Facts
The Petitioners, MBBS doctors and in-service candidates, participated in the Centralized Merit-based online counselling for Sponsored Post MBBS DNB Seats 2025
Source reference: p. 3-4Petitioner Venktesh Daswani challenged the allotment list dated 02.04.2026, alleging that Respondents 4 to 8 were ineligible under Clause 2.3 of the NBEMS Handbook because they were already allotted/pursuing PG courses via State Quota
Source reference: p. 2-5Respondents 4 to 6 admitted to pursuing State Quota seats, and their DNB allotments were canceled
Source reference: p. 15-16Respondent 7 and Petitioner Aman Choudhary (Respondent 8) had reported to State Quota seats but claimed they never "joined" or "pursued" the courses as mandatory formalities (fees, bonds, relieving orders) were not completed
Source reference: p. 10, 12-14The NBEMS issued show-cause notices to cancel their DNB seats based on seat-blocking concerns
Source reference: p. 5, 25Issues
1. Whether candidates who were allotted State Quota seats but did not fulfill joining formalities are "already pursuing" a course under Clause 2.3 of the NBEMS Handbook so as to be disqualified from DNB counselling.
Source reference: p. 16 / para. 342. Whether the Court can impose additional disqualifications for "seat blocking" absent specific regulatory provisions.
Source reference: p. 19 / para. 40Law Applied
Clause 2.3 of the NBEMS Handbook, which disqualifies candidates "already pursuing" a PG course, regardless of subsequent resignation
Source reference: p. 6, 16The precedent Remika Devi v. National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (2026:DHC:2372), which established that "pursuing" presupposes "joining," and mere allotment does not constitute joining
Source reference: p. 7, 16-18Bhavna Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1357) regarding the prohibition of seat blocking, noting that while it is a serious concern, consequences must flow from existing regulatory frameworks
Source reference: p. 18-19Reasoning
The Court reasoned that Clause 2.3 uses the terms "resignation" and "discontinuation," which legally necessitates that a candidate first "joins" the course
Source reference: p. 17Regarding Respondent 7, the medical college confirmed he "surrendered the seat without joining" and was "not pursuing the course"
Source reference: p. 23Similarly, for Dr. Aman Choudhary (Respondent 8), the institution stated he was "not pursuing the course" as he had not completed mandatory financial bonds or obtained a formal "relieving order" from his government service
Source reference: p. 12, 29The Court held that "Allotment" and "Joining" are distinct stages; since these candidates did not complete the joining process, they cannot be deemed to be "pursuing" a course within the literal interpretation of Clause 2.3
Source reference: p. 20, 30The Court refused to expand the definition of ineligibility via administrative interpretation to include "seat blocking" where the rules only prescribed financial penalties for non-joining
Source reference: p. 19-20Holding
The Court held that Respondent 7 and Petitioner Aman Choudhary were not disqualified under Clause 2.3 as they never joined the State seats
In W.P.(C) 4491/2026, the Court directed that the DNB seats of Respondents 4-6 be moved to the Stray Vacancy Round and permitted the Petitioner to participate therein
Source reference: p. 30In W.P.(C) 5824/2026, the Court allowed Aman Choudhary to pursue his DNB in General Medicine at Ludhiana, subject to him paying a ₹10 Lakh penalty to the State authority for non-joining the Rajasthan State seat
Source reference: p. 31The DNB seat of Respondent 7 at MAMC, Hisar, remained unaffected
Source reference: p. 30Original Court PDF
Dr Aman ChoudharyvsNational Board Of Examination In Medical Sciences
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in