New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) while reviewing a plea that seeks to reconduct Round III of the All India Quota (AIQ) NEET PG 2024 Counselling.
A group of postgraduate medical aspirants approached the Supreme Court, arguing that AIQ Round III commenced before the completion of State Round II counselling in several states, particularly Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners contended that this overlap led to instances of seat blocking and delays, reducing available seats in AIQ Round III and forcing candidates to settle for lower-ranked subject categories.
Join NEET PG News 2025 Taking these concerns into account, a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran passed an order acknowledging the petitioners’ claims. Their counsel argued that the misalignment in counselling schedules allowed ineligible candidates from the State Quota to register for AIQ Round III, leading to seat blocking. As a result, candidates who should have been allotted these seats lost their rightful opportunities.
The petitioners further stated that had MCC conducted AIQ Round III after the completion of State Round II across all states, certain candidates would not have gained an unfair advantage by securing an AIQ seat and later abandoning it for a better State Quota seat. They emphasized that this process deprived meritorious candidates of their rightful seats.
Additionally, the petitioners pointed out that MCC’s decision to conduct AIQ Round III before completing State Round II contradicted the NEET-PG counselling schedule previously established by the Supreme Court in Dr. Ashish Ranjan and Others vs. Union of India and Others. They argued that this irregularity violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as it denied them a fair chance to participate in AIQ Round III.
The petitioners’ counsel also explained that the structured sequence of NEET-PG counselling mandates that state rounds should begin only after the corresponding AIQ rounds conclude, given the higher demand for AIQ seats. Ideally, the process should follow the sequence: AIQ Round I, State Round I, AIQ Round II, State Round II, and so forth. However, while all other states except Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh had completed Round II, Rajasthan obtained an MCC extension, whereas Madhya Pradesh did not. Consequently, AIQ Round III started while MP’s Round II was still ongoing.
Due to this misalignment, students in Madhya Pradesh who occupied AIQ Round II seats later vacated them for better State Quota seats. Ideally, these vacated AIQ seats should have been available in Round III, but since AIQ Round III had already started, those seats did not get reassigned. As a result, petitioners ended up with fewer seats and lower-preference subject categories such as anesthesia and dermatology instead of general medicine and cardiology.
The counsel further argued that since petitioners had already secured seats in AIQ Round III, they were ineligible for the stray counselling round, where better seats were subsequently allotted.
Recognizing these concerns and noting that the stray round had not yet concluded, the Supreme Court bench issued a notice to MCC and other relevant authorities, scheduling the next hearing for February 7, 2025.
