LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Siddhant Mahajan & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Not available · 2025 INSC 1458Decided 18 Dec 2025
Not available
Justice J.K. Maheshwari · Justice Vijay Bishnoi

Background

This batch of appeals concerned the legality of BDS (Bachelor of Dental Surgery) admissions granted in Rajasthan for academic year 2016-17 after the State lowered the minimum NEET-UG qualifying percentile, first by 10 percentile and then by a further 5 percentile, claiming this was authorised by a Central Government letter permitting "necessary action as deemed fit." The Rajasthan High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) had upheld these admissions as valid, treating the letter as a valid delegation of power to the State to relax the percentile.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's interpretation, holding that neither the Dentists Act nor the applicable 2007 Regulations permitted any delegation of the power to lower minimum NEET marks to a State Government, and that the vague phrase "necessary action as deemed fit" could not be stretched to confer such authority. The Court held the State of Rajasthan's twin percentile reductions were "manifestly illegal," and that at most the State could have recommended action to the Central Government/Dental Council rather than acting unilaterally. However, invoking its extraordinary power under Article 142 (and following precedent showing leniency toward students who had already progressed far into their courses through no clear fault of their own), the Court permitted students who had already completed the BDS course to retain their degrees, as a one-off equitable measure not to be treated as precedent, while directing the offending private colleges to each deposit Rs. 10 crore as a penalty (to be used for social welfare institutions) and the State of Rajasthan to deposit Rs. 10 lakh with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, for having acted without authority of law.

Lesson Learnt

State governments cannot unilaterally relax national eligibility standards (like NEET cut-offs) for professional courses by stretching vague language in a central government communication, such action is ultra vires and illegal, but courts may still protect students who relied in good faith on such (illegal) admissions and have since completed their courses, while imposing significant financial penalties on the institutions and authorities responsible for the illegality.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case