No more lowering of NEET PG cutoff percentile, says Delhi HC

Such an opinion was expressed by the HC bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla, after it observed that more than 25,000 candidates could participate in the mop-up round after NBE lowered the cut-off by 15 percentile. This has resulted in the seat to candidate ratio to 1:3- meaning there would be hardly any vacant seats anymore.

"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," noted the bench as it listed the matter for further hearing on April 11.

Medical Dialogues has been reporting about the plea at Delhi High Court seeking a further reduction in the NEET-PG 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.

Even though the National Board of Examinations (NBE) had reduced the cut-off for NEET-PG 2021 counselling by 15 percentile, the petitioners approached the High Court with the argument 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.

During the last date of hearing, the Central Government had pointed out before the HC bench that passing MBBS does not put all the doctors on the same footing and there is a necessity to filter out candidates with enough merit who can actually become the 'specialists'.

The argument thereafter revolved around the debate of percentile vs percentage. While the petitioners argued that fixing the cut-off at 50 percentile leaves a lot of meritorious candidates behind, the Government justified its action by referring to the fact that percentile was actually introduced to fill up maximum number of seats.

The counsel for the Union Government, advocate T Singh Dev referred to the figures of previous academic year and demonstrated how percentile system allowed candidates with even lesser marks to pursue higher education.

Also Read: May be the last year for NEET-PG, Centre informs High Court

As per the latest media report by Live Law, Advocate T Singh Dev on Tuesday argued that the petitioners could not refer to any precedent where courts interfered with the cut-off prescribed by experts, after giving it proper consideration.

He also pointed out that the only remotely related case is Harshit Agarwal v. Union of India, where the top court had directed to lower the cut off for BDS course by 10 percentile for filling up the vacant seats in the first year for the academic year 2020-2021.

However, in that case, the Dental Council of India itself had recommended for lowering the percentile and this suggestion was not taken by the Central Government.

The counsel for the petitioners, however, argued that the Government didn't disclose the criteria or aptitude level for fixing the percentile. Further, he pointed out that the Central Government contradicted itself by saying that all the medical institutes does not impart same quality of education when it is the Government itself that grants recognition to the medical institutes under Section 35 of the NMC Act 2019.

Responding to this, Advocate T Singh Dev for the Government clarified that as per the guidelines the cut-off is 50 percentile and the candidates must understand the same from the reference point.

"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 pointed out.

The counsel for the petitioner questioned the stand of the Government in prescribing same cut-off for both clinical, pre-clinical and para-clinical subjects (Microbiology and Pharmacology), and pointed out the fact that those pursuing the pre and para-clinical subjects do not become surgeons, and primarily devote themselves for research and training work. Non-medical teachers are currently doing the research work as the pre and para-clinical courses are going vacant, he pointed out.

However, the Government, on the other hand, justified its stand by clarifying it to be a stop gap arrangement for avoiding shortfall of teachers. He referred to the fact that the qualification for such non-medical teachers has been set at Medical MSc and Medical PhD from medical college. Besides, the recruitment of non-medical teachers has been capped at only 15% for 3 subjects only if teachers are not available.

Taking note of all these submissions, the bench noted that there will hardly be any vacancy in the seats and expressed its disinclination to interfere with the cut-off.

The matter would be heard next on April 11.