NEET PG 2021: Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Listing To Plea Seeking Further Reduction In Qualifying Percentile

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to grant urgent listing to petition filed by NEET PG aspirants seeking directions to further reduce the qualifying percentile criteria across categories published on March 12, 2022 by National Board of Examination ("impugned notification") more than what was reduced for NEET PG 2020 on July 14, 2020.

Calling it a matter of national interest, Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal on Wednesday sought urgent listing of the case before a Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli. 

"6600 seats out of 42000 are left vacant at end of 2nd round. Last year they reduced the cut off by 20%. We need it as the mop up round ends tomorrow. Order by Centre was passed three days back. Please list it before a Bench headed by Justice Chandrachud or Justice Nageswara Rao" Mr Venugopal said.

"Last minute we can't do anything. What can i do, today now i have to pass an order? Sorry. Last minute you are coming at 10:30 morning Sorry", CJI said while refusing to grant an urgent listing. 

In the impugned notification, minimum qualifying percentile for the General Category was reduced from 50th percentile to 35th Percentile, for SC/ST/OBC from 40th Percentile to 25th Percentile and for UR-PWD from 45th percentile to 30th percentile.

Referring to the notification dated July 14, 2020 wherein the Central Government had lowered the minimum qualifying percentile for the General category from 50th percentile to 30th percentile, doctors in the petition have argued that the fixation of reduced cut off marks across categories ought to have been more to accommodate the mitigating and extenuating circumstances that were unique to the candidates who had appeared in NEET-PG 2021.

It has been contended in the plea that no reason/basis were disclosed in the impugned notification to depart from the reduction formula employed for lowering percentile in 2020.

"Writ courts cannot substitute their wisdom with the wisdom of expert regulatory bodies. However, it is equally settled in law that no authority can hide behind technicalities or claim immunity from judicial review even when there is overwhelming evidence of material defects and deficiencies in the decision-making process. There is no reason/basis disclosed in the notification dated 12.3.2022 for departing from the reduction formula employed with respect to NEET-PG 2020 on 14.7.2020," the plea states.

Doctors in the plea have also referred to the Central Government's decision of reducing the qualifying percentile in NEET-PG 2018 by 15 points, in NEET-PG 2019 by 7 points and in NEET PG 2020 by 20 points.

It has also been averred that Central Government's decision to lower minimum marks required for admission to PG Courses in terms of proviso to Regulation 9(3) of PGME Regulations which is meant to be an informed decision must have a rational nexus with the total number of seats likely to remain vacant.

"The decision cannot be made mechanically or taken in a manner ignoring relevant considerations," plea states.

In this regard it has further been stated that, "Purely going by the pattern of percentile/cut-off reduction in 2020, if there is some basis for the reduction being based on number of vacant seats left, then in NEET-PG 2020 when there were some 3,373 vacant seats which led to a percentile reduction by 20 points, then a mere 15 percentile reduction for NEET-PG 2020 is prima facie unreasonable. To give a simple idea about the absurdity involved, some 32,000 extra candidates qualified after the percentile was reduced in NEET PG 2020 on 14.7.2020, but only 25,000 candidates have qualified based on the percentile reduction on 12.3.2022 for some 6,500 vacant seats in NEET-PG 2022."

The petition has been filed through Advocate on Record Shivendra Singh.

It may be noted that a bench led by Justice Chandrachud had last week issued notice on a petition filed by doctors who appeared in the first round of counselling of NEET PG 2021 seeking permission to appear in the mop-up round.

Case Title: Dr Sushil Badgaiya & Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors.| Diary No 82466/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order