Academic cut-off methodology upheld where expert bodies used a scientific merit standard and no arbitrariness or mala fides was shown.

Expert academic selection methods based on mean and standard deviation were upheld as a scientific basis for fixing subject-wise and aggregate cut-offs in the JEE 2006 admission process. Judicial review was confined to illegality, arbitrariness, caprice, mala fides, or breach of statutory rules, and no material showed bias, manipulation, or ulterior motive. The Board's later explanations were treated as fuller disclosure of the same procedure, not a contradictory change in method. A candidate's high aggregate score could not cure failure to satisfy the prescribed minimum in an individual subject, so no ground for interference was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cut-off determination procedure adopted for the JEE 2006 admission process was arbitrary, mala fide or otherwise illegal so as to warrant judicial interference.

Analysis: The procedure for fixing subject-wise and aggregate cut-offs was based on a scientific method using mean and standard deviation to secure candidates with balanced performance across all subjects. The Court held that academic and selection methodologies framed by expert bodies fall within their domain and that judicial review is limited to illegality, arbitrariness, caprice, mala fides, or violation of statutory rules. The record did not establish any material showing personal bias, manipulation, or ulterior motive against the appellants. The different disclosures made by the Board were treated as fuller explanations of the same procedure, not contradictory processes. The Court also held that a candidate's high aggregate marks could not override failure to meet the prescribed minimum in one subject.

Conclusion: The cut-off procedure was not arbitrary or mala fide, and no ground for interference was made out.

---