How Can Candidate Higher In All India List Fall Lower In State List? MP High Court Seeks Explanation On NEET-PG Normalization Formula

The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday (December 5) orally questioned the National Board of Examination for Medical Sciences (NBEMS) over the Normalization process formula used with respect to the NEET-PG exam in preparation of the State rank of In-service candidates. 

During the hearing, the court questioned the body as to how someone who was higher in the All India ranking becomes junior in the State list after application of the normalization process, orally remarking that the process seemed to defy logic. It thereafter listed the matter on Friday, asking the body to show how they have worked the formula applied by them. 

On December 3, Executive Director, NBEMS had explained the procedure of normalization and the preparation of the merit list based on NEET percentile, All India Ranking as well as State ranking based on the NEET percentile and the raw score. However on this day, the NBEMS prayed for sometime to produce the calculation sheet with regard to preparation of normalization and preparation of the State rank of In-service candidates.Thereafter, the matter was listed for Thursday. 

During the hearing today, a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf at the outset said, “There is no challenge to the normalization process. We just want to look into how someone who was higher in the all India list, how do they become lower in the State list? That's all we are trying to verify”. 

The court then asked, “Is it in public knowledge as to which one was the tougher shift? Who has been given benefit–shift 1 or shift 2 in normalisation?”

The respondent said that both are given the benefit. An official from NBEMS further said, “Marks were actually increased as per the directions given by the State Government.”

“No we are not on the 30% addition. We are at the moment considering the normalization process,” the Court however orally said.

Meanwhile the petitioner, Dr. Abhishek Shukla submitted, “Normalization as a process pe hum koi question kar hi nahi rahe hain (we are not questioning the normalization process).”

He further added, “The notification regarding normalization wo All India level pe ranking banane ke liye hai. Vo state rank level pe incentive marks ke sath ranking banane ke liye kahi nahi hai. Sir agar mera all india percentile better hai. Mera all india rank better hai. It means mera all India normalized score better hai.”

His counsel further added, “He was 2000 rank ahead earlier. 2000 se suddenly itna fall aya sir. That's what my client is trying to explain sir.”

The court thereafter orally asked asked the respondents, “Where you have done a state specific calculation, have you done normalization? Because what is defying logic is this...if someone in the entire process of normalisation is higher, both Candidate A and Candidate B have to be given 30% extra for this state service, suddenly becomes lower in rank. That is not understandable. That means either you did normalization for calculating All India Ranking but no normalization was state specific.”

The respondent official from NBEMS submitted that they have also done state specific normalization. He further said,

“We combined shift 1 and shift 2 candidates of whole 1 lakh population and we increased the marks as per the government provided list. We increased the marks and then taking it as actual marks obtained in the NEET PG exam for this particular state, we again rank them and after ranking them we created a percentile. We removed all the other Non-MP states and the remaining MP state remain as in order of….”

At this stage the court orally asked, “No. Tell me something. If somebody in the All India Ranking is higher, how does that person become junior when all you're doing is adding 30% benefit to both?”

“We are not able to understand. So, here the benefit accorded to both candidates is equal i.e. 30% hike in percentage for state purposes not for national list. In national list one is senior, other is junior. Now when you give same benefit to both, junior can't overtake the senior. Defies logic...then at the time of state list you have not done normalization of raw marks,” the Court said.

Thereafter, the Executive Director of NBEMS who had joined the proceedings through video conferencing said,“We are following the same procedure for all the states. The number of candidates who were given the bonus marks is different in both the shifts...”. The Executive Director went on to explain the technicalities of the normalisation process. He said that the normalization only for a small number is not justified as the number is miniscule. 

At this stage the court orally remarked, “Even people who got no percentage benefit. Somebody has 637, he is junior to 631 in the state specific score when you have not done any normalization and no 10% benefit. Raw score is higher state specific score but the rank is lower. Are you doing any different normalization?...this is not justifiable. It is causing a lot of problem.You have created an entire havoc in the entire system”.

The court thereafter further orally said, “You gave 30% incentives to some students, thereafter one student who was highest in the rank, after getting 30% how will he become junior in the rank if your process is correct? It appears there is a defect in your system. It appears it has been changed in respect of several candidates, not just one candidate. Your formula is defective because after considering that there were two different shifts, the All India list was prepared. Person who is higher in rank in all India, after incentive becomes Junior. You are not saying all india list was prepared differently for shift one and shift two.”. 

The court further questioned the respondents and said, “If someone says that I am All India Rank 1 but in State I'm rank 2, is it logical?...It is completely illogical".

Giving an example the court further said, "Rank number one in all India list and rank number two in all India list. Both of them are entitled to 30% benefit from the state, and you follow this process. Will it be logical if rank number two then in the State list becomes rank number one and rank number one becomes rank number two?".

To this the executive director replied, “It's possible”.

The court however orally said, “It's possible by applying your formula, but that formula is completely illogical”.

After hearing the matter for some time, the court asked the respondents, “Show us the formula and how you have calculated the result. We want to see how you have worked the formula. We will keep it confidential. We'll see tomorrow. Please explain it tomorrow".

The court has asked the respondents to show how they have calculated the results of four specific candidates chosen by the court.The matter is listed for hearing on December 6. 

Case Title: Dr. Abhishek Shukla And Others Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others