NMC proposes rank instead of percentile system for admission to PG, SS courses

The NMC is proposing a rank-based admission system for NEET PG and super-speciality counselling. Under the proposal, results would provide candidates’ ranks but no percentile marks. The change is intended to reduce delays between counselling rounds and help complete admissions within the prescribed time frame.

Currently, a competent authority may reduce the qualifying percentile when seats remain vacant in later rounds. This decision is made with stakeholders and depends on the number of unfilled seats. A rank-based system would remove the need for that repeated permission, according to the expert committee’s report.

The proposal has received in-principle approval but the regulations are not final. Doctors argue that ranks alone may still allow candidates with extremely low or negative marks to obtain seats. They want the NMC to protect standards rather than dilute eligibility simply to fill seats.

Rank and percentile both compare candidates, but they express different information. Rank gives a direct position, such as first, 500th, or 10,000th, among exam takers. A lower numerical rank generally indicates a stronger position in the merit order.

Percentile shows the percentage of candidates who scored equal to or below a candidate. For example, a 90th percentile means the candidate performed as well as or better than about 90 percent of test takers. It is not the same as scoring 90 percent marks. Percentiles can change in practical effect when authorities lower a qualifying threshold.

The NMC’s proposal would publish ranks instead of percentile marks for NEET PG and super-speciality counselling. The article does not describe a new minimum score. Doctors therefore worry that rank-based allocation could still admit candidates with very low or negative marks.

The source does not state how many counselling stages or total seats are involved in NEET PG and super-speciality admissions. It refers to later rounds and subsequent rounds, showing that counselling takes place through multiple rounds rather than one single allocation. It also discusses central-quota seats handled by the MCC and state-level coordination.

The process can take time because authorities may need to decide whether to lower the qualifying percentile when seats remain vacant. Seat information may also change between rounds. Until 2025, colleges supplied seat details, and the NMC manually verified them. This sometimes caused duplicate seats or seats to appear only in the second or third round.

The proposed rank-based system aims to remove repeated permission for lowering the percentile. A digital database and online sharing with states are also intended to make later rounds faster. Exact seat totals and stage counts are not provided in the article.

Under the current process, a competent authority decides whether to reduce the qualifying percentile in later counselling rounds. That decision is made with stakeholders and depends on how many seats remain vacant. Each such decision can add another administrative step before admissions continue.

A rank-based system would use candidates’ positions in the merit order rather than requiring a newly declared percentile threshold for each later round. The expert committee’s report says this would do away with the requirement for permission from a competent authority. Counselling could therefore move forward within the prescribed time frame.

This change addresses procedure, not necessarily academic standards. The NMC has given in-principle approval, but its regulations are not final. Doctors warn that without a separate minimum score, ranks could still allocate seats to candidates with very low or negative marks when vacancies remain.

Allowing candidates with extremely low or negative marks into postgraduate medical seats could weaken the merit-based selection process. Doctors argue that postgraduate training requires a strong foundation, and admitting candidates who performed very poorly may reduce confidence in the quality of specialist preparation.

The article gives a specific example. Dr Dhruv Chauhan said candidates scoring as low as -40 marks had received seats in the past. He also said the NMC had not promised to keep the cut-off at zero marks or higher. A rank-only system could therefore change allocation procedures without preventing very low scores from qualifying.

The article does not measure actual effects on patient care. However, weaker preparation during specialist training could raise concerns about future clinical competence. Doctors instead suggest reviewing seats that remain vacant for years and cancelling seats that candidates consistently avoid, rather than lowering standards to fill them.

A fully digital counselling system could make seat information more consistent and reduce administrative delays. A complete online database would let authorities track undergraduate and postgraduate seats before counselling begins. This matters because incorrect or late seat information can deprive more meritorious students of choices.

Previously, colleges supplied seat details to the MCC, while the NMC manually verified them. The process sometimes duplicated seats or added some only in the second or third round. This year, candidates seeking upgrades also avoided travelling to institutes to submit documents and fees, then returning to collect them after an upgrade. Online results could also be shared directly with state authorities.

The MCC wants minimum human intervention for transparency and accountability. States must upgrade their digital systems, and software will undergo a trial run. The NMC plans to update seats before counselling, while the MCC will create an audit mechanism from 2027.

Medical entrance exams use ranking because many applicants compete for a limited number of training seats. A rank creates an order for allocating those seats, so candidates can be considered by their relative performance rather than simply by willingness to enrol. This also makes choices more consistent when demand exceeds capacity.

An eligibility cut-off acts as a basic academic threshold. It separates candidates who meet the exam’s stated requirement from those who do not. After that threshold is applied, available seats can be assigned according to rank. Without either rule, an available seat could go to an applicant with weaker preparation while a stronger candidate is excluded.

The article’s debate shows the tension between filling vacancies and protecting standards. The NMC wants counselling to finish faster, while doctors oppose lowering eligibility merely because seats remain empty. The source does not define a new minimum standard under the proposed rank-based system.