The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered a new state list for NEET-PG 2024 in-service candidates, questioning why those who scored higher on the national list scored lower on the state list.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court instructed the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences to create a new State Merit List for NEET-PG 2024 for in-service candidates. This new list should use their normalized scores instead of raw scores to award incentivized marks. The court pointed out that it makes no sense for a candidate who scored higher in the All India rank list to have a lower score in the State List compared to the same candidate. The in-service candidates, who took the NEET-PG 2024 exam, asked the High Court to order a revision of the State Merit List.
The Division Bench, which included Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, remarked that it is puzzling for a candidate to rank higher in one list and lower in another when comparing the same candidates. They noted that if the All India List is based on relative performance, then that performance should not change when candidates are placed in the State List. Advocate Aditya Sanghi represented the Petitioners, while Additional Advocate General Janhvi Pandit represented the Respondent-State. The issue involved the State Merit List for Madhya Pradesh. The Petitioners, who are in-service candidates, claimed their ranking in the All India List is better than some other in-service candidates, yet they ranked lower in the State List. In Madhya Pradesh, in-service candidates who have worked in rural or difficult areas can receive 10%, 20%, or 30% additional marks based on their service duration.
The Bench pointed out that the method used by NBEMS to create the State Specific Rank was never officially announced. Only the method for the All India Merit List was made public. NBEMS created the All India Merit List using a normalization process and made a comparative merit list through the percentile method. For the State List, they reverted to the raw scores before normalization, added incentivized marks, and then applied the normalization process. The Bench explained that candidates should receive incentivized marks based on their normalized scores to ensure fairness. They noted that the assumption in NBEMS’s explanation was incorrect. It wrongly suggested that petitioners wanted a 30%, 20%, or 10% addition to the percentile, which was not true. Additionally, NBEMS had given incentivized marks based on raw scores before normalization, which caused the mistake.
Since NBEMS added a 30% incentive to the raw scores before normalization, candidates from one Shift received an extra benefit of about 1.6736401%, totaling approximately 31.6736401% instead of 30%, with similar increases for others. In an exam where results are calculated to seven decimal places, this difference is significant, the Bench noted. They further emphasized the flaw in NBEMS’s method, stating that the overall merit position as a percentile reflects the relative performance of all exam takers. According to the All India Merit List, A1 and C1 performed better than A2 and C2. However, in the State Merit List, A2 and C2 were shown as having performed better, which the Bench found to be inconsistent.
The Bench approved the Petition, canceled the State Merit List for the NEET-PG 2024 exam in Madhya Pradesh, and stated, “The National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences must create a new State Merit List by giving incentivized marks to in-service candidates based on their normalized scores, not their raw scores. This should be done as quickly as possible.”
Cause Title: Dr. Abhishek Shukla and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [ Case No.- Writ Petition No. 37078 of 2024]
Appearances:
Petitioners: Advocates Aditya Sanghi, Poonam Sonkar
Respondents: Additional Advocate General Janhvi Pandit for State, Senior Advocate Ajay Mishra, Advocate Gaurav Tiwari for National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences
