NEET-PG: Delhi High Court Expresses Disinclination To Interfere With Cut-Off Percentile

The Delhi High Court today said that it is not inclined to interfere with the cut-off percentile arrived at by the expert examination body for counselling and admissions to post graduate medical courses through the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET).

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla noted that with the lowering of cut-off by 15 percentile by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences, approximately 25,000 more candidates could participate in the mop up round, raising the seat to candidate ratio to 1:3. In such circumstances, it opined that there would be hardly any vacant seats left.

However, the Court refrained from passing any formal order and adjourned the case to 11th April, to review the position of vacant seats (at the Petitioners' request) after the counselling.

"We are informed that mop up round will conclude on 6th April. Thereafter, missed out seats will be filled up. From the submissions it emerges that number of candidates is three times the number of seats and there would be hardly any vacancies left," the Bench noted in its order.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by three MBBS graduates, seeking relaxation in the cut-off percentile prescribed this year by the Medical Council of India for admissions to medical colleges through NEET-PG.

The Respondent-authorities on the other hand claimed that it cannot compromise the merit required to become a "Specialist" by allowing the petitioners' request.

Thereafter, the case revolved around the rationale of prescribing the cut-off for counselling based on relative merit, instead of actual percentage.

Whereas the Petitioners represented by Advocate Varun Singh claimed that percentile system excludes several meritorious students merely because they do not qualify the 50 percentile cut-off, Advocate T Singh Dev appearing for the Respondent authorities submitted that the percentile system was introduced to in fact increase the number of candidates filling the PG seats.

Today, Singh Dev submitted that the Petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any precedent where the Courts have interfered with the cut-off prescribed by the expert bodies, after due consultations.

He added that the only case which is remotely related is Harshit Agarwal v. Union of India, whereby the Supreme Court directed that the vacant seats in first year BDS course for the year 2020-2021 shall be filled up from the candidates who have participated in the NEET (UG) courses for the year 2020-2021 after lowering the percentile mark by 10 percentile. However, the same was passed in the peculiar facts of the case where the Central Government had declined to lower the percentile despite a recommendation made by the Dental Council of India. That is not the case here, he said.

Singh then submitted that the Respondents have not disclosed the criteria or aptitude level based on which the percentile is set. He further pointed out that the argument made by Respondents that NEET is essential because not all medical institutions impart the same quality of education is self-contradictory, inasmuch as under Section 35 of the National Medical Commission Act 2019, medical institutions are granted recognition by the Respondents themselves.

Singh Dev responded that as per the Regulations, the cut-off is 50 percentile and the candidates must understand the cut-off from that reference point alone.

"Merely because the percentile is lowered in previous years, they can't rely on us every year to lower the percentile. For them, the benchmark is 50. They can't say we lower it every year so they are expecting us to lower further. That's not the spirit of a candidate endeavoring to become a Specialist," he said.

The Petitioner's counsel also urged that the Respondents are not justified in prescribing the same cut-off for both clinical as well as pre and para-clinical subjects like Microbiology and Pharmacology. Singh contended that those pursuing pre and para-clinical subjects do not become surgeons. Rather, they are primarily engaged in research and teaching work, which at the present is being done by non-medical teachers, due to the seats in pre and para-clinical courses going vacant.

However, Singh Dev responded that this is only a stopgap arrangement to avoid shortfall of teachers; the qualification prescribed for such teachers is Medical MSc and Medical PhD from medical college. Further, recruitment of non-medical teachers is capped at 15% for only 3 subjects in case medical teachers are not available.

The matter is now listed on 11th April.

Case Title: DR. ABHINAV KUMAR & ORS. v. Union of India