NEET-PG Seat Norms: States Yet to Fully Apply SC's Domicile Quota Ban

More than a year after the Supreme Court ruled that residence or domicile cannot be the basis for postgraduate medical admissions under the state quota, parents of NEET-PG aspirants say admission rules still vary across states, leaving students with unequal opportunities despite having taken the same national entrance examination.

The Supreme Court, in its January 2025 judgement in the case of Dr Tanvi Behl vs Shrey Goel, held that residence-based preference in postgraduate medical admissions is not permissible. The Court said admissions should be based on NEET-PG scores, while allowing only limited institutional preference. This means a student may receive preference for having graduated from a particular medical college, but not for being a resident or domicile of a state.

The dispute primarily concerns private medical colleges, where admissions are conducted through state counselling. Several states have prescribed domicile or other state-specific eligibility conditions that appear to dilute the Supreme Court's directive. State counselling brochures for the NEET-PG admission process, reviewed by The Times of India, indeed show differences in eligibility norms.

For instance, Gujarat requires additional state-specific eligibility conditions for some candidates who completed MBBS outside the state. Maharashtra allows only certain Maharashtra domicile candidates who studied outside the state to apply. Karnataka permits candidates from other states to participate in counselling, though without Karnataka reservation benefits.

Parents argue that these differences mean students with the same NEET-PG score may not have an equal opportunity to compete for postgraduate medical seats. In a representation to the Prime Minister's Office in July, a parent sought uniform implementation of the Supreme Court judgement, a common national counselling portal, and biannual NEET-PG examinations. The PMO has acknowledged the grievance, but no final decision has been communicated to the applicants.

A health ministry official said the intention of the judgement was to replace residence-based preference with institutional preference. The official noted that some states appear to have implemented the judgement, while others continue with different eligibility conditions. If these policies are challenged, the courts will decide whether they are consistent with the judgement. The Centre can still review the issue and issue uniform guidelines to states, the official added.

In response to one representation, the National Medical Commission (NMC) said domicile or residence-based reservation under the state quota falls within the states' jurisdiction and advised the complainant to approach the concerned state or Union Territory. A similar representation to the PMO in 2022 seeking uniform rules was closed after noting the concerns.

Parents also highlight that the current system increases financial burden, as candidates must register separately for multiple counselling processes, each with its own eligibility rules, timelines and security deposits. They fear that without clear, uniform guidelines, the unequal treatment of similarly placed candidates will persist, undermining the spirit of a single national entrance examination.