01Facts
The Petitioners (MBBS Doctors) participated in the 2025 NEET-PG counseling for Sponsored Post MBBS DNB seats
pp. 3-4Petitioner Daswani (W.P. 4491/2026) challenged the allotment list, alleging that Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were ineligible under Clause 2.3 of the NBEMS Handbook because they were already pursuing or had joined PG medical courses under the State Quota
p. 5Consequently, Respondent No. 1 (NBEMS) issued show-cause notices to these candidates
p. 6Respondent Nos. 4-6 conceded their seats
p. 16Respondent No. 7 had surrendered his State Quota seat before joining his DNB course
pp. 11, 21-23Petitioner Choudhary (Respondent No. 8 in the other plea) was an in-service candidate who reported to a State Quota seat but never completed mandatory joining formalities like bank guarantees or obtaining a "Relieving Order"
pp. 12-13, 2902Issues
i.1. Whether candidates who were allotted seats in State Quota counseling but did not officially join or "pursue" those courses are debarred from DNB seats under Clause 2.3 of the NBEMS Handbook
p. 6, 16ii.2. Whether the mere "allotment" of a seat or "reporting" to an institute constitutes "pursuing" a course within the meaning of the eligibility criteria
pp. 17-1803Law Applied
The court primarily interpreted Clause 2.3 of the NBEMS Handbook, which stipulates that candidates "already pursuing" a Post Graduate course are ineligible for Sponsored DNB seats for the duration of that course, irrespective of resignation or discontinuation
p. 6, 17The court relied on the precedent set in Remika Devi v. NBEMS (2026:DHC:2372), which established that "pursuing" a course requires the act of "joining" and that "allotment" and "joining" are distinct legal stages
pp. 18-19It also considered State of U.P. v. Bhavna Tiwari (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1357) regarding the prevention of seat blocking and the consequences of non-joining
p. 11, 1904Reasoning
The Court reasoned that Clause 2.3, by using terms like "resignation" and "discontinuation," presupposes that a candidate has actually joined/commenced the course
¶ 35 · p. 21Applying this to Respondent No. 7, the Court found that the medical college (MAMC, Agroha) explicitly certified that he "did not join the department" and "surrendered the seat" before joining the DNB course
¶ 38 · p. 23Regarding Respondent No. 8 (Dr. Aman Choudhary), the Court noted that while he was allotted a State seat, the District Hospital Tonk confirmed he was "not pursuing the course" as he failed to complete mandatory formalities like bank guarantees and was never relieved from his previous government service
¶ 49-50 · pp. 29-30The Court held that imposing ineligibility for mere allotment would rewrite the rules and introduce penalties not contemplated by the regulatory framework, especially since financial penalties (Rs. 10 Lakhs bond) already exist for non-joining
¶ 40, 51 · pp. 19-20, 3005Holding
The Court held that Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were not "pursuing" courses and thus remained eligible for their DNB allotments
¶ 53-54 · pp. 30-31W.P.(C) 5824/2026 was allowed, permitting Dr. Aman Choudhary to pursue his DNB in General Medicine at Ludhiana, subject to paying a Rs. 10 Lakh state penalty
¶ 56 · p. 31In W.P.(C) 4491/2026, the Court directed that the seats conceded by Respondent Nos. 4-6 be moved to the Stray Vacancy Round, in which Petitioner Daswani may participate, but refused to disturb the allotments of Respondent Nos. 7 and 8
¶ 52, 53-54 · pp. 31, 30-31Original Court PDF
Venktesh DaswanivsNational Board Of Examination In Medical Sciences And Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
