A technical seat-allocation error cannot defeat registration of a validly allotted and joined DNB candidate.

The Petitioner, a Group ‘A’ Medical Officer in Government service, became eligible for the in-service quota after completing more than three years of service and appeared for NEET-PG 2025. In the third round of counselling, the State CET Cell allotted her a DNB Ophthalmology seat at Respondent No. 5–College, with a joining deadline of 17 February 2026. She accepted the DNB seat, paid the requisite fees, and completed the admission formalities, while declining an MS Ophthalmology seat separately allotted to her

Although the Petitioner reported to the College on 16 February 2026, she was formally relieved from Government service only on 30 March 2026 and physically joined the DNB course on 31 March 2026. When she attempted to register on the NBEMS Online Portal for Joining and Registration (“OPJR”) on 1 April 2026, the portal displayed an error and did not permit registration

The Petitioner subsequently learned that the DNB seat allotted to her had simultaneously been reflected in the All India counselling process and had been converted into an MD/MS seat without the State CET Cell being informed. The State authorities and the College thereafter requested NBEMS to enable and regularize her registration. The seat had remained vacant during the All India counselling process, and no third-party rights had intervened

1. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to registration in the DNB Ophthalmology course notwithstanding her inability to complete OPJR registration within the prescribed period, where the inability resulted from a technical discrepancy in the seat-allocation process and not from any fault on her part?

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct NBEMS to reopen the OPJR and regularize the Petitioner’s admission, particularly where the seat remained vacant and no third-party rights were affected?

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court to issue appropriate directions and orders to prevent injustice and correct unlawful or arbitrary administrative action.

The Court relied on the principle that a candidate who has been validly allotted a seat, accepted the allotment, and joined the course should not suffer deprivation of education because of an administrative or technical error attributable to the authorities, rather than to the candidate.

The Court also considered the equitable and public-law factors that no third-party rights had intervened and that the concerned seat had remained vacant.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment beyond the Court’s reliance on Article 226 and these principles.

The Court found that the Petitioner had been validly allotted the DNB Ophthalmology seat, had accepted it, completed the institutional admission formalities, and joined the course

Her inability to register on the OPJR resulted from the simultaneous and erroneous reflection of the seat in the All India counselling process, coupled with the failure to communicate the seat conversion to the State CET Cell

Since the discrepancy was not attributable to the Petitioner, and the seat remained vacant with no competing third-party claim, denying registration would unjustly penalize her for an administrative lapse.

The Court therefore considered intervention under Article 226 appropriate to preserve the effect of the valid allotment and the Petitioner’s completed admission

It directed NBEMS to forthwith reopen the OPJR for the Petitioner and enable her to complete registration for the DNB Ophthalmology course at Respondent No. 5–College. Upon completion of the formalities, NBEMS was directed to process the registration in accordance with law and treat her admission as duly regularized. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs