‘0 Percentile Cut-Off’ for SC, ST, OBC in NEET-PG 2025: Allahabad HC Declines to Interfere, Dismisses PIL

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the decision of the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to drastically lower the qualifying percentiles for NEET-PG 2025, holding that the petition lacked material particulars and raised issues that had already been settled by another high court.

The petition was filed by an advocate, Abhinav Gaur, questioning NBEMS’ notice dated January 13, 2026, by which the qualifying percentiles for postgraduate medical admissions were revised downward across all categories. Under the revised criteria, the cutoff for the general category was reduced from the 50th percentile to the 7th percentile, for persons with disabilities from the 45th to the 5th percentile, and for candidates belonging to SC, ST and OBC categories, including persons with benchmark disabilities, to zero percentile.

The petitioner sought a declaration that the decision was ultra vires Article 16 of the Constitution and prayed that any admissions made on the basis of the revised cutoff be declared null and void. It was argued that the lowering of qualifying standards was arbitrary, discriminatory and compromised merit in postgraduate medical education.

A central allegation raised in the petition was that the exercise had been undertaken to benefit private medical colleges, as postgraduate seats in government medical colleges had already been filled. It was also contended that prescribing different percentiles for different categories was unjustified. The petitioner further argued that if a zero percentile was permissible, it should apply uniformly across all categories, and that selective relaxation diluted merit and posed risks to public health.

Opposing the plea, counsel appearing for the Union of India and NBEMS submitted that the issue was no longer res integra. It was pointed out that an identical challenge to the same NBEMS decision had already been considered and rejected by the Delhi High Court in Sanchit Seth vs National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences. In that case, the Delhi High Court had upheld the lowering of cutoffs, observing that the decision was taken after due deliberation to ensure optimal utilisation of vacant postgraduate medical seats.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra noted that, apart from annexing the impugned notice dated January 13, 2026, the petitioner had failed to place any material on record to substantiate the serious allegations made in the plea.

Court observed that no empirical data or factual foundation had been provided to demonstrate arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of constitutional provisions.

The bench also remarked on the nature of the litigation, observing that the petition appeared to be “only academic in nature”. It noted that the petitioner, being an advocate, did not otherwise have any direct concern with medical education.

Court further pointed out an inherent contradiction in the submissions, as the petitioner opposed the grant of a zero percentile to reserved categories while simultaneously seeking its extension to all categories.

Referring extensively to the Delhi High Court judgment, the Allahabad High Court underlined that expanding the pool of candidates for counselling by lowering eligibility criteria did not, by itself, undermine merit. The Delhi High Court had held that admissions would still be governed by inter se merit during counselling and that candidates would have to successfully complete the rigorous postgraduate medical course to obtain their degrees.

The Allahabad High Court agreed with the reasoning that judicial review of administrative or policy decisions is limited and permissible only on grounds of arbitrariness or perversity. It held that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any such infirmity in the decision-making process of NBEMS.

“Once another High Court, having considered a similar nature of plea in relation to merit, has taken a view....we do not find any reason to differ with the same,” the bench observed.

Finding no substance in the challenge, the court dismissed the public interest litigation. There was no order as to costs. The judgment was pronounced on January 27, 2026.

Case Title: Abhinav Gaur vs. Union of India and 3 others

Judgment Date: January 27, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra