The Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up the Central Government and the National Board of Examinations observing that the changes in the National Eligibility-cum- Entrance Test- Super Specialty(NEET-SS) 2021 pattern were seemingly done to ensure that the seats in the private medical colleges were not lying vacant.
The Supreme Court repeated its earlier observations that the changes have put the students, who have been preparing for years, to prejudice.
"You announce the changes in August for the exam in November. And when the students come to the court, you change the exams to January. This does not augur well for the medical education in the country", Justice DY Chandrachud, the presiding judge, told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who was appearing for the Union Government.
The bench noted that as per the revised pattern, 100% questions for the super specialty entrance will come from the feeder category of general medicine. However, as per the pattern prevailing from 2018-2020, 60% of the questions were from the super specialty course which the student opted and 40% questions were from the feeder categories.
"For 12 super specialties, 100% questions are from general medicines. The entire examination is going to be only be on general medicine. The logic seems to be, general medicine is the largest pool, and tap them to fill the seats. That seems to be idea. And see the prejudice caused to the studies.Previously they got 40% questions from the feeder courses but now they would get 100% questions from General Medicine", Justice Chandrachud said.
The bench, also comprising Justices Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna, observed that they were getting the impression that this has been done only with the intention of ensuring the filling up of vacancies.
"Seats are vacant are never in government colleges. It's always in Private.We have a surmise, that the seats in govt colleges are not lying vacant. It is a reasonable surmise. It appears that the entire haste is for filling the vacant seats", Justice Chandrachud said.
"The interest of students is far higher than that of the institutions. Of course, private institutions have made investments. But we have to balance. Students are going to be the torchbearers of the future", the judge added.
At one point, Justice Chandrachud even went to the extent of saying that the bench is getting the impression that medical education and medical regulation has become a business.
"The impression we get is, the medical education has become a business, medical regulation has also become a business.That's the tragedy of medical education in this country", Justice Chandrachud said.
"Earlier, a candidate who had studied anesthesia would also have got some questions from it. Now all questions are from general medicine. What this does is privileging students who have done general medicine at the cost of all other feeder specialties?", the judge asked.
When the NBE's counsel replied that this has been done on the basis of advice of experts, Justice Chandrachud remarked, "Experts are also subject to Article 14".
"The fact that the seats remain vacant- whose concern is that? That is the concern of management and private colleges. Should that be at the cost of students?", Justice Chandrachud further asked.
"What was the hurry. You have an examination pattern which had been going on from 2018 to 2020. Yes, you are an expert body, we agree..but have some concern for the students", the judge commented during the hearing, which lasted for nearly 2 hours.
The bench urged the Union and the National Board of Examinations to consider forcing the changes from next year only, after making adequate arrangements.
"We will still give you time to put your house in order. We will hear it tomorrow. But if you are showing obduracy, the arms of the law are strong", Justice Chandrachud told ASG Bhati and Senior Advocate Maninder Singh(who appeared for the NBE).
As the hearing was about to end, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, submitted that NBE does not want to give an impression that this has been done to fill the seats.
"If the court is under the impression that all this has been done to fill up vacant seats, I request the Govt to dispel the impression and to have this implemented from this year. The Board does not want to give the impression", Singh submitted.
The ASG submitted that the changes are not made only to fill up seats but keeping in mind the larger public interest. She said that the changes brought "comparative ease" to the students, and caused no prejudice to them, as they are going to be tested not on the super specialty subjects they are going to study.
The hearing will continue tomorrow.
Petitioners' arguments
A bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice BV Nagarathna was hearing a group of writ petitions filed by PG doctors challenging the changes in syllabus and pattern made for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-Super Specialty(NEET-SS) 2021. The petitioners argue that the "last-minute" changes brought much after the notification of exam dates are "arbitrary".
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for the petitioners in the case Prateek Rastogi and others v. National Board of Examination and others. Divan explained that the last minute changes have derailed the preparations of the students. Divan pointed out that the students had been preparing for past several years with the super specialty in their mind. The elimination of super specialty questions has rendered all efforts useless. Now the student will stand to lose to a person who may have done general medicine.
"Some of the petitioners have also given up their jobs for studying. I want to project to this court, that at least in so far as this year is concerned, the scheme should not be permitted to be changed. These are living experiences. It affects people who have been striving very very hard. There is a justification in the facts and circumstances of this case to intervene at an interlocutory stage.
The basic principle is, you have to give well advance notice to the students. There must be an adequate lead up time. Once the process has begun, you cannot change the rules in the middle. These are not exams with few weeks of preparations. People have been invested in this for years and have been doing preparations and research with the bona fide belief that the 60% questions from super specialty won't be changed", Divan submitted.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared in the connected case Abhishek Tiwari and others versus Union of India, argued that the changes have not been approved by the Post Graduate Medical Education Board in terms of the National Medical Commission Act 2019.
"No expert opinion has been taken. The PG Board has not applied itself to these changes. But the Govt of India goes ahead and notifies these changes, which have very vital impact on the students", he submitted.
Bhushan also submitted that the hasty changes are made only to help the private medical colleges, whose seats are lying vacant. Their seats are lying vacant because very few people can afford their huge captitation fee, Bhushan added.
"The only reason they say for the changes is that to prevent seats from lying vacant. According to my information, these changes which remain vacant are only from private colleges, which charge huge capitation fee. These seats are remaining vacant only because very few people can meet the huge capitation fee", he submitted.
"To hold the exam with only one feeder category is totally arbitrary and discriminatory and this has been done without consulting experts and following process under the Act", Bhushan added.
When Bhushan made these submissions, the bench asked the counsels of the NBE and the Union about the break-up of vacant seats between private and government colleges. Both Singh and Bhati replied that they have to take instructions on that query.
What is the stand of the National Board of Examination?
Yesterday, the National Board of Examination filed an affidavit stating that the pattern was revised to bring in more flexibility in the admission process and to ensure that the seats are not lying vacant. The NBE said that the new pattern ensures that students are tested only on the basis of the courses which they know.
The NBE also proposed to defer the exams- originally scheduled on November 13/14 - by two months to January 10/11, 2022 to give more time to students to prepare as per the revised pattern.
The affidavit has been filed in response to petitions filed by PG doctors challenging the "last-minute" and "arbitrary" changes to the exam pattern brought by the NBE for the NEET-SS 2021 pattern, after the exam dates were notified.
Last week, a bench led by Justice Chandrahcud had wondered how the exam syllabus could be changed after the dates were notified and commented that the authorities cannot treat "young doctors like footballs".
"Why has the notice been issued? Students start preparing for super specialty courses months & months in advance. Why is the need to change the same last minute before the exam? Why can you not proceed with the changes from the following year?", Justice Chandrachud had asked.
As per the prevailing pattern which has been in existence from 2018 to 2020, 60% marks were allotted from questions in the super specialty while 40% distributed for questions from feeder courses. However, as per the proposed pattern, the entirety of questions for the critical care super specialty will be drawn from general medicines.
Explaining the rationale behind this revision, the NBE has stated in its affidavit :
"It is respectfully submitted that in terms of the revised scheme, the candidates are going to be tested / adjudged on the curriculum which they have already studied in their post-graduation course and have qualified the final examinations of their respective universities based on the same curriculum. Therefore, the modified scheme has not mandated the applicant candidates to study something different from which they have not studied already".
"...the earlier scheme / pattern required the candidates to appear in a question paper which would consist of 60% questions from the super specialty chosen by the candidate. The contradiction was that the candidates were being examined in the super specialty subject which they would otherwise be studying after qualifying the NEET-SS. This pattern made the candidates divert their focus from their post graduate studies and to start preparing for super specialty subjects while and at cost of undergoing their PG training".
The NBE has further stated that due to the previous scheme, many "precious Super Specialty" seats were lying vacant, as most of the questions were from the Super Specialty course the students had opted.
There are more than 45 super specialty subjects. Any given broad specialty is an eligible feeder specialty to multiple super specialties. Thus, a candidate pursuing a broad specialty must be given the choice of the multiple super specialty courses for which his / her broad specialty is a feeder category. The previous scheme /pattern, inadvertently, omitted to provide such a flexibility.
Given this restrictive scheme of admissions and the consequent rush for only certain sought after seats, there are a large number of seats that go waste every year even though the number of candidates far outweigh the number of seats available. The NBE submitted that a number of prestigious DM, MCh and DrNB superspecialty schemes have been falling vacant. In NEET-SS 2020, a total of 483 DM & MCh seats could not be filled after all rounds of counseling and a total of 321 DrNB Superspecialty seats remained vacant even after the final Mop Up round of counseling. All these seats got wasted for the academic year 2020-21
"By the revised scheme it has been ensured that candidates are given the option of the full range of choices that are available as the eligible superspecialties in respect of the broad specialty that the candidate concerned has pursued for the past three years before taking his NEET-SS. It has also been ensured that the candidate is tested in the subject that he / she has studied and trained in and not in the super specialty that he / she ultimately wants to pursue. In other words, the NEET-SS in the revised scheme seeks to assess the candidate's competence in his / her broad specialty and not in a super specialty that he/ she, as yet has no training whatsoever in".
Case: Prateek Rastogi and others versus National Board of Examinations and others | WP(c) 1030/2021
