National Board Of Examinations In Medical Sciences vs Dr. Aditi Panwar And Others

$~J-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 17 July, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 29 July, 2026
+ LPA 438/2025
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS IN MEDICAL
SCIENCES .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Mrinal
Kumar Sharma & Mr. Zillur Rahman,
Advs.
versus
DR. ADITI PANWAR AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Mr. Varun
Chandiok, Ms. Riya Sethi & Mr.
Armaan Sharma, Advs. for R1.
Mr. Amit Meharia, Mr. Abinash
Agarwal, Ms. Priya Bhalerao &
Mr.Vibhor Victor, Advs. for NMC.
Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
JUDGMENT
Per DINESH MEHTA, J.
1. This matter has come up before this Court, pursuant to order of Hon’ble
the Chief Justice in furtherance of a reference made by a Division Bench,
consequent to a split verdict dated 18.05.2026. The Division Bench has
referred the following question:
“Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in his
decision to direct de-reservation of the Radiodiagnosis
seat in the Government Hospital Panchkula, which was
reserved for an OBC category candidate, and to throw
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:29.07.2026
19:34:31
LPA 438/2025 Page 1 of 11

it open to Unreserved category candidates, in the facts
of the present case, keeping in mind the legal position?”
2. The facts narrated in a nutshell are that the respondent no.1- Dr. Aditi
Panwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘ writ petitioner ’) completed her Bachelor
of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) and Post Graduate Diploma in
Radio-diagnosis. The appellant-National Board of Examinations in Medical
Sciences (hereinafter referred to as ‘ NBEMS ’) issued a notification dated
28.01.2025 for filling up seats of two years PG Course or DNB (Post Diploma
Course).
3. The writ petitioner, being an unreserved category candidate, appeared
for the written test commonly known as Diplomat of National Board - Post
Diploma Centralized Entrance Test 2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ DNB
nd
PDCET ’) and secured 142 rank in Radio-Diagnosis.
4. The seat matrix for admission to DNB (Post Diploma Course), 2025
came to be published which reflected one seat of Radio-Diagnosis in
respondent no.3- General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula, Haryana, earmarked
for Other Backward Classes (hereinafter referred to as ‘ OBC ’) candidates.
According to the respondent no.1/writ petitioner, though the seat was
reserved for OBC candidates.
5. According to the respondent no.1, since no OBC candidate was able to
clear the exam in Radio-Diagnosis branch and seat of such hospital was lying
vacant for last five to six years, despite being a general category candidate,
she furnished her option qua the seat in respondent no.3-hospital.
6. She was, however, allotted admission in IVY Health and Life Science,
Punjab (hereinafter referred to as ‘ IVY ’) and not in respondent no.3/hospital,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:29.07.2026
19:34:31
LPA 438/2025 Page 2 of 11

while the seat in respondent no.3 remained unallotted/vacant. Respondent
no.1 then made a representation which remained unheeded, for which the writ
petition came to be filed seeking a mandamus that the NBEMS be directed to
de-reserve the seat in respondent no.3 from OBC category to open category
and give her admission.
7. The NBEMS objected to prayers made by the respondent no.1/writ
petitioner on various counts, including the ground that Clause 4.6 of the
Handbook Centralized Merit Based Counselling for Admission to Post
Diploma DNB Courses (2025 Admission Session) (hereinafter referred to as
‘ handbook ’) prohibited conversion of any vacant seat from one reserved
category to another reserved category and as per the Minutes of Meeting of
th
NBEMS 15 Accreditation Committee Meeting (hereinafter referred to as
th
‘ the minutes of the 15 meeting ’) dated 09.08.2024, the vacant DNB seats
would go to three years PG Course or DNB (Post MBBS Course).
8. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 16.06.2025 allowed the
writ petition and directed the NBEMS to convert the OBC seat in respondent
no.3/hospital to unreserved category and offer the same to all candidates
including the petitioner in order of merit who have given preference for seat
in respondent no.3/hospital.
9. Against the said judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the
NBEMS preferred an intra-Court appeal, which was heard by a Division
Bench on 24.02.2026 and judgment was pronounced on 18.05.2026, but both
the Judges had divergence of opinion. One Judge agreed with the view taken
by learned Single Judge albeit with a small modification, while the other
Judge disapproved the view taken by the learned Single Judge and held that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:29.07.2026
19:34:31
LPA 438/2025 Page 3 of 11

the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner was liable to be
dismissed.
10. Mr. Waize Ali Noor, learned counsel for the appellant-NBEMS,
having apprised the Court about the brasstacks facts, highlighted that
knowing it fully well that the seat in respondent no.3/hospital was meant for
an OBC candidate, the respondent no.1/writ petitioner opted for the same as
her first preference while giving IVY as second option. He submitted that the
appellant committed no error of law in allotting the respondent no.1/writ
petitioner IVY as opted by her. He argued that Clause 4.6 of the handbook, in
no ambiguous terms, provided that no vacant seat of reserved category shall
be converted to another category. And since the seat in respondent
no.3/hospital was reserved for an OBC candidate, the respondent no.1/writ
petitioner could not have applied for the said hospital and even if she had
applied, she could not have claimed her admission in the hospital.
11. He further argued that the respondent no.1/writ petitioner’s writ
petition and the prayers made therein that the seat be de-reserved was not only
misconceived but also was not maintainable. He added that it was not within
the domain of NBEMS to de-reserve the seat, as the reservation of seats was
done and is required to be done by the State Government. He argued that even
if it were to be done by the State of Haryana, it could not have been done after
the process had started. He argued that simply because a seat had remained
unfilled/vacant, cannot be a ground to de-reserve a seat.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant invited Court’s attention towards the
th
minutes of the 15 meeting of the Accreditation Committee dated 09.08.2024
and underscored that as per the decision taken by the Accreditation
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:29.07.2026
19:34:31
LPA 438/2025 Page 4 of 11

Committee, vacant seats would go to three year PG Course of post MBBS
pool and therefore, the respondent no.1/writ petitioner’s argument that the
seat would go waste is factually wrong and legally untenable. He argued that
the learned Single Judge so also the Hon’ble Judge concurring with the
learned Single Judge both were swayed by the fact that the seat would go
waste or had gone waste, but the same cannot always be a valid consideration.
13. He further argued the Hon’ble Judge disagreeing with the view taken
by the learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons, as to why the writ
petition deserves dismissal and why should the seat be not de-reserved. He
contended that the de-reservation lies entirely in the Executive domain and
the High Court cannot issue any direction to de-reserve the seat and allot it to
the respondent no.1/writ petitioner.
14. Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1/writ
petitioner, on the other hand submitted that the learned Single Judge has
rightly allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1/writ
petitioner. While highlighting that one seat is lying unfilled for the respondent
no.1/writ petitioner. He prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the NBEMS
be directed to carry out the directions given by the learned Single Judge as
modified by Hon’ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.. He submitted that admittedly no
OBC candidate was able to clear the DNB PDCET for Radio-Diagnosis and
therefore, the seats meant for OBC candidate(s) was/were bound to remain
vacant.
15. He added that having conceived or realised such situation, the
respondent no.1/writ petitioner had applied for a seat in respondent
no.3/hospital in a hope that good sense will prevail over the appellant and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:29.07.2026
19:34:31
LPA 438/2025 Page 5 of 11

realising that the seat would go waste, they will allot the same to her. He
submitted that that despite respondent no.1/writ petitioner’s representation
and persuasion, the appellant did not allot the same to her for which she had to
come in the shelter of this Court, which fortunately came to her rescue and
directed the appellant to de-reserve the seat.
16. Relying upon the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court
rendered in CWP No.1992/2017 titled Archana Thakur v. State of
Himachal Pradesh and Ors. on 12.08.2018, he argued that seat remaining
vacant works to nobody’s advantage and is a loss of national resource. He
added that if the NBEMS did not have the power to de-reserve the seat, it
could have asked the State of Haryana to de-reserve the seat and offer it to
general category candidates as directed by learned Single Judge.
17. In response to the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant about
th
the minutes of the 15 Accreditation Committee Meeting dated 09.08.2024,
learned counsel for respondent no.1 argued that ‘so called’ decision is an
internal affair and the same was never published in the handbook. He argued
that had such information been published, the respondent no.1/writ petitioner
would have challenged the same being arbitrary.
18. Mr. Bedi, learned counsel for respondent no.1/writ petitioner, invited
Court’s attention towards relevant part of the judgment dated 16.06.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge and that of Hon’ble Judge concurring with
the view of the learned Single Judge to contend that strict principles of
reservation, as applicable in service jurisprudence should not apply, when it
comes to reservation in the case of admission in educational institutions. He
was, however, not in a position to cite any direct law or judgment on this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:29.07.2026
19:34:31
LPA 438/2025 Page 6 of 11

issue.
19. Mr. Noor, learned counsel for the appellant, in rejoinder submitted that
th
the decision dated 09.08.2024 taken in the 15 Accreditation Committee
Meeting was not required to be given in the handbook inasmuch as the
handbook only provides guidance to the applicants for the purpose of
applying for the three years or two years PG/Diploma course. So far as fate of
unfilled seats is concerned, it was not felt necessary to be narrated as the same
cannot be a concern of a candidate, when they will fill the application/option
form.
20. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
21. The first question which needs to be determined is, as to whether the
respondent no.1/writ petitioner was justified in filling her option for
respondent no.3/hospital. Concededly, said seat was earmarked for OBC
category candidate and the writ petitioner is a general/unreserved category
candidate. I am of the considered opinion that when a seat is reserved for a
particular category, a candidate from general category cannot stake his/her
claim against such seat. Though vice-versa is permissible, a reserve category
candidate may stake his/her claim against other permissible categories and the
candidate is to be accommodated as per his/her own merit and consequential
adjustment as per prevailing law can be made.
22. Viewed from sole angle what has been held by learned Single Judge
that unfilled seat amounts to wastage of resources, appears to be correct but
we have to bear in mind a larger picture that a seat can remain unfilled on
account of number of factors such as:
i. No candidate of such category applying for such course.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:29.07.2026
19:34:31
LPA 438/2025 Page 7 of 11

ii. No candidate of a particular category clearing the exam/test.
iii. No candidate applying for a particular college.
iv. Even after applying and opting, the candidate fails to report.
v. After reporting, the candidate fails to fulfill other eligibility
criteria or there are lacunae in documents/credentials.
23. Hence, by the time the agency conducting test realizes that some seat(s)
has/have fallen vacant, it can be too late. In some cases, it can be decided
before hand–before the counseling commences and in other cases, it can come
to notice days after the counseling is over. If the vacant seat is subsequently
de-reserved and offered to general category candidate, then situation may
arise that more meritorious candidate, by that time, might have opted for
and/or taken admission in any other college or decided to pursue some other
career option and hence, subsequent observation would hardly serve the
purpose or will hardly come to the aid of those candidates who have applied
against the slot(s) meant for reserved category candidate(s).
24. An important fact cannot be lost sight of that IVY is a private
hospital/institution whereas the respondent no.3 is a government college,
hence there may be difference in their fee structure. Apart from the fee, there
may be difference in level of education, rating, infrastructure, faculty or even
proximity. Many other candidates more meritorious than the respondent
no.1/writ petitioner would have preferred the respondent no.3/hospital, had
the same been kept open for general category candidates Since respondent
no.3 - college/hospital was not available many meritorious candidates might
not have opted for the same and if it is now de-reserved, the petitioner or
lesser meritorious candidate will be given admission, while the candidates
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:29.07.2026
19:34:31
LPA 438/2025 Page 8 of 11

securing higher merit position would not be able to secure admission in such
Institution. The respondents cannot be directed to do an act which is likely to
give iniquitous results or bring inequality.
25. In his operative part of the judgment, learned Single Judge has held
thus:
“34. Accordingly, the OBC seats allocated to the
Respondent No.3 Hospital for DNB PD for 2025
Admission Session should be converted to UR category
by the Respondent No. 1 and be offered to all candidates
including the Petitioner in order of merit, who have
given preference for this seat of the Respondent No. 3
Hospital in either first or second round of counseling
for the 2025 Admission Session.”
26. This Court is almost certain that apart from the respondent no.1/writ
petitioner, there would be hardly any candidate of general category who had
filled an option for respondent no.3/hospital and who is still interested, if
above direction is carried out. It would be only the respondent no.1/writ
petitioner who would be benefited for her fault, rather strategy of filling an
option, which was otherwise not available to her.
th
27. Furthermore, decision dated 09.08.2024 taken in the 15 Meeting of
the Accreditation Committee rules out any possibility of the seat going waste.
Such seat, as per the decision of the Accreditation Committee, would go to
three year PG Course. Learned Single Judge has not dealt with the issue in its
correct perspective. This Court does not find any force in the argument of
Mr.Bedi that since it was not given in the handbook, it could not be enforced
and that had it been given he would have challenged it. Pertinently, plea of
this decision dated 09.08.2024 was taken by the NBEMS in their reply, but no
challenge has been laid thereto. Be that as it may, the handbook is only a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:29.07.2026
19:34:31
LPA 438/2025 Page 9 of 11

guideline for the purpose of filling application form and the same cannot be
read as statute.
28. It is also pertinent to note that more than a year has elapsed since the
2025 Admission Session closed. The seat, a two-year DNB (Post Diploma)
course, has remained frozen pursuant to interim order passed by this Court's
on 28.07.2025. Had the respondent no.1/writ petitioner joined within that
session, she would today be past its midpoint. To direct her admission at this
belated stage would require her training period to be reckoned entirely afresh
and would be delinked from the session for which the seat was notified. Such
consideration in this court's view bears materially on whether implementing
the direction at this stage would serve any purpose and whether she would be
able to fulfill the attendance criteria and what will happen to the fate of the
candidate who has or who is supposed to get admission for session 2026?.
29. As an upshot of the discussion foregoing, I am of the view that the
question referred requires to be answered in the negative. The writ petition is,
consequently, liable to be dismissed, and the appeal filed by the appellant
deserves to be, and is hereby, accepted.
30. Despite having answered the question in negative, this Court would
hasten to add that it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule that the Court
cannot give a direction to de-reserve the unfilled seats, as has been
held/observed by Hon’ble C. Hari Shankar, J.. Though in the instant case, the
th
minutes of the 15 meeting of the Accreditation Committee dated 09.08.2024
hardly leave any scope for seats remaining vacant but since there was a huge
gap between the examination of DNB (Post Diploma Course) and DNB (Post
MBBS Course), it was incumbent upon the NBEMS to publish a fresh seat
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:29.07.2026
19:34:31
LPA 438/2025 Page 10 of 11

matrix immediately, when they found that no OBC candidate was able to
clear the examination in Radio-Diagnosis.
31. It is, therefore, ordered that the appellant-NBEMS shall henceforth
take care that in case a candidate of any reserved category (OBC, Scheduled
Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Persons with Disabilities, etc.) is not declared
successful in any branch or lesser number of candidates than the seats
reserved clear the exam, then, such number(s) of seat shall be got de-reserved
after taking requisite approval from the concerned State and the same shall be
filled by open category candidate. A prior or in principle decision in this
regard at appropriate level be taken well in advance, so as to ensure that seats
do not remain unfilled/vacant and aspiring candidates, who are willing to take
admission can pursue their future studies in the institution of their choice. But
once, the seat matrix has been declared and candidates have filled in their
options, no direction can be given by the Court to de-reserve the seat(s.)
32. The reference stands answered/disposed of accordingly.
DINESH MEHTA
(JUDGE)
JULY 17, 2026/ kk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:29.07.2026
19:34:31
LPA 438/2025 Page 11 of 11