The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Director General of Health Services (DGHS) to reconsider the decision of adding 146 new seats, as it directed the Central government to maintain status quo till Thursday on the mop-up round of NEET-PG 2021-22 counselling.
A bench, headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, observed these 146 seats were not available to the candidates in the previous rounds of counselling, and have been allocated to students who are lower on the merit, when compared with students who were allocated seats in the first and second round of counselling.
The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Bela M. Trivedi, asked the Central government to respond by Thursday and until then, there will be status quo on the mop-up round counselling NEET-PG 2021-22 counselling.
It expressed concern at two aspects - the addition of 146 new seats in government college, and the lack of uniform application of March 16 notice of the Medical Counselling Committee barring students who took admissions in state quota from participating in the mop-up round for the All India quota. The bench said the DGHS should examine the issue.
Citing that the notice has not been followed uniformly, the bench noted it raises concern, whether seat allocation in the All India quota in mop-up round was fair?
On March 28, the Supreme Court sought response from DGHS on petitions filed by various groups of doctors seeking participation in mop-up round of NEET-PG 2021-22 counselling.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing some petitioners, submitted before the apex court that after the second round of counselling, his clients were allotted the seats and later, the DGHS issued two notices to bring into the pool some seats which were not available to them.
Sankaranarayanan said hundreds of seats were added to the pool and as a result, people not on merit were given seats, which were not available to his clients.
The apex court is hearing petitions filed by a group of doctors seeking to participate in mop-up round of NEET-PG 2021-22 counselling.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing another set of petitioners, submitted that people who were much lower in rank than his clients will get better disciplines.
The bench noted that staying the process of counselling will be a very extreme step. "If we cancel the seats, then we will have to cancel all the admissions, which would further delay the whole processa..."
A group of petitioners contended that after round one of the counselling, they joined a discipline, but were not allowed to upgrade in round two. They sought permission to appear in the mop-up round.