Answering a reference arising out of a split verdict in an intra-court appeal, the Court allowed the appeal filed by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) and dismissed a writ petition seeking conversion of an OBC seat in the DNB (Post Diploma) Radio-Diagnosis course at General Hospital, Panchkula, into an unreserved seat.

Facts

The respondent, Dr. Aditi Panwar, an unreserved category candidate, appeared in the DNB Post Diploma Centralized Entrance Test (PDCET), 2025 and secured Rank 142 in Radio-Diagnosis. The published seat matrix reflected one Radio-Diagnosis seat at General Hospital, Panchkula, Haryana, reserved for candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category.

According to the respondent, no OBC candidate had qualified in the Radio-Diagnosis discipline and the seat had remained vacant for several years. She nevertheless exercised her preference for the said institution during counselling in the hope that the seat would eventually be de-reserved and allotted to a candidate from the unreserved category.

However, NBEMS allotted her admission to IVY Health and Life Sciences, Punjab, while the Panchkula seat remained unfilled. Her representation seeking allotment of the Panchkula seat was not accepted, following which she approached the High Court seeking a direction to de-reserve the OBC seat and allot it to her.

A Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed NBEMS to convert the OBC seat into an unreserved seat and offer it to eligible candidates in order of merit who had exercised preference for the institution. Aggrieved, NBEMS filed an intra-court appeal. The Division Bench delivered a split verdict, leading to a reference before Justice Dinesh Mehta.

Contentions

NBEMS argued that the counselling handbook expressly prohibited conversion of vacant reserved seats into another category during the counselling process. It submitted that the respondent, being an unreserved category candidate, could not claim admission against an OBC seat merely because it remained vacant.

It was further contended that the power to de-reserve seats vested in the State Government and not in NBEMS. NBEMS also relied upon the decision of its 15th Accreditation Committee dated August 9, 2024, under which vacant DNB (Post Diploma) seats would be transferred to the three-year DNB (Post MBBS) pool, thereby ensuring that such seats did not go waste.

The respondent, on the other hand, contended that valuable postgraduate medical seats should not remain vacant when eligible candidates were available. Relying on a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment, it was argued that allowing educational seats to remain unfilled amounted to wastage of national resources. It was further submitted that if NBEMS lacked authority to de-reserve the seat, it ought to have obtained the necessary approval from the State Government before completion of counselling.

Court's Findings

Allowing the appeal, the Court held that once a seat is earmarked for a particular reserved category, an unreserved category candidate cannot assert a right to seek admission against such a seat.

The Court observed that although an unfilled seat may appear to be a wastage of resources, that factor alone cannot justify de-reservation after the admission process has commenced. Reserved seats may remain vacant for several reasons, including absence of eligible candidates, failure to qualify, non-reporting after allotment, or inability to satisfy eligibility requirements.

A significant factor weighed by the Court was the potential prejudice to more meritorious candidates. The Court noted that candidates exercise their preferences based on the published seat matrix. If a reserved seat is subsequently converted into an unreserved seat, more meritorious candidates who may have refrained from opting for that institution because it was unavailable to them would stand unfairly disadvantaged.

The Court observed:

“The respondents cannot be directed to do an act which is likely to give iniquitous results or bring inequality.”

The Court also accepted NBEMS' contention regarding the decision of the Accreditation Committee that vacant seats would be transferred to the three-year DNB (Post MBBS) course pool. It held that the assumption that the seat would permanently remain vacant was factually incorrect.

The Court further noted that more than a year had elapsed since the 2025 admission session and directing admission at such a belated stage would create additional complications concerning training requirements, attendance criteria and the admissions process for subsequent sessions.

Accordingly, the Court answered the reference against the respondent, held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed, and allowed the appeal filed by NBEMS.

Directions

While deciding in favour of NBEMS, the Court clarified that its judgment should not be understood as laying down an absolute rule that courts can never direct de-reservation of reserved seats.

Recognising the need to ensure that valuable postgraduate medical seats do not remain vacant, the Court directed NBEMS to put in place a mechanism whereby, if it becomes apparent before counselling that sufficient reserved-category candidates are unavailable, necessary approval may be obtained from the concerned State Government for de-reservation and a revised seat matrix may be published in advance.

However, the Court categorically held that once the seat matrix has been published and candidates have exercised their options, courts should not direct de-reservation of reserved seats.

Case Title: National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences v. Dr. Aditi Panwar & Ors.

Case No.: LPA 438/2025

For Petitioner: Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Mrinal Kumar Sharma & Mr. Zillur Rahman, Advs

For Respondent: Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Mr. Varun Chandiok, Ms. Riya Sethi & Mr. Armaan Sharma, Advs. for Respondent No.1

Mr. Amit Meharia, Mr. Abinash Agarwal, Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao & Mr.Vibhor Victor, Advs. For Respondent No. 2 – National Medical Commission

Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC for UOI.

Click here to read/download Order