Reported by Mrinal Kanti Banik
Agartala: The Tripura High Court has upheld the state government’s decision to prescribe a 60 per cent academic cut-off for students seeking eligibility under the “Super 100 Scheme”, ruling that the criterion was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit dismissed a writ petition filed by Amit Kanti Tripura, who had challenged a July 27, 2026 notification issued by the Tribal Welfare Department.
Introduced from the financial year 2025-26, the Super 100 Scheme provides structured guidance, coaching and mentoring to Scheduled Tribe students preparing for JEE, NEET and Civil Services examinations. The scheme sponsors a maximum of 100 students, with 60 seats allocated for JEE/NEET coaching and 40 for Civil Services preparation.
Under the challenged notification, students seeking JEE/NEET coaching were required to have secured at least 60 per cent in Science and Mathematics in Class IX. For Civil Services coaching, applicants were required to have obtained 60 per cent in graduation. Selection among eligible candidates was to be made through a test based on merit.
The petitioner argued that the cut-off was unreasonable, pointing out that students who scored below 60 per cent in their qualifying examinations could also succeed in competitive examinations. He also submitted that he had been denied an opportunity to receive Civil Services coaching because he had not obtained 60 per cent in his Bachelor of Arts (Honours) course.
The High Court, however, noted that the state government had restricted sponsorship to 100 students, taking into account its financial limitations. The selection process was to identify candidates through an examination based on inter se merit.
The Bench observed that the government had “probably” fixed the 60 per cent threshold because, without such a criterion, it could face a large number of applications for the limited sponsorship opportunities.
The court held that determining eligibility criteria for such a government scheme fell within the domain of administrative policy. It found nothing unreasonable in the government prescribing an academic threshold to determine which candidates would be permitted to appear in the selection test.
The Bench further observed that the government appeared to have proceeded on the basis that students securing 60 per cent or above would possess sufficient academic ability and have better prospects of gaining admission to professional engineering and medical courses or qualifying for the Civil Services examinations.
The court also noted that the possibility of some students scoring below 60 per cent eventually succeeding in competitive examinations did not, by itself, render the eligibility criterion arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. Any pending applications were also disposed of.