May be the last year for NEET-PG, Centre informs High Court
New Delhi: During the hearing of the plea seeking further reduction of NEET PG cut-off percentile, the Central Government expressed its opinion against the generalization that all the candidates who clear MBBS are similar and should be given the chance for pursuing Post-Graduation.
Referring to the NEET-PG exam, which is the centralized common entrance test for admission to PG medical courses, the central government further referred to the fact that the aim of the test is to neutralize various factors such as quality of education and filter out candidates who had enough merit for being called a "specialist".
The Government also informed the High Court bench regarding the possibility of introducing an "Exit Test", which is similar to AIBE to lawyers and would act as a qualifier for the medical graduates for obtaining their medical registration.
"This may be the last year that NEET-PG takes place. We will come out with the 'National Exit Test'. Just like AIBE is for lawyers, an exit test will be developed for doctors. All doctors, while passing out MBBS will have to qualify this exam after which they'll be registered as Practitioners. Same merit will be taken for admission to PG courses," counsel for the Government, advocate T Singh Dev was quoted saying by Live Law.
When the bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla inquired whether there would be a cut-off system in the exam, advocate Singh Dev answered in the affirmative.
Such information was provided by the Government while the bench was considering petitions filed by NEET PG candidates seeking further reduction in the cut-off percentile.
Doctors had been demanding a reduction in the cut-off marks for appearing in the mop-up round of counselling as they pointed out that every year a large number of seats remain vacant due to the high qualifying marks.
In fact, the National board of Examinations (NBE) had reduced the cut-off for NEET-PG 2021 counselling by 15 percentile.
However, the petitioners had pointed out before the High Court bench that despite such lowering of percentile on a yearly basis, around 5,000 seats remain vacant every year. They had also argued that percentile is different from percentage and therefore, lowering the percentile would not compromise on the merit.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that while considering a plea seeking further reduction in the NEET PG cut-off percentile, the Delhi High Court had questioned the percentile system for preparing the merit list for NEET PG counseling.
Also Read: Percentage or Percentile for NEET PG? Delhi HC to hear matter on March 28
Expressing the opinion in favour of the percentage system, the HC bench had noted, "We understand if you put a benchmark in terms of percentage. Then if there are vacancies, let them be. But you are on percentile system and despite this lowering of percentile, it's not working."
"Dare we say but the difference between 100 percentile and 50 percentile may be just 2-3 marks. You know how it works. In 0.5 marks there may be difference of 100-200 ranks. These are all students who got into MBBS through an All India Exam. It's not easy. You are actually putting a doubt on your own education system if you think that MBBS students are not competent to undertake the PG course… We are not saying you compromise with the quality or take zero marks candidate. But by percentile, you're consciously restricting number of people into counselling without looking into their actual merit which is the percentage," the bench had earlier observed.
Previously, the counsel for the petitioners had further argued that leaving out meritorious candidates merely because they didn't qualify in the 50 per cent percentile was a violation to their fundamental rights.
Responding to all this, T Singh Dev appearing for the Centre argued yesterday that contrary to the claims made by the petitioners, the percentile system had been introduced with an aim to increase the number of candidates filling the PG medical seats.
Referring to the figures of the previous academic year he pointed out that the total number of candidates were 38,107 and with the minimum percentile criteria being 50 per cent, the last candidate who had scored 50 percentile cut-off had actually scored 366/1200 marks, which corresponded to 30.5%.
However, the percentile had been reduced further by 20 percentile and after this, the last candidate who had secured a seat had scored 275/1200 marks corresponding to 22.91 %.
He also submitted that there was a total number of 1,425 vacant seats last year and additional 13,000 seats had been filled after reducing the percentile.
Referring to this data, T Singh Dev argued that if the formula of absolute merit, i.e. the percentage system had been made applicable, there would have ben far more vacant seats because in that context, the minimum marks required for admission would be 400.
Responding to this argument, the bench opined that the admission to MBBS being so difficult, it is generally assumed that those who secure admission are meritorious candidates. The bench questioned why then, their performances drop so drastically at the end of the course?
The counsel for the Government informed the court about the plausibility of an "Exit Test" and also discussed the disparity in the quality in education at different institutes.
Following this, the counsel for the petitioners questioned the logic behind not keeping a fixed and uniform cut-off percentile every year.
"They have all the data. They set 50 percentile, then see how many seats are left. Then they drop the percentile to fill more and more...Once the merit drops drastically from the reference point of percentage, they take a call, they're the experts, they can do that," the counsel was quoted arguing by Live Law.
The counsel for the centre, at thus juncture, referred to the marks obtained by the petitioner candidates. The petitioners had obtained 136, 115 and 45 marks out of 800 respectively.
Arguing that the petitioners fall much below the cut-off as they have scored very low, T Singh Dev argued that while selecting candidates who would eventually become 'Specialists' the authorities need to have a higher degree of consideration regarding the quality.
"No person has a vested right to become specialist when unable to meet particular cut-off marks," argued the Government's counsel.
March 29 has been set as the next date for hearing.
