A petition before the Delhi High Court has been filed by several doctor candidates protesting against the notification, which was released by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) on September 20, according to IANS.
The doctors have challenged the notification issued by the Centre that reportedly lowered the qualifying percentile for the examination to 'zero', which equates to minus 40 marks across all categories.
The petition was entertained by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav who has issued a notice in response to the petition by three MBBS doctors who took the National Eligibility Entrance Test - Postgraduate (NEET-PG) exam on March 5 and were engaged in the counselling process.
The judge has sought responses from the Union government through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the National Board of Examination and the Medical Counselling Committee (NMC).
What does the plea entail?
The plea filed by the doctors argues that by reducing the eligibility criteria to zero percentile, that is minus 40 marks, the purpose of the exam is cancelled, and the quotient of eligibility is diluted.
The petitioners say that they have submitted the representation to the ministry but haven't received any response yet.
The plea further states that the order is prejudicial against the candidates who had opted out of the second round of the counselling process. Candidates had opted out of the Second Round hoping for a better seat in the Mop-Up round that used to be held each year, according to IANS.
However, they argue that the conversion of seats in the proposed third round is different and substantially less than the erstwhile Mop-Up Round, and has affected the students as their calculated approach is now rendered not valid.
SC already dismissed a plea
On Monday, September, 25, the Supreme Court had already dismissed a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) by lawyers who had challenged the Centre's decision. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Manoj Misra and Justice JB Pardiwala, refused to entertain the matter as the petitioner was not an aspirant themselves and had no locus standi to challenge the decision.
