Delhi High Court Issued Notice On Plea Challenging Reduction Of Qualifying Percentile To Zero; NEET-PG-2023


The Delhi High Court in the case Aman S Madke And Ors. v. Union Of India And Ors observed and has issued the plea moved by various candidates which is against the reduction of qualifying percentile for post graduate courses in NEET-PG 2023 examination to ‘zero’ i.e. minus 40 marks across all the categories.
The bench headed by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav in the case observed and seek response of the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, National Board of Examination and Medical Counselling Committee.
In the present case, the petition has been moved by three MBBS doctors who took the NEET PG exam on March 05 and were participating in the process of counselling. Therefore, they have challenged the notification issued by the Union Government on September 20 wherein it reduces the qualifying percentile for the examination.
The plea moved stated by reducing the eligibility criteria to zero percentile, i.e., minus 40 marks-the very purpose of conducting of the NEET PG exam stands defeated. Thus, it also faded away the entire purpose of the National Eligibility cum Entrance test if the quotient of eligibility itself is diluted.
It being the case of the petitioner that they wrote the representation to the Union Ministry wherein seeking clarification with regards to the impugned order and requesting its withdrawal. Further, the court received no such reply.
Adding to it, the plea stated that the Impugned Order is prejudicial to the candidates who had opted out of the second round of the counselling process as it seeks to operate in retrospect, thus, the Candidates had opted out of Second Round hoping for a better seat in the Mop Up round that used to be held each year.
Further, the conversion of seats in the proposed Third round is different and substantially less than the erstwhile Mop Up Round, as such, the Impugned Order has vitiated the calculated approach of candidates in hindsight.
The counsel, Advocate Tanvi Dubey argued on behalf of the Petitioners.