ORDER : 1. The petitioners in the present writ petition have approached this Court challenging the provisional State Merit List which was issued for Post Graduation Course 2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PG Course’) for medical candidates dated 22.11.2024 issued by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as ‘NBEMS’). 2. Mr. Kailash Jangid, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners involved in the present case are working as Medical Officers with the State of Rajasthan and are therefore entitled to bonus marks to the extent of 10%, 20% and 30% on the basis of length of their services in the rural areas or as they call it as hard duties. 3. The petitioners appeared in NEET (PG) 2024 Examination which were held for the purpose of selecting candidates for PG course. Such exams were All India Level and its result was published on 10.08.2024. The petitioners have placed on record their All India Ranks in PG Course, 2024 as Scheduled-A of the writ petition. 4. Subsequently, State-wise result was declared on 17.11.2024 for the purpose of admission in PG Courses conducted by the State run universities or private universities in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of counseling to be held. Thereafter, a provisional State merit list (combined) came to be issued by the respondent No. 2 which has given cause of concern rather heart burning to the petitioners as their merit positions have significantly changed - the candidates who were lower in All India Merit List have come higher in State merit list so prepared by the respondents on 22.11.2024. 5. Mr. Kailash Jangid, learned counsel for the petitioners navigated the Court through both the lists and pointed out the discrepancy. The discrepancies pointed out by the petitioners are given hereunder: S. No. All India Rank Name Roll Number In Service Experience Merit of the State Combined Merit List 1 61402 Dr. Kishan Singh Shekhawat (Petitioner) 24661079051 3 Years 1283 2 62473 Dr. Vikas Kulhari 24661045458 3 Years 1144 3 46300 Dr. Virendra (Petitioner) 24661201581 3 Years 636 4 46874 Dr. Om Prakash Dudi 24661073329 3 Years 544 5 46930 Dr. Jai Prakash Bhakar 24661141353 3 Years 545 6 47884 Dr. Kishna Ram 24661029870 3 Years 580 6. Kishan Singh Shekhawat (Petitioner) 24661079051 3 Years 1283 2 62473 Dr. Vikas Kulhari 24661045458 3 Years 1144 3 46300 Dr. Virendra (Petitioner) 24661201581 3 Years 636 4 46874 Dr. Om Prakash Dudi 24661073329 3 Years 544 5 46930 Dr. Jai Prakash Bhakar 24661141353 3 Years 545 6 47884 Dr. Kishna Ram 24661029870 3 Years 580 6. Learned counsel submitted that if the merit position of above candidates at serial Nos.1 and 2 is compared, then it is apparent that in spite of the fact that both had a service experience of 3 years, the candidate (Dr. Kishan Singh Shekhawat at Serial No. 1) who got All India Rank of 61402 vis-a-vis the candidate (Dr. Vikas Kulhari at Serial No. 2) who got All India Rank of 62473 was changed to 1283 and 1144 respectively in the combined merit list of Rajasthan. 7. He submitted that similar is the position if the merit position of the candidate mentioned at serial No. 3 (Dr. Virendra) is compared with the candidate mentioned at Serial No. 4 (Dr. Om Prakash Dudi) and also, the merit position of candidates mentioned at Serial No. 5 and 6 are compared. 8. It was argued that all these candidates have 3 years experience of rendering services in the State run hospitals as Medical Officers and therefore, they are entitled to 30% bonus marks and hence, their merit positions ought not to have altered when State-wise merit list was prepared. 9. Learned counsel argued that there appears to be some serious lapse or error in the formula or process of normalization adopted by the respondent No. 2-NBEMS which has led to such anomalous position. 10. Mr. Jangid apprehended that the respondents seem to have picked up raw marks of the candidates instead of taking into account normalized marks, while preparing State wise result. 11. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by respondent No. 2-NBEMS explaining the manner in which the All India Result was prepared and how the State wise combined merit list has been prepared. 12. Dr. Subodh Kumar (Prof.), Executive Director of NBEMS was extensively heard through video conferencing. 13. He submitted that the result has been prepared by adopting a scientific method. 12. Dr. Subodh Kumar (Prof.), Executive Director of NBEMS was extensively heard through video conferencing. 13. He submitted that the result has been prepared by adopting a scientific method. Informing that NEET Examinations 2024 were held in two shifts, he submitted that difference in level/standard of two papers was inevitable, hence, a mechanism was adopted so as to rationalise the result in a bid to ward-off the possibility of the result being skewed in favour of candidates appearing in one shift, where the paper was relatively easy. 14. He submitted that in this process, raw marks obtained by the candidates of each shift were converted into percentile and then, combined result was prepared by merging the percentile marks obtained by all the candidates (of the both the shifts). 15. It was submitted that the State of Rajasthan provided percentage of bonus marks to be awarded to the in-service candidates and requested the Board to prepare the result giving effect to the provision which stipulates awarding of bonus marks based on the year of services the candidates have rendered in State run hospitals. Hence, an exercise was undertaken and on the basis of the percentage suggested by the State of Rajasthan, their raw marks (not percentile) were reckoned and incentivised marks were calculated and then again, shift-wise percentile was calculated on the basis of All India data and merit list after merging the result of Ist shift and IInd shift, the candidates of Rajasthan were picked and merit list was sent to the State Government. 16. He submitted that the result was prepared on the basis of percentile and therefore, it was necessary for the Board to give bonus marks on the basis of raw marks. The bonus marks could not have been given on percentile scores, he added. 17. He agreed that at a first glance, there appears to be some discrepancy in the result of some of the candidates, who in All India Result stood higher in merit, but when the result of the State was declared, their position got altered and in spite of the fact that two candidates had obtained equal percentage of bonus, the person who was higher in All India List lagged behind in the State list. 18. 18. In this regard, it was submitted that the bonus marks could be given on raw marks only, hence the same was done and thereafter, percentile of each candidate from among Ist shift and IInd shift was again calculated. He argued that since there was some difference in number of students (from Rajasthan) from both the shifts coupled with the fact that there was huge variation due to award of bonus marks, the change in their merit position has taken place. 19. The Executive Director informed that about 2,30,000 candidates appeared for NEET (PG) Examination out of which 4561 candidates were from Rajasthan and out of such candidates, 1399 candidates have claimed bonus marks on the basis of relevant law for the services they have rendered in the rural areas. He submitted that even out of those 1399 candidates, there were different number of candidates entitled for 10%, 20% and 30% bonus marks. 20. The details given by Dr. Subhodh are reproduced hereunder, so as to have a glance over the figures: Total candidates from Rajasthan 4561 Candidates entitled for bonus marks 1399 Candidates given 10% bonus marks 470 Candidates given 20% bonus marks 87 Candidates given 30% bonus marks 842 21. He further submitted that out of those 1399 candidates, 685 candidates were from I Shift, while 714 candidates were from II Shift. 22. He submitted and asserted that there is no human intervention as the process has been uniformly adopted under the advice of the experts and there is zero error. While informing that same process is adopted by other expert bodies such as AIIMS; he added that so far as candidates of one shift (Ist or IInd shift) are concerned there cannot be any change in their corresponding merit if two candidates have secured equal bonus marks. 23. As stated, the NBEMS prepared the result on scientific and rational basis. If two sets of paper are provided to the candidates who are lacs in number, then, the minor difference in level of papers can make a significant difference in the era of cut-throat competition. Hence, no fault can be found if the NBEMS has calculated shift-wise percentile of the candidates and then prepared a final merit list after merging the result of both the shifts. 24. Hence, no fault can be found if the NBEMS has calculated shift-wise percentile of the candidates and then prepared a final merit list after merging the result of both the shifts. 24. Before adverting to rival contentions, it would be apt to reproduce the explanatory note given by the Board: Note on Normalization of Percentile: Percentile scores are scores based on the relative performance of all those who appear for the examination. Basically, the marks obtained are transformed into a scale ranging from 100 to 0 for each group (shift) of examinees. The Percentile Score indicates the percentage of candidates that have scored EQUAL TO OR BELOW (same or lower marks) that particular Percentile in that examination. Therefore the topper (highest mark) of each group (shift) will get the same Percentile of 100 which is desirable. The marks obtained in between the highest and lowers scores are also converted to appropriate Percentiles. In this method of scoring the HIGHEST SCORE in each shift (irrespective of the marks/percentage obtained) will be the 100 Percentile indicating that 100% of candidates have scores equal to or lesser than the highest score/topper for that shift. For example, in Shift 1 if the highest score is 80% and in Shift 2 the highest score is 82%, both scores would be normalized to 100 Percentile for their respective group/shift. The lowest score would have a percentile depending on the total number of candidates who have taken the examination. Supposing 1,00,000 students have taken the examination in a Shift and the highest score (A) for that group/shift is 160/200 (80%) and the lowest score (B) - 3/200 (-1.5%). If there is no other candidate who has scores equal to either A or B, then the Percentile Score of A, the top scorer shall be 100 (because all or 100% of candidates have scored EQUAL TO OR LES THAN (A). The Percentile Score of B, the lowest scorer, shall be 0.001 since the percentage of candidates will scores EQUAL TO OR BELOW would be 0.001 [(1/1,00,000)*100]. If another candidate (C) had marks similar to that of A, then both A and C would have a Percentile Score of 100. Similarly, if another candidate (D) had a raw score equal to that of B then both B and D would have a Percentile score of 0.002 [(2/1,00,000)*100]. Ties would therefore have similar Percentiles. If another candidate (C) had marks similar to that of A, then both A and C would have a Percentile Score of 100. Similarly, if another candidate (D) had a raw score equal to that of B then both B and D would have a Percentile score of 0.002 [(2/1,00,000)*100]. Ties would therefore have similar Percentiles. The following is a further explanation of the interpretation of the scores in an examination with 100 candidates. (i) If candidate A’s Percentile is 100, it indicates that amongst those who have taken the examination, 100% have scored either EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN the candidate A. It also indicates that no candidate has scored more than candidate A. (ii) If candidate B’s Percentile is 90, it indicates that 90% of the candidates who have taken the examination have scored either EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN the candidate B. It also indicates that remaining candidates have scored more than candidate B. (iii) If candidate C’s Percentile is 50, it indicates that 50% of the other candidates who have taken the examination have scored either EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN the candidate C. It also indicates that remaining half of those who took the examination have scored more than candidate C. (iv) If candidate D’s Percentile is 30, it indicates that 30% of the candidates who have taken the examination have scored either EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN the candidate D. It also indicates that remaining have scored more than candidate D. (v) If candidate E’s Percentile is 1, it indicates that none of the candidates who have taken the examination have scored either EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN the candidate E. It also indicates that all remaining candidates who took the examination have scored more than this candidate. As per computation of Percentiles for each shift, the two are merged together.” 25. It is to be noted that as per the Rules prevailing in Rajasthan 30%, 20% and 10% bonus marks were to be accorded to the candidates who have served in the State run hospitals. The bonus marks can obviously be granted on raw marks because percentile is not an indicator of raw marks, but the same indicates the merit position or signifies as to how many percentage of candidates are below such candidates. 26. The bonus marks can obviously be granted on raw marks because percentile is not an indicator of raw marks, but the same indicates the merit position or signifies as to how many percentage of candidates are below such candidates. 26. While awarding bonus marks, which are as high as 30%, many of the candidates might have crossed the maximum marks and naturally their marks cannot be more than the maximum marks or their percentile would be 100 or close to 100. And hence, when the fresh result of candidates from Rajasthan after merging the percentile of both the shifts is prepared, some change in merit position of candidate who appeared in first shift vis-a-vis candidates of IInd shift is bound to happen. 27. The data of marks obtained by about 2,30,000 candidates becomes volatile due to even a minor change in a single variable, whereas there are many variants such as difference in number of candidates of Rajasthan in a particular shift; number of candidates securing 30%, 20% or 10% or no bonus marks, etc. 28. Mr. Kailash Jangid, learned counsel for the petitioners had argued that the respondents ought not to have given bonus marks on raw marks and they should have rather given it on the basis of normalize marks. Such contention is misconceived. 29. As per the method of preparation of result adopted by the respondent no. 2, they have prepared percentile of the marks obtained by the candidates in each Shift and that too, to the extent of 6 digits after decimal. Therefore, if the bonus marks (10%, 20% & 30%) were to be added to those percentile, it would be a mathematical disaster, because the percentile is not indicative of the marks obtained by the candidates and rather it is performance of each candidate vis-a-vis the other candidates in the same Shift. 30. This Court is satisfied with the explanation given by the Executive Director, NBEMS and there appears to be no illegality or arbitrariness in the result so prepared. The altered merit position is bound to happen and is unavoidable. As a matter of fact, it is not a discrepancy at all. The Board has uniformly applied method of percentile. They have taken help of the experts on the subject. 31. The petitioners have not alleged any mala-fide. There is no apparent arbitrariness or illegality. 32. The altered merit position is bound to happen and is unavoidable. As a matter of fact, it is not a discrepancy at all. The Board has uniformly applied method of percentile. They have taken help of the experts on the subject. 31. The petitioners have not alleged any mala-fide. There is no apparent arbitrariness or illegality. 32. The grievance raised by them is under an apprehension that there has been some misconception while preparing the list, which after hearing the Executive Director, NBEMS extensively and in view of what has been noted above, this Court is satisfied that there is none. 33. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. The interim order dated 28.11.2024 is hereby vacated. 34. The stay application also stands dismissed, accordingly.