The petitioners Dr Abhishek Shukla and others vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, in the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur challenged the state’s NEET-PG 2024 merit list, arguing that applying the normalisation process a second time at the state level violated established legal principles. The court acknowledged the potential prejudice to candidates, halted the declaration of the first-round counseling results, and scheduled further proceedings for November 28, 2024.
Key Issues:
Normalization Process:
NEETPG 2024 was conducted in two shifts at the All India level. To ensure fairness, NBEMS applied a normalization process to calculate the percentile scores and ranks. However, for the Madhya Pradesh state merit list, the authorities applied another round of normalisation to create a state-specific merit list.
The petitioners argued that this second normalization altered the rankings unfairly, amounting to a “change in the rules of the game” after the process had started. They cited legal precedents, such as the Supreme Court ruling in Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court, which prohibits changing recruitment or admission processes midway.
In-Service Candidates’ Incentives:
All in-service candidates received an additional 30% marks for serving in rural areas. The petitioners claimed that this additional layer of normalization led to anomalies in the final state merit list, potentially disadvantaging them in the admission process.
The choice filling and locking for the 1st round of counseling had already started on November 21, 2024, with results scheduled to be declared on November 26, 2024. The petitioners argued that proceeding with the counseling based on the disputed merit list would cause irreversible harm to them.
State’s Response
Meanwhile the state authorities defended, by stating that the second normalisation was necessary to prepare a state-specific merit list and rank candidates fairly within Madhya Pradesh. They also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Ashish Ranjan vs. Union of India, which discourages halting counseling or result declaration midway.
Directions by Hon’ble HC
The High Court agreed with the petitioners’ argument that applying normalization twice may not be legally permissible. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, the court noted that normalization should only be applied once during the preparation of the merit list.
The court allowed the counseling process to continue but ordered a stay on declaring the results of the first round until the next hearing on November 28, 2024. This decision ensures that candidates are not unfairly impacted while the matter is under review.
The petitioners were directed to amend their plea and include NBEMS as a respondent, as it played a central role in preparing the All India merit list and the NBEMS were given one week to file a reply to the petitioners’ arguments.
The Medical Bulletin
Leave a Reply