Erroneous Methodology Used To Prepare State List: Madhya Pradesh HC Directs Issuance Of Fresh List For NEET-PG 2024 In-Service Candidates

Allowing a plea against the normalisation process used in the NEET-PG 2024 exam for preparing state ranking of in-service candidates, the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday (December 9) quashed the state merit list directing the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to prepare it afresh by giving incentivised marks to the candidates based on their normalised scores.

In doing so the court found that the method used by the body did not show the substantive merit of the candidate but their comparative merit, and questioned how a candidate who was higher in the All India Rank scored lower in the State list which it said defied logic. 

A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf in its order said:

"Since, as per the reply filed by NBEMS, rankings are based on relative performance. It is not discernible as to how and why relative performance can change between two candidates by merely placing them in different lists.The methodology of percentile as contended by the NBEMS does not reflect the substantive merit of a candidate but a comparative merit of the candidate. In this view, it completely defies logic as to how a candidate who has scored higher in comparison to another candidate in the All India rank list has scored lower in the State List in comparison to the same candidate. The comparison of scores has to be in relation to the examination and not a list. It is unfathomable that a candidate in the same examination is higher in one list and lower in another list vis a vis the same candidate.If the ranking in the All India List merit list is based on relative performance, then the relative performance of two candidates cannot change when they are separated and placed in the State List"

The Petitioners in this case were all in-service candidates and had appeared in NEET-PG 2024 examination, sought a direction against the Respondents to redraw the State Merit list for the in-service candidates. Advocate Aditya Sanghi represented the petitioners and their primary contention was that their merit in the All India List was higher than some of the other in-service candidates but in the State List they were lower in the Merit.

NEET-PG examination was initially scheduled to be held on June 23 in a single shift, however the same was postponed to be held on August 11 in two shifts. NBEMS conducted the exam and notified on August 9 that the "percentile based normalisation process which was used by All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi" for its various examinations conducted in more than one shift, would be adopted.

As per the NBEMS, to eliminate bias in distribution of candidates, equal numbers of candidates were randomly allotted different groups (shifts). Further, with a large population of examinees spread over the entire country, possibility of bias becomes remote.  The overall ranking has been based on the percentile score of the 'Raw score' of the candidates in their respective shift and tie-breaking. Percentiles up to 7 decimal places for the raw score were calculated and the percentile score for the raw scores for both the shifts were merged and to derive the ranking. The concept of percentile score is of relative performance to all those who have appeared.

NBEMS said that the NEET – PG 2024 rank was based on percentile obtained as per the notified normalisation process. It contended that in India many states have a provision to award additional incentivised marks in NEET – PG to their in-service candidates who have served in rural/hard posting.

The order notes that in Madhya Pradesh, in-service candidates who have served in rural/hard posting are entitled to 10%, 20% and 30% incentivised marks in percentage of their raw scores based on the period of completed service in rural/hard area. Candidates who have completed one year are entitled to 10%, and those who have completed two years, 20% and those more than three years, 30% incentivised marks of their raw scores.

It was submitted that as the examination was held in two different shifts, the standard practise is to adopt a normalisation process so as to equalise the scores of the two shifts. They stated that the overall merit/ranking is based on percentile of raw score obtained by the candidates in their respective shifts and 'tie breaking' criteria as mentioned in the information bulletin for NEET-PG 2024. Percentile (up to 7 decimal places) for the raw score is to be calculated. The percentile (not percentage) for the raw score for both the shifts is merged and arranged so as to derive an overall Merit/Ranking. The percentile ranges from 100 to 0. The percentile indicates the percentage of candidates that have scored equal to or below (same or lower raw scores) that particular percentile in a shift of that examination. The topper (highest scorer) of each group gets the same percentile of 100. The marks scored between the highest and lowest scores are converted to appropriate percentile. 

The court however said that the NBEMS had prepared the All India Merit List adopting the normalisation process and a comparative merit list by applying the percentile method. In the case of the State List, they went back to the raw scores pre normalisation and added the incentivised marks to the raw scores and then applied the normalisation process. The bench found the process erroneous as candidates should have been granted incentivised marks on the normalised score.

“The Hypothesis mentioned in their note is fallacious. The hypothesis begins with a presumption that 30% or 20% or 10% addition is being sought by the petitioners to be done on the percentile, which is not the case. Further, NBEMS has granted incentivised marks on the raw scores prior to normalisation, which is where the error has crept in. Candidates have to be granted incentivised marks on their normalised scores to create a level playing field,” it said. 

It also clarified that the challenge is only to the preparation for the State Merit List, which which was "clearly erroneous". 

The court said that if the incentivised marks were awarded after normalisation of raw scores, then the relative advantage to candidates would be equal i.e. 30%, 20% or 10% as the case may be. But, it observed, if the incentivised marks were awarded before normalisation of raw scores, then the relative advantage to candidates would not be equal but would be compounded by the difference in the degree of difficulty of the two shifts as has happened in this case. 

By taking into account the difference of the raw scores of the toppers, the degree of difficulty is approximately 1.6736402% between Shift 1 and Shift 2, "the real advantage is approximately 31.6735402% and not 30%", it underscored. 

It said that since NBEMS had added 30% incentive to the raw scores pre normalisation, it led to a compounded benefit to candidates of one of the Shifts of approximately 1.6736401% i.e. an incentive of approximately 31.6736401% instead of 30%. 

"In an examination where the result is calculated upto 7 decimals, this makes a world of a difference," the bench observed. 

Finding the method erroneous, the court allowed the petition and directed, "...State Merit List for the NEET-PG 2024 examination for the State of Madhya Pradesh cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences is directed to prepare the State Merit List afresh by awarding the incentivised marks to the in-service candidates, not on their raw scores but on their normalised scores. The exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible.”

Case title: Dr. Abhishek Shukla And Others Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Case no: WRIT PETITION No. 37078 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 319

Click Here To Read/Download Order