The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice on a plea seeking to restrain the Tamil Nadu government from surrendering 152 vacant in-service super-speciality medical seats earmarked for government doctors to the All India Quota (AIQ) for the 2025-26 academic session.
A vacation bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi sought responses from the concerned authorities and made oral observations in favour of a lower qualifying cut-off for in-service candidates, noting that they serve in the public health system while pursuing higher studies.
The matter arose from an earlier petition seeking the transfer of unfilled DM and MCh seats from the Tamil Nadu State Quota to the AIQ during the ongoing NEET-SS 2025 counselling process. Following that order, the Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and another petitioner approached the top court seeking to prevent the state from surrendering 152 vacant super-speciality seats to the AIQ.
The petitioners have also sought permission for in-service candidates in Tamil Nadu to compete for these seats in the third round or mop-up round of counselling if the qualifying percentile is reduced below 50 per cent after the second round of All India counselling.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate P Wilson told the court that while the qualifying percentile had been reduced for postgraduate medical admissions, the second round of counselling for super-speciality seats had not yet been conducted due to an earlier Supreme Court order in the Tamilveni case, in which the association of in-service doctors was not represented.
He argued that allowing the 152 seats to be filled through the AIQ before the completion of the second counselling round, and before a decision on reducing the qualifying percentile, would cause serious prejudice to in-service government doctors and adversely affect Tamil Nadu's public health infrastructure.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna questioned why the qualifying percentile had not been reduced for super-speciality admissions this year and highlighted the challenges faced by in-service doctors.
"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 further noted that in-service doctors across states constitute a separate category because they balance public service and academic commitments simultaneously.
"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 added that students preparing full-time for entrance examinations have an advantage over doctors working 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 pointed out that in previous years, the qualifying percentile for NEET-SS admissions had consistently been reduced at later stages of counselling.
Appearing for the National Medical Commission (NMC), advocate Mithu Jain argued that the transfer of seats to the AIQ stemmed from an earlier Supreme Court ruling in the N Karthikeyan case, which remains pending consideration.
Responding to the submission that the in-service reservation policy is unique to Tamil Nadu, Justice Nagarathna said the state could not be treated differently merely because it follows a distinct policy.
The court also questioned why the association of in-service doctors had not been made a party to the earlier proceedings that led to 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 of a coordinate bench, Justice Nagarathna stressed that the issue involved larger public health considerations.
"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 bench, however, declined to pass any direction regarding the status quo of the second round of super-speciality counselling under the AIQ, which remains on hold.
To the NMC counsel, Justice Nagarathna said, "You follow that precedent where you reduced the percentile. Have a counselling for them. Remaining seats will be converted."
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 15.
