Mumbai: The Supreme Court on Friday disregarded an attraction pertaining to the National Eligibility orgasm Entrance Test for Postgraduate (NEET PG) 2024 All India Quota (AIQ) Round 3 remedy, mentioning that allowing 3 trainees to be suited at this part can set up a criterion, leading to comparable calls for from numerous different prospects sooner or later. The alternative promotes the present remedy process no matter increasing issues over seat barring and step-by-step abnormalities.
A bench consisting of Justices BR Gavai and Okay Vinod Chandran listened to the occasion. Justice Gavai, reducing to launch directions allowing the petitioners to participate within the roaming spherical of remedy, talked about that the problem was extraordinarily intricate. He stored in thoughts that giving alleviation to those 3 petitioners can result in comparable calls for from a number of others, together with that whereas the issue specified to Madhya Pradesh, it had truly not impacted numerous different states.
Following the termination of the attraction by the height courtroom, the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) launched the guidelines of prospects confessed through the NEET PG counselling 2024 as a lot as spherical 3.
Earlier on Tuesday, the Supreme Court had truly launched a notification to the National Medical Commission (NMC) on the attraction, and the cost in return had truly modified the NEET PG seat matrix. However, trainees have truly elevated issues that seat barring and abnormalities in portions linger due to hold-ups in particular states, particularly inMadhya Pradesh
“It’s truly unfortunate that the court dismissed the NEET PG 2024 plea without fully addressing candidates’ grievances. The rigid stance taken, despite clear procedural lapses by apex bodies, leaves deserving aspirants in distress. Candidates may lose faith in the system, potentially abandoning their postgraduate pursuits due to the chaotic counselling process. The lack of accountability for these errors underscores the need for systemic reforms to protect students’ futures and ensure justice. Such decisions demotivate young professionals striving for excellence in medical education,” acknowledged Brijesh Sutaria, a Mumbai- based mostly medical training and studying lobbyist.
Expressing comparable issues, Sudha Shenoy, a parent-representative, specified, “This was as expected, but at least the respective state should weed out such candidates who have got seats allotted in AIQ Round 3 to avoid allotment in State Round 3 if the rules are clarified in the brochure.”
Aspirants have truly articulated their disappointment over what they discuss with as a mistaken process that has truly left them uncertain concerning their future. “The entire counselling process has been a mess. Many of us who deserved better seats lost out due to last-minute changes, and now, with the court’s decision, we are left with no recourse,” acknowledged a candidate from Mumbai.
Another prospect, from Delhi included, “We worked hard for years, but these delays and errors have turned everything into a game of chance. The authorities must be held accountable for such mismanagement.”
