The Supreme Court of India issued a stay on the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order to cancel the State Merit List issued for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test Postgraduate (NEET-PG) 2024 Counselling Round 1 yesterday, December 17.
This decision comes a week after the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) and the State Medical Counselling Committee to redo the State Merit List. The high court issued this order following a petition by Dr Abhishek Shukla, a NEET-PG aspirant who approached the court challenging the validity of the normalisation method used to prepare the State Merit List.
In his petition, Dr Shukla alleged that about 300-400 in-service aspirants from the state were placed at lower ranks on the State Merit List than on the All India Ranking list, and requested that the counselling be halted as it was against merit.
Hearing the petition, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered the NBEMS to add the incentive marks to the candidates’ normalised scores and prepare the State Merit List afresh, while disclosing the normalised scores.
However, the NBEMS approached the Supreme Court and argued that the Madhya Pradesh NEET PG 2024 Counselling session was set to begin on December 20, and it would be disastrous to conduct it with normalised scores, reports Medical Dialogues.
As a result, the Supreme Court issued a stay on the Madhya Pradesh High Court order and issued notices to the petitioners as well as the NBEMS. Further, it listed the matter to be heard on January 21, four weeks from yesterday’s hearing.
Could lead to chaos, speculate aspirants
As the Supreme Court is set to hear the case well after the NEET-PG 2024 Counselling process is concluded, aspirants fear that the verdict will lead to more chaos, confusion, and frustration.
“If the Supreme Court decides that the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s verdict is sound, would it order the NBE to conduct the counselling for Madhya Pradesh all over again?” Dr Shukla asks, speaking to EdexLive.
He says that he and his co-petitioners would not have approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court and pointed out discrepancies in the Merit Lists if he knew that it would come to this verdict. “We would have accepted the NBEMS’ list and gone ahead with the counselling,” he says.
“Despite victory, we feel defeated,” Dr Shukla laments.
To avoid this chaos, the NBEMS could conduct the state counselling process based on the scores of the candidates after adding the incentive marks, without disclosing the normalised scores, suggests Dr Akash Soni, National Executive Member and former State Secretary (Madhya Pradesh) of the Federation of All India Medical Associations.
“This way, the NBEMS does not have to release the normalised scores for just one state, and ensure that the candidates’ ranks are at the same level in both State and All India Ranking lists,” he says.
However, some aspirants welcomed the order, saying that releasing a new merit list would only delay the State Counselling Process, which has already been delayed due to the hearing.
“Even if there was a difference in marks in the All India Rankings and State Merit List, they would fall under the same percentile. The Supreme Court understands this, and the order is a step in the right direction,” says Dr Anshuman, a NEET-PG 2024 aspirant from the state.
