Can NEET PG Cut-Off Percentile Be Further Reduced? Supreme Court Says No

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently addressed the issue of whether the cut-off percentile for NEET PG admissions could be further reduced to fill vacant seats. In the case of Neppali Sai Vikash & Ors vs Union of India & Ors, the Court dismissed a miscellaneous application seeking such a reduction, emphasizing the importance of maintaining educational standards and the integrity of the admission process.

Case Background

The petitioners in this case, Neppali Sai Vikash and others, sought the revival of a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, which had been previously disposed of. Their grievance centered on the existence of vacant postgraduate medical seats and the argument that a reduction in the qualifying percentile would allow more candidates to fill these vacancies. The Union Government had already reduced the cut-off percentile by 15 points across all categories, but the petitioners argued for an additional reduction of 5 points.

The Union Government's decision, made on March 12, 2022, set the cut-off percentiles at 35 for the general category, 30 for the physically handicapped category, and 25 for reserved categories. Despite this reduction, the petitioners contended that approximately 1,500 seats remained vacant, and a further reduction could help fill these seats, especially considering the previous year's higher reduction of 20 points.

What The Lower Authorities Held

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoH&FW) provided a detailed statement regarding the status of NEET PG admissions. It reported that out of 6,206 seats available in the mop-up round, 4,747 candidates had joined, leaving 1,459 seats vacant. In the subsequent stray round, 1,177 seats were allotted, leaving 282 seats still unfilled. The MoH&FW argued that the remaining vacancies were primarily in teaching subjects, which typically see lower demand.

The Ministry also highlighted that the current academic schedule was already delayed, and conducting another round of counselling would not be in the best interest of the students. The statement emphasized that the reduction of the percentile had already allowed an additional 25,000 candidates to become eligible for counselling, indicating that there were sufficient candidates available for the remaining seats.

The Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court, led by Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, considered the arguments presented by both the petitioners and the Union Government. The Court noted that the decision to reduce the cut-off percentile had been made after careful consideration and consultation with the National Medical Commission. The Court emphasized that the reduction had already resulted in a significant increase in eligible candidates, and further reductions could undermine the quality of medical education.

The Court referenced a previous judgment in Harshit Agarwal v. Union of India, where the Court had directed a reduction in the minimum marks for admission to BDS courses based on recommendations from the Dental Council of India. However, the Court distinguished that case from the current one, noting that the circumstances were different and that the Dental Council had recommended the reduction based on specific needs.

The Court reiterated that the Central Government had the authority to lower the minimum marks for admission to postgraduate courses when a sufficient number of candidates fail to secure the minimum marks. However, it found that the Union Government had already exercised this power appropriately by reducing the percentile by 15 points. The Court concluded that the remaining vacancies were not solely due to the minimum qualifying marks but also due to students' preferences for specific courses and colleges.

Statutory Interpretation

The Court's decision also involved interpreting the provisions of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, which grant the Central Government the power to lower minimum marks in consultation with the National Medical Commission. The Court found that the Union Government had acted within its authority and had made a reasoned decision not to further reduce the cut-off percentile.

Constitutional or Policy Context

The ruling underscores the balance that must be maintained between public interest in filling vacant medical seats and the necessity of upholding educational standards. The Court recognized that while it is essential to address vacancies, it is equally important to ensure that the quality of medical education is not compromised by arbitrary reductions in eligibility criteria.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it reinforces the authority of the Central Government in setting admission criteria for medical courses, emphasizing the need for a reasoned approach in decision-making. Secondly, it highlights the importance of maintaining educational standards in medical education, particularly in light of the critical nature of the profession. Lastly, the ruling serves as a precedent for future cases concerning admissions and eligibility criteria in medical and other professional courses.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed the miscellaneous application, concluding that there was no merit in the petitioners' request for a further reduction in the NEET PG cut-off percentile. The Court's decision reflects a commitment to uphold the integrity of the medical education system while addressing the challenges posed by vacant seats.

Case Details

• Case Title: Neppali Sai Vikash & Ors vs Union of India & Ors
• Citation: 2022 INSC 496
• Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
• Date of Judgment: 2022-05-02