SC issues notice on plea against transfer of Tamil Nadu's 152 NEET super-speciality seats to AIQ

The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Tamil Nadu government and other authorities on a petition opposing the transfer of 152 vacant in-service super-speciality medical seats to the All India Quota (AIQ) for the 2025-26 academic session.

A vacation bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on Wednesday while hearing a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and another petitioner.

The petition challenges the state's decision to surrender unfilled in-service DM and MCh seats to the AIQ during the ongoing NEET SS 2025 counseling process.

The petitioners have also requested that in-service government doctors in Tamil Nadu be allowed to compete for these seats during the third or mop-up round of counseling if the qualifying percentile is lowered below 50% after the second round of All India counseling.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate P Wilson, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the qualifying percentile had already been reduced for postgraduate medical admissions but not for super-speciality courses.

He submitted that the second round of NEET SS counseling had also been delayed because of an earlier Supreme Court order in the Tamilveni case, where the association of in-service doctors was not represented.

Wilson contended that transferring the 152 seats to the AIQ before completing the second round of counseling and before deciding on a lower qualifying percentile would unfairly disadvantage in-service government doctors and negatively affect Tamil Nadu's public healthcare system.

Justice Nagarathna questioned why the qualifying percentile for super-speciality admissions had not been reduced this year, observing that government doctors face additional challenges while preparing for competitive examinations.

"Percentage has to be reduced because they are working. Otherwise, no government doctors can take this. They have to reduce the percentile," she observed.

The judge also emphasized that in-service doctors across states form a distinct category because they balance professional responsibilities with academic pursuits.

"In every state, there are in-service candidates. They are government doctors. They are there for public health. Cut-off for them must be lesser. Reason being, they are serving and studying," Justice Nagarathna said.

She further noted that candidates preparing full time for entrance examinations have an advantage over doctors employed in government hospitals.

"If you just give it up, how will state doctors benefit? It is for people of the state and public health. They are all working in state government hospitals. You just enable them to achieve greater skills - super-speciality," she remarked.

Wilson also informed the bench that the Tamil Nadu government had filed a review petition against the earlier order after initially consenting to it.

He added that in previous years, the qualifying percentile for NEET SS admissions had been reduced during later stages of the counseling process.

Appearing for the National Medical Commission (NMC), Advocate Mithu Jain argued that the transfer of seats to the AIQ was based on an earlier Supreme Court ruling in the N Karthikeyan case, which is still pending.

Responding to arguments that Tamil Nadu's in-service reservation policy is unique, Justice Nagarathna said the state could not be treated differently solely because it follows a separate policy.

The bench also questioned why the association representing in-service doctors had not been included in the earlier proceedings that resulted in the order directing the conversion of seats.

"A person who has asked for conversion does not make the in-service candidate association a party and an ex parte order is taken from this court. They were not heard in the matter," Justice Nagarathna observed.

Clarifying that the bench was not modifying the order passed by a coordinate bench, Justice Nagarathna said the issue had broader implications for public healthcare.

"We are concerned with public health - whichever state it may be. In-service is a separate category of admission. They can't sit at home and study. Their merit comes down because they serve and study," she said.

The court did not issue any interim direction on maintaining the status quo regarding the second round of AIQ super-speciality counseling, which remains on hold.

Addressing the NMC, Justice Nagarathna said, "You follow that precedent where you reduced the percentile. Have counseling for them. Remaining seats will be converted."

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on July 15.