MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 2025

logo

Whose NEET Seat is It Anyway?

The Gauhati High Court’s recent verdict has exposed a mess of confusion and mistrust in Nagaland’s medical admissions -- NEET seat.

Published on Aug 18, 2025

By EMN

Share

logos_telegram
logos_whatsapp-icon
ant-design_message-filled
logos_facebook

The Gauhati High Court’s recent verdict has exposed a mess of confusion and mistrust in Nagaland’s medical admissions. On August 14, Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita quashed parts of the 2021 State notification that tinkered with Central pool MBBS seats and ordered that a vacant seat be given to the petitioner before the August 18 deadline. The Court left no room for doubt: Central pool seats belong to the Centre, and Nagaland cannot bend the rules to suit itself.

 

The petitioner—a Commanding Officer’s daughter with a NEET score of 455, higher than some selected candidates—was unfairly left out under Nagaland’s additional restrictions of three-year residency and local schooling. The Court rightly called this arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to the Centre’s July 2025 guidelines. But the ruling hasn’t stopped the storm. The Naga Students’ Federation (NSF) has objected, not against the Court’s order itself, but against the creeping danger of confusion: if wards of Central officers posted in Nagaland are allowed into the State Quota, it would erode seats meant for indigenous Nagas. For this reason, the NSF has launched document verification drives and demanded the State act against ineligible names.

 

This is where clarity is essential. State Quota and Central pool quota are two different things. Central pool seats are controlled by the Union Government and given to States with fewer medical colleges. They are open to all eligible candidates in the State—including wards of Central or State employees serving there—and filled purely on merit under Central rules. State Quota seats, on the other hand, are controlled by the State Government and ring-fenced for indigenous Nagas from recognised Scheduled Tribes. These are not for outsiders, temporary residents, or Central nominees.

 

The Court is correct in enforcing Central rules on Central seats. The NSF is correct in defending the exclusivity of State seats. There is no contradiction—unless the State Government blurs the line. And that is the crux: the duty falls squarely on the State Government. It must follow the Court’s order on Central seats without delay, defend State Quota fiercely by ensuring only genuine indigenous candidates benefit, and explain the difference openly so public trust is not lost in a fog of half-truths.

 

Mathew Rongmei