IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the normalization process for merit lists and clarified that bonus marks should be awarded based on raw scores, not percentiles.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners in the present writ petition have approached this Court challenging the provisional State Merit List which was issued for Post Graduation Course 2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PG Course’) for medical candidates dated 22.11.2024 issued by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as ‘NBEMS’).

2. Mr. Kailash Jangid, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners involved in the present case are working as Medical Officers with the State of Rajasthan and are therefore entitled to bonus marks to the extent of 10%, 20% and 30% on the basis of length of their services in the rural areas or as they call it as hard duties.

3. The petitioners appeared in NEET (PG) 2024 Examination which were held for the purpose of selecting candidates for PG course. Such exams were All India Level and its result was published on 10.08.2024. The petitioners have placed on record their All India Ranks in PG Course, 2024 as Scheduled-A of the writ petition.

4. Subsequently, State-wise result was declared on 17.11.2024 for the purpose of admission in PG Courses conducted by the State run universities or private universities in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of counseling to be held. Thereafter, a provisional State merit list (combined) came to be issued by the respondent No. 2 which has given cause of concern rather heart burning to the petitioners as their merit positions have significantly changed - the candidates who were lower in All India Merit List have come higher in State merit list so prepared by the respondents on 22.11.2024.

5. Mr. Kailash Jangid, learned counsel for the petitioners navigated the Court through both the lists and pointed out the discrepancy. The discrepancies pointed out by the petitioners are given hereunder:

6. Learned counsel submitted that if the merit position of above candidates at serial Nos.1 and 2 is compared, then it is apparent that in spite of the fact that both had a service experience of 3 years, the candidate (Dr. Kishan Singh Shekhawat at Serial No. 1) who got All India Rank of 61402 vis-a-vis the candidate (Dr. Vikas Kulhari at Serial No. 2) who got All India Rank of 62473 was changed to 1283 and 1144 respectively in the combined merit list of Rajasthan.

7. He submitted that similar is the position if the merit position of the candidate mentioned at serial No. 3 (Dr. Virendra) is compared with the candidate mentioned at Serial No. 4 (Dr. Om Prakash Dudi) and also, the merit position of candidates mentioned at Serial No. 5 and 6 are compared.

8. It was argued that all these candidates have 3 years experience of rendering services in the State run hospitals as Medical Officers and therefore, they are entitled to 30% bonus marks and hence, their merit positions ought not to have altered when State-wise merit list was prepared.

9. Learned counsel argued that there appears to be some serious lapse or error in the formula or process of normalization adopted by the respondent No. 2-NBEMS which has led to such anomalous position.

10. Mr. Jangid apprehended that the respondents seem to have picked up raw marks of the candidates instead of taking into account normalized marks, while preparing State wise result.

11. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by respondent No. 2-NBEMS explaining the manner in which the All India Result was prepared and how the State wise combined merit list