Merely Allotted Candidates Not 'Already Pursuing' Course; Ineligible Only Upon Completion of Mandatory Joining Formalities

The Petitioners, MBBS doctors and in-service candidates, participated in the Centralized Merit-based online counselling for Sponsored Post MBBS DNB Seats 2025

Petitioner 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

Respondents 4 to 6 admitted to pursuing State Quota seats, and their DNB allotments were canceled

Respondent 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

The NBEMS issued show-cause notices to cancel their DNB seats based on seat-blocking concerns

Clause 2.3 of the NBEMS Handbook, which disqualifies candidates "already pursuing" a PG course, regardless of subsequent resignation

The 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

Bhavna 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

The Court reasoned that Clause 2.3 uses the terms "resignation" and "discontinuation," which legally necessitates that a candidate first "joins" the course

Regarding Respondent 7, the medical college confirmed he "surrendered the seat without joining" and was "not pursuing the course"

Similarly, 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

The 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

The 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

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

In 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

The DNB seat of Respondent 7 at MAMC, Hisar, remained unaffected