Supreme Court Questions NEET-SS Cut-Off: 'Government Doctors Need Lower Qualifying Marks'
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a notice on a petition seeking to prevent the Tamil Nadu government from surrendering 152 vacant super-speciality medical seats reserved for government doctors to the All India Quota (AIQ) for the 2025-26 academic session. During the hearing, a vacation bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagcha made oral observations that the qualifying cut-off for in-service candidates should be lower, given their dual responsibilities of working in public health and pursuing higher studies.
The petition arises from an earlier order that allowed the transfer of unfilled DM and MCh seats from the Tamil Nadu State Quota to the AIQ during the ongoing NEET-SS 2025 counselling process. The Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and another petitioner have now approached the court to block this surrender, arguing that it would harm the state's public health infrastructure.
Senior Advocate P Wilson, representing the petitioners, informed the court that while the qualifying percentile had been reduced for postgraduate medical admissions, the second round of counselling for super-speciality seats had not yet been conducted due to a previous Supreme Court order in the Tamilveni case. He argued that transferring the seats before completing the second round and deciding on a percentile reduction would cause serious prejudice to in-service government doctors.
Justice Nagarathna observed that the qualifying percentile for NEET-SS should be reduced for in-service doctors. 'Percentage has to be reduced because they are working. Otherwise, no government doctors can take this. They have to reduce the percentile,' she said. The judge noted that in-service doctors constitute a separate category as they balance public service with academic commitments.
'In every state, there are in-service candidates. They are government doctors. They are there for public health. Cut-off for them must be lesser. Reason being, they are serving and studying,' Justice Nagarathna added. She highlighted that full-time students preparing for entrance exams have an advantage over doctors working in government hospitals.
Wilson further submitted that the Tamil Nadu government had filed a review petition against the earlier order after initially consenting to it. He pointed out that in previous years, the qualifying percentile for NEET-SS admissions had consistently been reduced at later stages of counselling.
Appearing for the National Medical Commission (NMC), advocate Mithu Jain argued that the transfer of seats to the AIQ stemmed from a ruling in the N Karthikeyan case, which is still pending consideration. Responding to the submission that the in-service reservation policy is unique to Tamil Nadu, Justice Nagarathna said the state could not be treated differently merely because it follows a distinct policy.
The court also questioned why the association of in-service doctors had not been made a party to the earlier proceedings that led to the order directing the conversion of seats. The bench will continue the hearing on a future date.
