The has passed a significant directing state authorities to restrict the admission of in-service candidates to postgraduate medical courses within the explicitly defined thirty percent quota. This judicial intervention comes amid ongoing NEET PG 2026-27 , aiming to address grievances raised by fresh medical graduates regarding the perceived dilution of opportunities. The court’s order mandates that the allotment of specific branches and subjects for in-service practitioners must not exceed the specified institutional and autonomous quotas, a move designed to protect the prospects of candidates who do not benefit from state-granted experience weightages.
The legal challenge was initiated by , who contested the systemic application of . The argued that the current admission mechanism creates an inherent disadvantage for fresh candidates. Under the existing framework, in-service candidates are granted additional marks as an incentive based on the duration of their tenure with the state government—weightages of 10%, 20%, or 30%. The contended that when this weightage is applied, it results in an artificial inflation of merit rankings, effectively allowing in-service candidates to bypass fresh applicants even when the former possess lower raw NEET PG scores.
During the proceedings, the counsel for the illustrated the disparity with specific instances from the counseling process. In one such illustration, an in-service candidate with an All India Rank of 13,865 saw their standing improve to rank 333 due to the added experience incentive. This shift, according to the petition, meant that these candidates could claim preferred postgraduate specializations ahead of peers who secured significantly better raw scores but lacked the additional service-based marks.
The Division Bench, presided over by Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain, expressed serious concern regarding the structural mechanics of the admission process. The Court observed,
"The
is a candidate for admission for NEET PG courses who is pitched against the inservice candidates."
The bench noted that the current operational procedure of the respondent authorities appeared to grant in-service candidates a double advantage: they are not only reserved a specific portion of the total available seats but also provided a mechanism to jump across general merit rankings.
Elaborating on the unfairness of this mechanism, the Court remarked,
"It appears that the modus adopted by the respondent/Director for admitting the students to the course is having an effect by which the in-service candidates are getting dual benefit both in the quota of reservation of 30% and the addition of marks on the basis of their experience which is causing great injustice to the fresh students who are having higher NEET PG score."
By allowing in-service candidates to compete within the general merit pool using inflated scores, the state government’s current policy inadvertently marginalizes students who rely solely on their competitive examination performance.
Regulatory Overreach and Merit Balance The core of the dispute rests on the interpretation of Rule 14 and its interplay with the overall seat distribution matrix. While the government maintains that incentive marks are essential to encourage service in remote or difficult areas, the argued that the benefit should ideally be restricted to the 30% quota earmarked for in-service professionals. The Court’s interim direction acts as a safeguard to ensure that the 30% quota functions as an exclusive pathway for these candidates, rather than a starting point from which they can compete for the remaining 70% of seats through artificial merit inflation.
The directive specifically refers to the seat distribution frameworks published by the , including documents relating to the first round of NEET PG 2026-27 counseling. By tethering the seat allotment to these existing category-wise distributions, the Court has effectively frozen the current methodology of admission pending further deliberations. The are now required to ensure that no in-service candidate captures a seat meant for the general merit pool using these supplemental marks.
Procedural Developments and Next Steps Beyond the immediate relief granted to the , the Court has ordered a standard litigation process to be followed. The have been granted leave to include additional to the case, and they have been permitted to serve the notices through both personal ‘Humdast’ service and electronic mail to ensure the process remains expeditious. The Court has emphasized the urgency of the matter, given that medical counseling is a time-sensitive process with significant implications for the professional trajectories of thousands of students.
The state government, represented by Additional Advocate Generals, has been put on notice. Both the and the state have been directed to complete their before the next hearing, allowing for a comprehensive examination of the of the dual-benefit mechanism. The matter is scheduled for a follow-up hearing on , at 2:30 PM.
This is a critical pivot point for the 2026-27 counseling cycle. As the authorities scramble to adjust their seat allocation protocols to align with the judicial directive, the primary concern remains the preservation of meritocracy. The High Court’s refusal to permit the current "dual benefit" system to proceed unchecked highlights the judiciary’s role in auditing administrative policies that potentially infringe upon fair competition. Whether the government can justify the existing incentive framework in light of the High Court's observations remains to be seen in the upcoming hearing, which will likely determine the final contours of seat distribution for the current academic year. For now, the is defined by the strict adherence to the 30% quota, offering a momentary reprieve for fresh graduates awaiting their placements.
NEET PG seat allotment - incentive marks controversy
