otherwise not eligible to
participate in subsequent examinations due to their exhausting available
attempts or because of crossing the age bar. The petitioners pleaded
that on account of the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic, they had faced
difficulties in preparing for the examination. The petitioners also argued
that the government had previously granted such a relaxation in 2015.
This Court dismissed the petition and held that policy decisions are taken
by the executive considering the prevailing circumstances. The Court
further observed that the petitioners cannot invoke the
writ jurisdiction
of the Court to direct the government to come out with a specific policy
granting relaxation to certain candidates as a matter of right. The following
observations of this Court are relevant:
“45. Judicial review of a policy decision and to issue mandamus
to frame policy in a particular manner are absolutely different. It
is within the realm of the executive to take a policy decision based
on the prevailing circumstances for better administration and in
meeting out the exigencies but at the same time, it is not within
the domain of the courts to legislate. The courts do interpret the
laws and in such an interpretation, certain creative process is
involved. The courts have the jurisdiction to declare the law as
unconstitutional. That too, where it is called for. The court is called
upon to consider the validity of a policy decision only when a
5 (2021) 5 SCC 638
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
925
challenge is made that such policy decision infringes fundamental
rights guaranteed by the Constitution or any other statutory right.
Merely because as a matter of policy, if the 1st respondent has
granted relaxation in the past for the reason that there was a
change in the examination pattern/syllabus and in the given situation,
had considered to be an impediment for the participant in the Civil
Services Examination, no assistance can be claimed by the
petitioners in seeking mandamus to the 1st respondent to come
out with a policy granting relaxation to the participants who had
availed a final and last attempt or have crossed the upper age by
appearing in the Examination 2020 as a matter of right.”
11. In the previous proceedings when this Court passed an order
dated 8 February 2022, the Court was conscious of the fact that any
extension of cut-off dates pertains to the policy domain. The decision
was hence left to the expert agencies of the Union of India. However,
having regard to the hardship which was faced by the petitioners and
similarly placed persons, we left it open to them to submit a representation
to the Union Government.  Responding to the request, an extension of
the cut-off date has been granted from 31 May 2022 to 31 July 2022.
12. Whenever a cut-off is extended, some students are likely to
fall on the other side of the dividing line. In State of Bihar v. Ramjee
Prasad6, the State had prescribed that applicants applying for the post
of
Assistant Professors must have three years of experience. In the
preceding year, the cut-off date for the receipt of applications was set in
June, however, in the year in question, the date was fixed in January
making certain candidates ineligible owing to their failure to meet the
three-year requirement. This Court held that the cut-off date cannot be
held to be arbitrary unless it is shown that it is unreasonable, capricious
or whimsical even if no reasons are forthcoming as to the choice of
date. This Court observed thus:
“8. In the present case as pointed out earlier the past practice
was to fix the last date for receipt of applications a month or one
and a half months after the date of actual publication of the
advertisement. Following the past practice the State Government
fixed the last date for receipt of applications as January 31, 1988.
Those who had completed the required experience of three years
SHIKHAR & ANR. v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION
& ORS. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
6 (1990) 3 SCC 368
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
by that date were, therefore, eligible to apply for the posts in
question. The respondents and some of the intervenors who were
not completing the required experience by that date, therefore,
challenged the fixation of the last date as arbitrary and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is obvious that in fixing the last
date as January 31, 1988 the State Government had only followed
the past practice and if the High Court’s attention had been invited
to this fact it would perhaps have refused to interfere since its
interference is based on the erroneous belief that the past practice
was to fix June 30 of the relevant year as the last date for receipt
of applications. Except for leaning on a past practice the High
Court has not assigned any reasons for its choice of the date. As
pointed out by this Court the choice of date cannot be
dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is
forthcoming for the same unless it is shown to be capricious
or whimsical or wide off the reasonable mark. The choice
of the date for advertising the posts had to depend on
several factors, e.g. the number of vacancies in different
disciplines, the need to fill up the posts, the availability of
candidates, etc. It is not the case of anyone that experienced
candidates were not available in sufficient numbers on the cut-off
date. Merely because the respondents and some others
would qualify for appointment if the last date for
receipt of
applications is shifted from January 31, 1988 to June 30,
1988 is no reason for dubbing the earlier date as arbitrary
or irrational. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High
Court was clearly in error in striking down the government’s action
of fixing the last date for receipt of applications as January 31,
1988 as arbitrary.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. Recently in Hirandra Kumar v. High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad & Anr.7, a two-judge Bench of this Court, of which one
of us (DY Chandrachud, J) was a part held that the cut-off date or an
age limit does not become arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution merely because certain candidates fall on the wrong side of
it. A cut-off date or an age bar would always exclude some candidates.
This Court emphasised that the determination of the cut-off date is within
7 (2020) 17 SCC 401
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
927
the sphere of the executive and the court cannot assume that function.
This Court observed:
“21. The legal principles which govern the determination of a cut-
off date are well settled. The power to fix a cut-off date or age-
limit is incidental to the regulatory control which an authority
exercises over the selection process. A certain degree of
arbitrariness may appear on the face of any cut-off or age-limit
which is prescribed, since a candidate on the wrong side of the
line may stand excluded as a consequence. That, however, is no
reason to hold that the cut-off which is prescribed, is arbitrary. In
order to declare that a cut-off is arbitrary and ultra vires, it must
be of such a nature as to lead to the conclusion that it has been
fixed without any rational basis whatsoever or is manifestly
unreasonable so as to lead to a conclusion of a violation of Article
14 of the Constitution.
27….the validity of the Rule cannot be made to depend on cases
of individual hardship which inevitably arise in applying a principle
of general application. Essentially, the determination of cut-off
dates lies in the realm of policy. A court in the exercise of the
power of judicial review does not takeover the function for itself.
Plainly, it is for the rule-making authority to discharge that function
while making the Rules.”
14. In the present case, cogent reasons have been provided as to
why the deadline for completing the internship cannot be extended. An
extension of
the cut-off any further would result in the disruption of the
educational schedule, as indicated to the Court by the Additional Solicitor
General.  Moreover, students who have qualified in terms of the cut-off
of 31 July 2022 will be prejudiced by the inevitable postponement of the
schedule. Hence, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue any
such direction. The alternative prayer for the inclusion of the period of
Covid duties in the internship requirements would also involve this Court
in micro-managing the curriculum for the completion of medical courses.
This is a function which, in our view, should not be assumed by the
Court.  Hence, though hardship has been caused to those students whose
internship commenced much later, it would not be possible, at this stage,
to disturb the schedule as it would affect the other students who fulfill
the cut-off date of 31 July 2022.
SHIKHAR & ANR. v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION
& ORS. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
15. The petitioners have sought to rely on an order of this Court in
Poulami Mondal & Ors. v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
& Ors.8 where the Institute of National Importance Combined Admission
Test (INI CET) for admission to the Post Graduate courses for the July
2021 session was directed to be postponed by this Court. The
consideration that weighed with this Court, inter alia, was that owing to
the lockdown in several states, it would have been virtually impossible
for candidates to reach the examination centres. Further, it was observed
that many of the doctors who would be appearing for the examination
were exposed to Covid-19 and would have to quarantine and isolate
themselves. There was also an apprehension that conducting the
examination at that time could lead to the spread of the virus. The relevant
observations are reproduced below:
“The attention of the court has also been drawn to news reports
of extensions of lock down, in many States. It is reported that in
Odisha lock down has been extended till 16th June, 2021. In
Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh and also in Kolkata, the lock
down has been extended till 15th June, 2021. It would be extremely
difficult, if not virtually impossible for many candidates for the
INI CET to reach their examination centres from their places of
duty. Many of the doctors are exposed to and are running the risk
of contracting Covid 19 and they may have to isolate and/or
quarantine themselves. Even otherwise holding the INICET on
16th June, 2021 will result in spread of the virus and increase in
Covid19 cases.
Having regard to the circumstances, pleaded, fixing of the INI
CET on 16.06.2021 is arbitrary and discriminatory, more so since
other important examinations including Joint Entrance
Examinations, Board Examinations etc. have been postponed.
The impugned notice is, therefore, set aside. The INI CET is
directed to be postponed by at least a month from 16th June,
2021.”
The factual matrix that led to the postponement of INI CET was
completely different from the present circumstances. Crucially, the case
dealt with conducting of an examination during a pandemic where strict
lockdowns were in place. It did not relate to fixing of a cut-off date,
8 Writ Petition (s) (Civil) No(s). 623 of 2021

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
929
which is bound to exclude some aspirants and include others. The law is
clear that such exclusion will always be incidental to fixing of any cut-
off date and cannot be termed arbitrary.
16. Thus, on a considered view of the matter, it would not be
appropriate to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
17. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
Devika Gujral
Writ Petition dismissed.
SHIKHAR & ANR. v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION
& ORS. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]