The National Eligibility cum Entrance Test - Postgraduate (NEET-PG) 2024 counselling process has spiralled into an unprecedented debacle, leaving aspirants disillusioned and experts critical of systemic mismanagement.
This year’s process has been marred by delayed schedules, inconsistent policies, and a glaring lack of communication, creating an atmosphere of frustration and uncertainty among aspiring postgraduate medical professionals.
The introduction of abrupt changes, such as a two-shift examination format and a contentious normalisation process, only added to the chaos. While dissatisfaction has often accompanied NEET-PG counselling due to its inherent complexity, 2024 stands out as a uniquely troubled year.
Aspirants describe a sense of being caught in a labyrinth of unclear procedures, while experts warn of long-term repercussions on medical education and healthcare delivery.
Together, these issues raise fundamental questions about the efficiency, transparency, and fairness of the process, and whether the authorities are prepared to address these systemic challenges effectively.
The NEET-PG 2024 process was plagued by repeated timeline changes, including a last-minute postponement just 12 hours before the scheduled exam, with officials unable to provide a clear rescheduled date. Aspirants were eventually informed that the exam would be conducted on August 11, 2024. However, this announcement came with another unprecedented change: The introduction of two exam shifts.
Introducing a second shift meant the authorities had to implement a normalisation process to ensure fairness across sessions. However, this process — and the poor communication around it — led to widespread complaints.
As Akash Soni, a National Executive Member of the Federation of All India Medical Association (FAIMA) and a NEET-PG aspirant, puts it, “Even now, they refuse to be transparent about their methods.”
Rakesh Jain, Founder of NEET Navigator, a platform that supports aspirants through the NEET process, elaborated on the impact of this opacity, emphasising how it eroded trust.
“Many aspirants don’t even fully understand the difference between percentage and percentile. Yet, NBE did nothing to explain the normalisation process clearly.”
Adding to the confusion, aspirants reported discrepancies in rank lists. Soni noted how “a person ranked higher on the national merit list suddenly appeared lower on the state merit list,” a misstep that sparked legal challenges in multiple high courts.
“The Madhya Pradesh High Court even ruled against the NBE, highlighting how such errors undermined the integrity of the process,” he added.
Normalisation, a standard practice in multi-shift exams, is meant to ensure comparability across sessions. However, without transparency, its implementation here appeared arbitrary, further alienating aspirants.
The controversy had a domino effect on the counselling process. Discrepancies in rank lists disrupted aspirants’ ability to make informed decisions about their preferences, both at the All India Quota (AIQ) and state levels.
As a result, counselling rounds were plagued by confusion, with candidates struggling to reconcile their scores with their placement in merit lists.
A major flashpoint this year was the apparent lack of synchronisation between All India and state-level counselling.
Traditionally, AIQ rounds finish before state counselling rounds begin. In 2024, however, some states had not concluded their first-round counselling even after the AIQ second round was over.
This breakdown in scheduling left top performers in a bind, as leaving an AIQ seat after the second round could disqualify them from future national rounds.
“This created a dilemma,” said Soni, adding that “Aspirants couldn’t exit AIQ second round seats without forfeiting their chance to participate in subsequent rounds, leaving them stuck between state and national processes.”
The result? Aspirants either missed opportunities or blocked seats unnecessarily.
Despite lowering cut-offs to accommodate more candidates, a significant number of seats remain vacant, highlighting inefficiencies in the system. This has puzzled aspirants and experts alike, as the move to reduce cut-offs was intended to maximise participation and fill seats.
Instead, it has exposed deep flaws in the counselling process. “This year’s counselling seemed like a guessing game,” said Soni, adding that, “Authorities were not prepared. It felt like they were improvising at every stage without a concrete plan.”
The implications of these delays could go beyond the candidates themselves. Soni pointed out that resident doctors — the backbone of medical institutions — are now in short supply.
“When first-year resident seats remain vacant, the burden falls on second and third-year residents, affecting patient care across the board,” he noted.
Resident doctors are critical to ensuring the smooth functioning of India’s healthcare system, particularly in public hospitals where resources are already stretched thin. With the entry of first-year residents delayed, the workload on existing batches has increased significantly, impacting the quality of patient care and putting undue stress on medical professionals.
“The healthcare system relies on resident doctors to handle the bulk of patient care, especially in emergencies. Delays like these disrupt the entire chain,” Soni explained.
Delayed counselling also means that new specialists graduate later, potentially leaving critical gaps in the healthcare workforce for years to come. The cascading effects are especially concerning in rural and underserved areas, where specialist doctors are already in short supply.
“They are not just delaying the counselling, they are delaying the healthcare delivery system for the people of India,” said Soni.
These delays could also exacerbate issues of staff retention in public hospitals. Overburdened doctors are more likely to seek opportunities abroad or in private institutions, further reducing the availability of skilled medical professionals in the public sector.
Without timely reform, these disruptions could have long-term consequences for India’s healthcare infrastructure.
Both aspirants and experts agree that the system is in dire need of reform, and the first step must be addressing the glaring communication gaps.
Jain recommends appointing a public relations officer to ensure clear and consistent updates for aspirants, along with dynamic scheduling to better accommodate unforeseen delays and legal challenges.
“Failure to communicate is the biggest reason for all this dissatisfaction,” he said, stressing the importance of transparency in score disclosures, merit calculations, and procedural decisions, before adding, “Candidates need to trust the process, and that trust can only be built through clarity and accountability.”
Jain also emphasised the need for a business continuity plan to ensure smoother operations.
“Every business has to have a backup plan. If one process fails, there needs to be a Plan B or Plan C. This year, the lack of such a plan was glaringly obvious,” he says.
Soni highlights the need for better coordination between the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) and state authorities. He pointed out how the misalignment of schedules this year disrupted aspirants’ decision-making processes and compounded delays.
“Without coordination, aspirants will continue to be trapped in this cycle of uncertainty, and the healthcare system will pay the price,” he cautions.
