NEW DELHI: The Apex Court has accused the National Board of Examinations, the National Medical Council, and the health ministry of playing football with the lives of young doctors by modifying the pattern of questions for the NEET-Super Speciality exams over a month after the examination date was notified.

A total of 41 doctors moved the court alleging that while the examination dates of November 13 and 14 were notified on July 23, a notification was issued on August 31 by the NMC/NBE, introducing a change in the pattern of questions and subject-wise distribution of marks, which would jeopardize the future of these young doctors. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, who appeared for the petitioners, said that months of preparation has been impacted by the decision to change the rules.

A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and B V Nagarathna criticized the authorities for changing the question pattern and directed additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, NBE counsel Maninder Singh and NMC counsel Gaurav Sharma to ask all the involved authorities to urgently hold a meeting and make the necessary reforms.

The bench stated, “We are putting you to notice: If we are not satisfied with the reasons for effecting the change in question pattern mid-way, then we will pass strictures against the authorities.” Singh said that the change was impending for a long time and the notification was issued as soon as the required clearances were received. To this, the bench said that the change in pattern could have been introduced from next year, adding that the students have been preparing for months. The bench asked Singh to notify the authorities that they were disappointed with the way they were playing with the lives of these doctors.

The bench questioned, “Since 2018, a pattern of questions and subject-wise distribution of marks has been followed — 60% of questions from the area of specialisation and 40% from feeder courses. How could you suddenly make it 100% from the general medicine subject?”

The NMC counsel stated that it was meant to make sure that not many seats in the courses are left vacant. However, the reply did not go down well with the SC, which asked for a better reasoning by coming Monday.

Source: ET Healthworld