Raj. HC: No Jurisdiction on DRT to Modify Settlement Terms in Appli. Filed after Disposal of Matter  ||  Kar. HC: Second Petition u/s 482 of CrPC Not Maintainable Unless Founded Upon Change in Circumstance  ||  Centre to Delhi HC: In Process of Framing Rules Under New Online Gaming Act  ||  Karnataka HC: Compelling DNA Tests without Imminent Need becomes Violative of Article 21  ||  SC: TET Qualification Mandatory for Teachers in Minority Institutions  ||  SC: Agreement to Sell Does Not Confer a Valid Title on a Party as it is Not a Deed of Conveyance  ||  SC Criticizes NGT for Outsourcing its Responsibilities to External Committees  ||  SC: No Culprit Should Manage an Acquittal on the Basis of Unreasonable Doubts  ||  Delhi High Court Dismisses Bail Pleas of Umar Khalid and Other Accused in 2020 Delhi Riots Case  ||  Supreme Court Judges Launch Schemes for Human -Wildlife Conflict    

Ajay vs Employees State Insurance Corporation And Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4720) - (High Court of Delhi) (03 Jun 2024)

Fixation of cut off dates is permissible and is largely immune from judicial scrutiny, unless the person aggrieved makes out a positive case of arbitrariness

MANU/DE/4029/2024

Education

In facts of present case, the Petitioner is the ward of an Insured Person (“Ward of IP”) within the meaning of Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. The Petitioner applied for participation in the NEET UG 2024, for obtaining admission to MBBS courses conducted by medical colleges across the country. The ESIC has restricted the entitlement of reservation to dependent male “Ward of IP” to candidates who had yet to attain the age of 21 years by 10 April 2024. The Petitioner is aggrieved thereby. He complains that, by virtue of fixing of 10 April 2024 as the date by which a dependent male “Ward of IP” would have had to be less than 21 years of age, the petitioner has become disentitled to the reservation available to “Ward of IP”, as per the policy of the ESIC, as he crossed the age of 21 years before 10thApril 2024.

The fixing of the aforesaid cut-off date does not, in any manner, impact the Petitioner’s right to participate in the NEET UG 2024 or to secure admission to a medical college as per his rank in the said examination. Fixation of cut off dates has been held, by the Supreme Court, to be permissible in several decisions, and is largely immune from judicial scrutiny, unless the person aggrieved makes out a positive case of arbitrariness or discrimination thereby.

No doubt, the grant of “Ward of IP” reservation is a beneficial provision. That, however, cannot be a basis for this Court to interfere with the cut-off date fixed by the ESIC. Fixation of any cut-off date is always bound to result in prejudice to some persons, who may not qualify. So long as there is no basis urged on the basis of which the fixing of the cut-off date can be said to be arbitrary, the Court cannot interfere. It is also a settled position that the onus to establish such arbitrariness is on the person so urging.

The cut-off date was fixed in accordance with Clause 9 of the admission policy of the ESIC, which was approved by Central Government. The fixation of the cut-off date does not merit interference. It is not possible for this Court to accept the Petitioner’s submission that the fixing of the cut-off date for reckoning the age of 21 years as 10 April 2024 in Clause 7.9.2 of the impugned admission notice dated 24 April 2024, issued by the ESIC, is arbitrary in any manner or warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed.

Tags : CUT-OFF DATE   FIXATION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved