The Supreme Court has indicated that the qualifying cut-off for government doctors seeking admission to super-speciality medical courses may need to be lowered to prevent seats reserved for in-service candidates from going vacant.
The observation came while the court was hearing petitions challenging the transfer of unfilled super-speciality seats in Tamil Nadu to the All India Quota (AIQ).
A bench of the apex court questioned the rationale behind surrendering seats earmarked for government doctors when a large number of eligible in-service candidates could potentially benefit if the qualifying threshold were relaxed.
The court also expressed concern about the affordability of private medical institutions for many deserving candidates.
Court raises concerns over access and affordability
During the hearing, the Supreme Court observed that many meritorious candidates may not be able to afford expensive private super-speciality programmes.
The bench questioned how deserving doctors, particularly those serving in government hospitals, would access advanced medical education if public-sector opportunities were reduced.
The court’s remarks came in response to petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and several in-service doctors challenging the state’s decision to transfer vacant super-speciality seats to the All India Quota.
Background of the dispute
The controversy centres on more than 150 super-speciality seats in Tamil Nadu that remained vacant after counselling for government doctors.
According to petitioners, these seats were originally reserved for in-service medical professionals working in the state’s public healthcare system.
However, the state decided to surrender the vacant seats for allocation through the All India Quota counselling process.
The petitioners argued that instead of transferring the seats, authorities should consider reducing the qualifying percentile or adopting other measures to ensure that government doctors are able to fill the available seats.
Vacancy concerns in super-speciality courses
Data presented before the court showed that a significant number of seats reserved for in-service candidates have remained vacant in recent years.
Reports indicate that despite hundreds of seats being earmarked for government doctors, only a fraction were filled due to a limited number of candidates meeting the qualifying criteria and other service-related constraints.
Medical associations have maintained that lowering the cut-off could help fill these seats while strengthening the availability of trained specialists in government hospitals.
They argue that public healthcare systems require more super-specialists in fields such as cardiology, neurology, nephrology and critical care medicine.
Notice issued, further hearing expected
The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Centre and other stakeholders on the issue and agreed to examine whether policy changes are required to ensure better utilisation of super-speciality seats reserved for government doctors.
The case is likely to have significant implications for medical admissions and workforce planning in government healthcare institutions, particularly in states that reserve super-speciality seats for in-service doctors.
