The third round of NEET-SS (Super Specialty) counselling, scheduled to commence this Monday, June 23, has run into troubled waters as medical candidates raise serious concerns about eligibility criteria and merit-based allocation.
Now, it seems the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) is reconsidering the timeline following representations from student bodies and medical organisations.
The Federation of Resident Doctors' Association (FORDA) India has stepped into the fray, with the organising confirming via their X handle that "MCC has been apprised of eligibility & cutoff concerns and is discussing the timeline, which may be revised soon."
FORDA emphasised they are "in touch with authorities for a candidate-centric, legally sound resolution."
The merit dilemma
At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental question: Should merit take precedence over current eligibility rules?
Dr Aviral Mathur, President of FORDA, explained the complex situation to EdexLive, highlighting how the current system could potentially undermine merit-based selection.
"Candidates are demanding eligibility for the third round. Those who have already been allotted seats should also be eligible for that round so that they can receive an option to upgrade," Dr Mathur stated, explaining the students' primary demand.
The issue becomes more intricate when considering the domino effect of seat allocations. "If someone has upgraded after the first counselling, their existing seats would have been displayed in the virtual vacancy. This ensures no seats are wasted," he added.
Adding another layer of complexity is the recent release of INI-SS (Institute of National Importance - Super Specialty) results.
Dr Mathur explained how this development has created a ripple effect across the counselling process.
"Many candidates who have secured seats in INI SS will vacate the seats that were allotted in the first and second rounds of NEET SS, and therefore those seats will become vacant," he noted . "Naturally, candidates who are shifting to INI SS are meritorious candidates. The seats they previously held were also highly sought-after positions."
The crux of the students' argument centres around what they perceive as a breach of merit-based selection.
Dr Mathur illustrated this with a hypothetical scenario: "Take an example where a rank 10 candidate holds a seat in Rohtak but desires admission to Safdarjung. When a rank 7 candidate with a Safdarjung seat vacates it, merit dictates that the rank 10 candidate should be eligible for that position. However, if current rules allow a rank 150 candidate who remained unallotted in previous rounds, to claim that seat instead, this represents a clear violation of merit-based principles."
The concerns extend beyond merit-based allocation. According to Dr Mathur, students are also advocating that "Counselling should be delayed so that INI SS rounds are completed on time" and there is "an issue of lowering the cut-offs so that more students can become eligible to prevent seat wastage."
"There are multiple issues currently, similar to previous years. This is not a new phenomenon," he acknowledged, suggesting this is a recurring challenge in the medical counselling process.
The MCC's response has been measured but positive, according to FORDA's interactions with the authorities.
"We had a conversation with the officials, and they indicated that they are discussing the matter internally. Some issues are genuine, while others are matters that candidates must comply with. It cannot always be according to their preferences," Dr Mathur revealed.
The statement suggests that while authorities acknowledge the legitimacy of some concerns, they're also mindful of maintaining the integrity of the counselling process.
What's next?
As the medical education community awaits the MCC's decision on timeline revision, the debate highlights the ongoing challenges in balancing merit, eligibility, and fair opportunity in India's competitive medical education landscape.
With two rounds of counselling already completed and thousands of aspiring specialists hanging in the balance, the resolution of these concerns could set an important precedent for future counselling processes.
The fate of the third round now rests on the MCC's ability to find a solution that addresses legitimate student concerns while maintaining the system's integrity – a balancing act that has become increasingly crucial in India's high-stakes medical education system.