NMC's rank based NEET PG, NEET SS merit system proposal draws mixed responses from doctors, structural issues flagged
New Delhi: The National Medical Commission's proposal to change the percentile-based ranking system in the National Eligibility-Entrance Test Postgraduate (NEET-PG) and NEET Super Speciality examinations to a rank-based system has drawn mixed responses from doctors.
While acknowledging that the rank-based system might be able to do away with the need for last-minute percentile reduction during counselling, doctors have expressed concerns regarding the existing long-pending structural issues, including vacant seats, fee and bond-related issues.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that the National Medical Commission (NMC) has proposed to adopt a rank-based merit system for the National Eligibility-Entrance Test Postgraduate (NEET-PG) and NEET Super Speciality examinations, scrapping the existing percentile-based format. The Commission has already accorded in-principle approval for the proposed change; a draft regulation in this regard will be issued by NMC shortly for stakeholder comments.
A 12-member expert committee of the Union Government has informed the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe of the NMC's decision on Tuesday (November 3), during the hearing of a plea that challenged the reduction of the cut-off percentile in the NEET PG 2025-2026.
Reactions from the Medical Fraternity:
The United Doctors Front (UDF) has expressed serious concern over the proposed transition from a percentile-based to a rank-based system for NEET-PG and NEET-SS, while questioning the priorities of the Government.
According to the association, the development raises a fundamental question: "Were the concerns and recommendations placed before the government by stakeholders genuinely intended to bring meaningful reforms, or was the entire exercise merely a formality?"
During the meeting convened by the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) on October 9, 2026, under the chairmanship of Additional DGHS Dr. Nita Khurana, Dr. Lakshya Mittal, Chairperson, United Doctors Front (UDF), specifically raised several long-pending structural issues concerning postgraduate medical education.
UDF had submitted its recommendations which included- establishment of effective Fee Regulatory Committees to ensure transparent, uniform and reasonable medical education fees, addressing the alarming disparity in postgraduate fees across neighbouring states. The association had also suggested a bond-free admission in pre-clinical, para-clinical and non-clinical postgraduate branches, particularly where seats frequently remain vacant, to make these specialities more attractive to deserving candidates
Other recommendations included substantial enhancement and uniformity in stipends for postgraduate residents, particularly in pre-clinical, para-clinical and non-clinical branches, to address existing disparities and encourage doctors to pursue these essential specialities, and improved faculty recruitment, career progression and research opportunities to strengthen the overall medical education ecosystem.
"These were substantive recommendations aimed at addressing the root causes of vacant seats, unequal opportunities, financial exploitation and declining interest in certain postgraduate specialities. However, instead of addressing these fundamental concerns, the proposed reform appears to have shifted the focus towards changing the selection mechanism from percentile-based to rank-based counselling," UDF Chairperson Dr. Lakshya Mittal stated in a release.
The association has questioned how changing the methodology of merit-list preparation can resolve the underlying problems of exorbitant fees, inadequate stipends, compulsory bonds and the unattractiveness of certain postgraduate specialities.
"It appears to be a case of changing the approach without addressing the actual problem— if the tail cannot be held from one side, it is simply being held from the other. A rank-based system may have its own merits and can certainly be examined on academic and technical grounds. However, it cannot be projected as a comprehensive reform of postgraduate medical education. Changing the system of ranking candidates is not the same as reforming the system of medical education," Dr. Mittal further added.
UDF has further emphasized that qualifying standards must protect academic quality, while vacant seats should be addressed through meaningful policy interventions rather than merely changing qualifying criteria or counselling mechanisms.
"The government must clarify the status of the recommendations submitted by stakeholders and provide a concrete roadmap for their implementation. Medical education needs structural reforms, not cosmetic rearrangements. Doctors need affordable education, dignified stipends, fair opportunities and sustainable academic career pathways — not merely a different method of calculating their ranks," Dr. Mittal said.
UDF has urged the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, National Medical Commission and concerned authorities to take the stakeholders’ recommendations seriously and move beyond procedural changes towards genuine, result-oriented reforms.
Dr Aviral Mathur, Past President of Federation of Resident Doctors Association (FORDA), and currently a consultant at Sir Gangaram Hospital, told Medical Dialogues that this is a "long-overdue conversation".
"Every year we see the same cycle: seats stay vacant, the cut-off is lowered in round 3, petitions are filed and counselling gets delayed. A rank-based system removes the need for these last-minute reductions and should make the schedule more predictable for candidates. Credit is due to Advocate Satyam Singh Rajput, who filed the petition challenging the January cut-off reduction. His petition is what led the Supreme Court to ask for an audit of the whole admission system, and this report is the result. Whatever one's view on the rank-based proposal, the questions he raised about minimum standards and about changing the rules midway through counselling have clearly been taken seriously," he said.
However, Dr. Mathur has expressed concerns regarding the PG medical education standards and the issue of vacant seats. He said that the NMC should circulate the draft widely and resident doctors' associations should be consulted before the finalisation of the draft.
"That concern about standards is still the one to watch. If there is no qualifying threshold at all, the draft regulation should spell out how competence is assured. The argument that MBBS already establishes it and the MD/MS exit exam tests it is reasonable, but it should be written into the regulation and not left implied," Dr. Mathur said.
"A change in ranking method will also not fix vacant seats by itself. Most unfilled seats are in non-clinical branches and in private colleges where fees are very high, and service bonds put off many candidates. The committee's suggestions on fee rationalisation and bond exemption are as important as the rank-based change. NMC has said a draft will be put out for comments. It should be circulated widely, and resident bodies like FORDA should be consulted before it is finalised," he further added.
While commenting on the matter, Dr. Dhruv Chauhan, National spokesperson, IMA JDN, and Founder and chairperson of the Legal cell for all India doctors, said, "The 12-member expert committee’s recommendation to shift NEET-PG and NEET-SS from a percentile-based to a rank-based system from 2027 is now before the Supreme Court. But let us be clear: changing the examination formula does not erase the questions surrounding the drastic reduction of qualifying cut-offs. Today, our counsel, Advocate Satyam Singh Rajput, rightly questioned what substantive difference this proposed transition would actually make. The Court has taken the report on record and sought responses from all parties. My position is uncompromising: vacant seats cannot become an excuse to compromise merit, dilute qualifying standards or experiment with the future of medical education."
