01Facts
The Respondent, an unreserved category candidate with a PG Diploma in Radio-diagnosis, appeared for the DNB PDCET 2025 and secured rank 142.
¶ 2-3The seat matrix for General Hospital, Panchkula, showed one Radio-diagnosis seat reserved for OBC candidates.
¶ 4No OBC candidate qualified for this specialty.
¶ 5Despite the Respondent opting for this seat, the Appellant (NBEMS) allotted her a seat in a private hospital (IVY) because the Panchkula seat was reserved.
¶ 6The Respondent sought a mandamus to de-reserve the seat. A Single Judge directed de-reservation, but a subsequent Division Bench delivered a split verdict, leading to this reference.
¶ 8, 902Issues
i.Whether the Single Judge was correct in directing the de-reservation of a specialty seat reserved for the OBC category and throwing it open to unreserved candidates based on the specific facts of the case.
¶ 103Law Applied
Clause 4.6 of the Handbook for Admission to Post Diploma DNB Courses, which prohibits the conversion of vacant reserved seats to other categories.
¶ 10Policy decision from the NBEMS 15th Accreditation Committee Meeting (09.08.2024), which mandates that vacant Post-Diploma seats revert to the three-year Post-MBBS DNB pool rather than going to waste.
¶ 7, 27Principle that reservation rules in educational admissions must balance individual merit against institutional seat management.
¶ 1804Reasoning
The court reasoned that a general category candidate cannot claim a seat specifically earmarked for a reserved category, as merit-based shifts are typically only permitted from reserved to open, not vice versa.
¶ 21The court disagreed with the "wastage of resources" argument, noting that the Accreditation Committee had already decided such seats would be utilized in the Post-MBBS pool.
¶ 27The court found that de-reserving a seat after the counseling process has begun would be iniquitous; more meritorious candidates might have opted for the hospital had it been listed as "unreserved" initially.
¶ 24Granting the seat to the Petitioner would rewards a "strategy" of opting for an unavailable seat.
¶ 26The court noted that since over a year had passed, the Petitioner could not fulfill the necessary attendance and training requirements for the 2025 session.
¶ 2805Holding
The court answered the reference in the negative, setting aside the Single Judge's directions and dismissing the writ petition.
¶ 29The court held that once a seat matrix is finalized and options are filled, courts should not generally direct de-reservation.
¶ 31The court ordered NBEMS to seek state approval for de-reservation in future sessions prior to the finalization of the seat matrix if it is known that no candidates from a reserved category have qualified.
¶ 31Original Court PDF
National Board Of Examinations In Medical SciencesvsDr. Aditi Panwar And Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
