Shillong, September 12: Several NEET-UG 2026 candidates have urged the Meghalaya government to review the MBBS/BDS counselling and seat-allotment process for the 2026–27 academic session, citing concerns over choice-filling, merit and college preferences.
The candidates have submitted representations to the Department of Health and Family Welfare and the Directorate of Medical Education and Research (DMER), seeking clarification before the current allotment is treated as final.
Students alleged that candidates participating in the same counselling process may have received different instructions regarding the number of college preferences they could submit. While some were reportedly allowed to list multiple or all available institutions, others were allegedly restricted to fewer choices. They said such inconsistencies could have affected the final seat allotments.
The candidates also raised concerns over cases in which students with higher merit positions were reportedly allotted institutions other than their first preferences, while lower-ranked candidates allegedly secured those institutions.
Citing one such instance, the students said a candidate who scored 441 marks and secured an All India Rank of 1,84,556 was allotted Shillong Medical College despite listing NEIGRIHMS, Shillong, as the first preference. The candidate later reportedly learnt that a lower-ranked applicant had been allotted NEIGRIHMS.
The students clarified that they were not questioning the eligibility of any candidate who received a seat. They said the example was cited only to seek clarification on whether merit, category or quota eligibility, preference and seat availability were applied uniformly.
Referring to the Medical Counselling Committee’s information bulletin, the candidates said applicants may submit as many institutional and course choices as they wish and arrange them according to preference.
They also cited the Central Pool MBBS Counselling SOP and addendum of September 8, 2025, under which allotments were to be made according to merit-list rank and first preference, subject to seat availability.
The students requested that all eligible candidates be given a fresh and uniform opportunity to fill their choices if any procedural discrepancy is detected. They said the same number and range of choices, instructions and rules should apply to everyone.
They proposed that allotments follow a clearly defined sequence based on merit rank, applicable category or quota, candidate preference, seat availability and document verification.
The candidates stressed that they were not seeking preferential treatment or demanding the cancellation of seats rightfully allotted to others. They urged the authorities to review the allotments, examine the choice-filling procedure, verify whether all candidates received identical instructions and clarify the matter before finalising the counselling process.
