New Delhi: The Centre's decision to drastically lower NEET-PG cut-offs has had an immediate and controversial outcome, with postgraduate seats in government institutions, even in high-risk clinical branches, being allotted to candidates with exceptionally low scores.
The impact became evident during the third round of postgraduate counselling, where candidates secured seats in government institutions with scores ranging from single digits to low double digits across both clinical and non-clinical disciplines. Even reputed colleges and core specialties witnessed allotments at unusually low scores.
Seats Allotted At Minus 12 Marks
In one of the most striking cases, an MS Orthopaedics seat at a government medical college in Rohtak was allotted to a candidate who scored just 4 marks out of 800. At a government medical college in Tamil Nadu a Physiology seat was allotted to a candidate with minus 12 score, while a premier Delhi medical institution, has seen an Obstetrics and Gynaecology seat go to a candidate with 44 marks, and a General Surgery seat was filled at 47 marks.
These outcomes followed the Union Health Ministry's decision to significantly lower NEET-PG qualifying thresholds for the 2025-26 academic session. Under the revised criteria, the cut-off score for the general category has been reduced to 103 from the earlier 276. For the SC/ST/OBC categories, the cut-off has been brought down to minus 40 from the earlier score of 235, allowing candidates with extremely low and in some cases negative scores to qualify for counselling.
The impact was visible across disciplines. Seats were allotted at 10 marks in Transfusion Medicine, 11 marks in Anatomy and even minus 8 marks in Biochemistry, particularly under reserved and Persons with Disabilities (PwD) categories. While the revised norms ensured that postgraduate seats did not remain vacant, members of the medical fraternity have warned that the move risks compromising academic and clinical competence.
Doctors have also pointed out that the current policy marks a clear departure from the government's earlier position.
A senior faculty member at a government medical college described the current counselling system as "deeply flawed", arguing that conducting admissions online despite in-person examinations had reduced the process to a "lottery rather than a merit-based selection".
While emphasising that reservation is a constitutional mandate that must not be diluted, the faculty member said lowering cut-offs to extreme levels amounted to allotting seats arbitrarily. "The argument that seats should not be allowed to go vacant is not sufficient justification. Lowering the qualifying percentile is different from pushing eligibility into negative scores. A reduction from the 50th to the 40th percentile could still be reasonable," the faculty member said.
The matter has also reached the Supreme Court in a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the decision to lower the qualifying cut-off percentiles.
The Bench observed that the matter involved questions related to standards. "This is about standards. The question is whether those standards are being compromised," the Bench remarked.
"We were stunned to see why this method was adopted. These are all regular doctors," the Bench said. In response, a counsel submitted that the intention behind the decision was to ensure that no postgraduate seat remains vacant.
In 2022, while opposing a plea to lower NEET-PG cut-offs in the Delhi High Court, the Centre had argued that minimum qualifying percentiles were necessary to safeguard medical education standards. The court had agreed, cautioning that dilution of standards in medicine, a profession dealing with life and death, could have serious societal consequences.
Warning of long-term consequences, a senior doctor at a top Delhi medical college said the current approach would inevitably erode the quality of medical training. "Competitive exams are meant to ensure a basic level of aptitude and competence. If candidates without foundational domain knowledge are admitted, it directly risks patient safety," the doctor said, adding that allotments at scores as low as four marks reflected a systemic failure and a serious compromise of standards.
Another doctor on condition of anonymity flagged the frustration among candidates who narrowly missed cut-offs. "When someone misses a seat by one or two marks, while another enters with a single-digit score, it undermines the very idea of fairness," she said.
Questioning the rationale behind drastically lowering cut-offs, a senior academician asked, "If the objective is to admit everyone, why maintain cut-offs at all? The purpose of competitive exams is to select the best among the best."
On concerns about vacant seats, the academician said the Centre needed to reassess demand and interest across disciplines. "Several super-specialty seats routinely remain unfilled. Even the newer AIIMS institutions are struggling to meet their intended objectives. Expanding seats without adequate infrastructure, equipment and trained faculty only weakens training. These are non-negotiable requirements for producing competent doctors," he said.
Medical educators say the present trend highlights deeper systemic challenges, including rapid expansion of postgraduate seats without a corresponding increase in trained faculty, overcrowded classrooms, and a gradual decline in hands-on clinical and bedside skills.