W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 1 of 31

$~J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 13.05.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 29 .05.2026

+ W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & CM APPL. 30162/2026

DR AMAN CHOUDHARY ………Petitioner

Through: Ms. Tanvi Dubey & Mr. Yash

Dubey, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION IN MEDICAL

SCIENCES ………Respondent

Through: Ms. Ruchira Gupta and Ms.

Sumriddhi Agrawal, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 4491/2026 & CM APPL. 21859/2026

VENKTESH DASWANI ………Petitioner

Through: Dr. Alakh Alok Srivastava and

Mr. Arpit Dangi, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION IN MEDICAL

SCIENCES AND OTHERS ………Respondents

Through: Ms. Ruchira Gupta and Ms.

Sumriddhi Agrawal, Advs. for R-1.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, CGSC with

Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, Mr. Tribhuvan and

Ms. Anushka Sarraf, Advs. for R-3.

Mr. Deepansh Sharma, GP for R-3.

Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Adv. for R-8.

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 2 of 31

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

J U D G M E N T

W.P.(C) 4491/2026

1. This is a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-

“a) Issue urgent appropriate writ, order, or direction to

quash and set aside the Impugned Second Round Allotment

List dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) to the extent the

Respondent No.1 NBEMS has allotted few Sponsored Post

MBBS DNB seats of 2025 Admission session to the

ineligible Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein and has also not re-

allotted the previously assigned seats of the ineligible

Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in the second round, in sheer

contravention of clauses 2.3 and 2.4 of the NBEMS

Handbook; and/or

b) Accordingly, issue urgent appropriate writ, order, or

direction to the Respondent Authorities to forthwith publish

a “Revised Allotment List” for the Second Round of the

Sponsored Post MBBS DNB Seats Counselling 2025 after

removing the abovementioned ineligible candidates, i.e., the

Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 herein; and/or

c) Accordingly, issue urgent appropriate writ, order, or

direction to the Respondent Authorities to re-allot a better

seat of his choice to the Petitioner in the said “Revised

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 3 of 31

Second Round Allotment List” of the Sponsored Post MBBS

DNB Seats Counselling 2025; and/or

d) Pass any such further order/order(s) as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the

case.”

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The petitioner (an MBBS Doctor) completed his MBBS in 2020 from

Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan and

then joined Primary Health Centre at Amalda, District Bhilwara,

Rajasthan, as Medical Officer and has been working there since. Later,

the petitioner took NEET – PG 2025 examination and secured an All

India Rank of 70279.

3. The counselling for NEET-PG (MD/MS/DNB) 2025 was regulated as

per the Information Bulletin and Counselling Scheme issued by the

respondent No.2 i.e., Medical Counselling Committee (“MCC”).

4. However, the petitioner did not secure any seat in Round No. 1, 2, 3 or

Stray Vacancy Round of the counselling. Even then, the petitioner, a

working/ in-service candidate, by virtue of his NEET-PG 2025 rank

was eligible to participate in the Centralized Merit-based online

counselling for admission to the Sponsored Post MBBS Diplomate of

National Board (“DNB”) Seats for Academic Session 2025, conducted

in accordance with the Handbook (“NBEMS Handbook”) issued by

the respondent No.1 i.e., National Board of Examinations in Medical

Sciences (“NBEMS”).

5. On 20.02.2026, the provisional list of eligible candidates for the said

Sponsored Post MBBS DNB Seats Counselling for Academic Session

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 4 of 31

2025 was published, wherein the petitioner was at Serial No. 77.

Consequently, the petitioner participated in the said counselling and

locked his programme choices on 02.03.2026. On 06.03.2026,

respondent No.1 published the Final Allotment List of First Round

and petitioner, at Serial No. 47, was allotted “Respiratory Medicine”

course at the Medanta - the Medicity Hospital, Sector-38, Gurgaon,

Haryana-122001 (which was his 16

th

choice out of 18).

6. On finding out that some candidates, who are already pursuing PG

Medical Courses through State Quota, were allotted seats in Final

Allotment List of First Round, the petitioner submitted his Grievance

on the online portal of respondent No.1 and also sent an email on

11.03.2026. The petitioner again raised grievance and also sent an

email on 20.03.2026 to respondent No.1. However, no action was

taken by the respondent authorities.

7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition being W.P. (C)

No. 3884/2026, seeking that the candidates already pursuing/ joined

PG Medical Courses under State Quota should be debarred from

participating in Sponsored Post MBBS DNB Seats Counselling for

Academic Session 2025, which was dismissed vide order dated

25.03.2026 recording statement of the respondent No.1‟s counsel that

the Clause No. 2.3 of the NBEMS Handbook will be followed.

8. Subsequently, on 02.04.2026, respondent No.1 published the Final

Allotment List of Second Round (“impugned Final Allotment List”),

wherein the petitioner, at Serial No. 11, is allotted “General Medicine”

at Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital, Bangalore (which was his 7

th

choice). In the said impugned Final Allotment List seats are also

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 5 of 31

allotted to respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, who are already pursuing PG

Medical Courses under State Quota. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were

allotted seats in the Final Allotment List of First Round dated

06.03.2026 and the said seats were not re-allotted in the Second

Round.

9. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised grievance and sent

an email on 03.04.2026 to remove respondent Nos. 4 to 8 from the

impugned Final Allotment List dated 02.04.2026 and to re-issue list.

However, the respondent authorities have not taken any action.

10. Hence, the present petition.

11. This Court vide order dated 06.04.2026 allowed the petitioner to

participate in the Stray Vacancy Round, while letting him join the

allotted seat in Second Round upon payment of the requisite

admission fee. However, the petitioner neither joined the seat allotted

nor deposited the fee. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed an application

seeking modification of the order dated 06.04.2026 to the extent that

„General Medicine‟ seat at Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital, Bangalore

be released for Stray Round of counselling, which was allowed vide

order dated 08.05.2026 and it was recorded that “The allotted seat of

the petitioner has been given up”.

12. In the meanwhile, respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice dated

02.04.2026 to respondent Nos. 4 to 8 seeking explanation for

participating in the Sponsored Post MBBS DNB Seats Counselling for

Academic Session 2025, despite having been allotted a seat through

State Quota and also sent communication dated 06.04.2026 to their

respective institutes seeking their status. After reviewing the replies

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 6 of 31

from respondents and their respective institutes, the seats allotted to

respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were cancelled, as they were already pursuing

courses in the seats allotted through State Counselling, and the seats

allotted to them and the petitioner in the Second Round would form

part of Stray Round of counselling. The respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were

issued another show cause notice dated 15.04.2026.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

13. Dr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since

respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have no objection to the seats allotted to them

in the Sponsored Post MBBS DNB Seats Counselling for Academic

Session 2025 being released, the same should be so done.

14. With regards to respondent Nos. 7 and 8, it is submitted that they

should be debarred under Clause No. 2.3 of the NBEMS Handbook,

which debars the medical students from participating in the Sponsored

Post MBBS DNB Seats Counselling for Academic Session 2025: (i)

who are already pursuing a PG Medical Course, (ii) who have

resigned or (iii) who have discontinued from such PG Medical Course.

The said Clause No. 2.3 of the NBEMS Handbook reads as under:-

“2.3. Candidates already pursuing a Post Graduate course

(MD/ MS/ DNB/ PG Diploma/ NBEMS Diploma) are not

eligible for admission to Sponsored Post MBBS DNB seats

of 2025 admission session for the entire duration prescribed

for the course already joined by them earlier. This shall be

irrespective of their resignation or discontinuation from the

said course due to any reason.”

15. Further, in Remika Devi v. National Board Of Examination In

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 7 of 31

Medical Sciences And Others, (W.P.(C)2957/2026) 2026:DHC:2372,

this Court held that a person who has “Joined/ Admitted” a PG Course

will be said to be “pursuing” the said course and hence, another type

of debarment was formed i.e., (iv) those candidates who have joined

some other PG Course. Clause No. 2.3 of the NBEMS Handbook does

not differentiate between “All India Quota” and “State Quota”, hence,

a candidate pursuing or joined/ admitted in a PG Course under “State

Quota”, also will be ineligible to participate in the Sponsored Post

MBBS DNB Seats Counselling for Academic Session 2025. However,

it seems that the respondent Authorities have declared “All India

Quota” candidates ineligible, while “State Quota” candidates have not

been disturbed, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India.

16. It is further submitted that as that as per Clause Nos. 2.4, 12.3 and

12.4 of the NBEMS Handbook, the respondent No.1 can cancel

admission of any candidate at any stage, even after they have taken

admission under Sponsored Counselling, if ineligibility is found.

Hence, in a case where candidate is (i) pursuing, (ii) joined, (iii)

resigned or (iv) discontinuing any other PG Medical Course, then that

candidate could be debarred at any stage, even after having taken

admission. In the present case, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are pursuing/

have joined other PG Medical Course through State Counselling and

hence, are to be debarred from participating in Sponsored Post MBBS

DNB Seats Counselling for Academic Session 2025, even after being

granted admission by the respondent No.1.

17. It is submitted that respondent No.1 with respondent No.2 failed to

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 8 of 31

eliminate candidates already pursuing PG Medial Courses under State

Quota. Under Clause No. (d) of Chapter – 8 of the MCC Information

Bulletin, the respondent No. 2 shall collect candidates‟ information

who got admission under “State Quota” from all States, prior to

conducting the All India Quota Stray Vacancy Round. Even, all state

DMEs/ State Counselling Authorities are required to share candidates‟

data who have been allotted seats through State Quota, with the

respondent No. 2, as per NEET-PG Schedule 2025. Further, in the

Academic Session 2024, counselling went on till 19.05.2025, hence, if

the prayers of the petitioner are allowed, there will be no delay to the

academic session.

18. Lastly, it is submitted that the actions of the respondent Authorities of

not debarring the illegible candidates from participating in the

Sponsored Post MBBS DNB Seats Counselling for Academic Session

2025, has warranted blocking of Sponsored Post MBBS DNB Seats,

which has resulted in eligible candidates like petitioner being deprived

of better PG Medical Seat. Reliance has been placed upon State of

U.P. v. Bhavna Tiwari, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1357, to contend the

respondent Authorities must ensure that seat blocking does not

happen.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 1 /NBEMS

19. Ms. Ruchira Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, submits

that the seats allotted to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 already stand cancelled

and shall form part of Stray Round of counselling and the seats

allotted to respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are liable to be cancelled under

Clause No. 2.3 of the NBEMS Handbook and shall form part of the

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 9 of 31

Stray Round of counselling. The respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have

deliberately blocked seats and the same is prohibited by the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court in Bhavna Tiwari (supra). It is submitted that the

respondent No.1 has the right to cancel any candidature and

admission, at any stage, if found ineligible, in terms of Clause Nos.

2.3, 2.4, 12.3 and 12.4 of NBEMS Handbook.

20. It is further submitted that the petitioner‟s contention that the

respondent No.1 did not conduct the counselling as per the NBEMS

Handbook, particularly Clause No. 2.3, is wrong. The State

Governments‟ counselling process is an independent process and

allotment data is not shared with respondent No.1 and hence,

respondent No.1 had no prior information about seat allotment

through State Counselling and can verify the same only when data is

revealed on the Online Portal for Joining and Registration (“OPJR”)

portal. Further, respondent No.1 has no means to find out about

allotments of MD/MS seats. The NBEMS OPJR portal was opened on

09.03.2026 allowing updating candidates‟ details of joining and self-

appraisal, including candidates allotted seat thorough State

counselling and it is still ongoing with status of 1194 candidates

pending. Further, respondent No.2 shares final allotment data with

respondent No.1 only in respect of NBEMS seats.

21. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has no cause of action as he

has been allotted seats from his locked choices in both rounds of

counselling. Further, vide order dated 06.04.2026, this Court has

permitted the petitioner to participate in the stray round of counselling,

hence, the relief of publishing „Revised Allotment List‟ for Second

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 10 of 31

Round is unjustified. Also, since the admission process of most

candidates is finalized, when such candidates are not party to the

present writ petition, the said relief is legally not maintainable.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.7

22. It is submitted that the respondent No.7 completed his MBBS from

Maharaja Agrasen Medical College (“MAMC”), Agroha and in the

year 2020 joined Haryana Health Department and has served as a

Medical Officer for about 5.5 years. Then he participated in the

NEET-PG 2025 examination and secured an All-India Rank of 39031.

In the State Counselling rounds, the respondent No.7 was allotted a

seat in MD Anaesthesiology at MAMC, Agroha and reported for the

same on 19.02.2026, however, he never joined the department, nor

pursued the said course. Thereafter, he participated in the Sponsored

Post MBBS DNB Seats Counselling for Academic Session 2025 and

was allotted a seat in DNB General Medicine at MAMC, Agroha, as

per the Final Allotment List of First Round dated 06.03.2026.

Consequently, on 10.03.2026, he surrendered the seat allotted through

State counselling, which was accepted by the respective institute. On

11.03.2026, he reported to MAMC, Agroha, and completed admission

formalities including payment of one-year annual course fee. An

official „Document Verification Report‟ was generated which certified

respondent No.7 as “ELIGIBLE”. On 16.03.2026, he was officially

relieved from his prior duties and on 17.03.2026 he joined the course

at MAMC, Agroha and since then has been pursuing the said course.

Even, the Head of the Department of General Medicine issued a

Continuation Certificate certifying that respondent No.7 is pursuing

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 11 of 31

the said course for last two months.

23. It is submitted that as per Clause No. 2.3 of the NBEMS Handbook

only candidates who are „already pursuing a Post Graduate course‟ are

barred, which includes candidates actively pursuing the PG course and

mere seat allotment or preliminary reporting does not mean „joining‟

or „pursuing‟, reliance is placed upon Remika Devi (supra). In the

present case, respondent No.7 surrendered his seat through State

Counselling, which was accepted by the respective institution, as also

confirmed by the respondent No.1 and hence, his admission was never

completed. Hence, the seat through State Counselling was merely

allotted and the respondent No.7 never joined or pursued it and

subsequently, surrendered it.

24. It is submitted that respondent No.7 surrendered the MD

Anaesthesiology seat on 10.03.2026, way before admission cycle was

concluded, which is usually after super stray round, which did not

happen this year. Hence, there was no malicious intent to “block” or

“waste” a medical seat. Further, “wastage of a seat” is not a ground to

declare a candidate ineligible in either respondent No.2‟s Information

Bulletin or the NBEMS Handbook and respondent Authorities cannot

originate a new disqualification not already present, reliance is placed

on Bhavna Tiwari (supra).

25. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner‟s contention that he would

have secured a “better seat” is only speculation, as seats are allotted on

merit-cum-choice basis and given the disparity in respondent No.7‟s

rank i.e., 39031 and petitioner‟s rank i.e., 70279, the petitioner has no

vested right to a seat which would go to the next meritorious candidate

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 12 of 31

with a higher rank. The respondent No.1 has already generated the

„Document Verification Report‟ which certifies that respondent No.7

as „ELIGIBLE‟ and hence, respondent No.1 cannot be allowed to

arbitrarily reverse its own verification.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.8

26. Ms. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.8, submits that it

was physically and statutorily impossible for the respondent No.8 to

join the State Quota seat. The respondent No.8, since March 2023 till

date has been working at the Community Health Centre (“CHC”)

Dhanur, Block Sri Karanpur, Sri Ganganagaras an in-service Medical

Officer and has been issued a Continuance Certificate dated

08.05.2026 in this regard and the same could also be verified by his

monthly salary slip for April 2026. He got an All India Rank of 67414

in NEET-PG 2025 and participated in the Rajasthan State PG

Counselling, wherein he was allotted a Post MBBS Diploma

(Pediatrics) seat at District Hospital (“DH”), Tonk. However, the

respondent No.8 neither paid the full annual course fees nor executed

the Surety Bond of Rs.8.5 Lakhs or Bank Guarantee of Rs.1.5 Lakhs.

Hence, the respondent No.8 never officially joined DH Tonk. Further,

as an in-service Medical Officer, respondent No.8 could not physically

join a new postgraduate course without “Relieving Order” from the

Government of Rajasthan. Further, respondent No.8 was never granted

the mandatory Study Leave under Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service

Rules (“RSR”), 1951 and even the Last Pay Certificate (“LPC”),

which acts as financial “relieving order” for a transitioning

government servant, was never issued for him. Even the respondent

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 13 of 31

No.8‟s Service Book is still with BCMO, Karanpur (respondent No.

8‟s current employer), which shows that administrative control was

never given to DH, Tonk. Additionally, respondent No.8 never went

through the requisite Medical Fitness Examination at joining and even

the formal Joining Report by DH Tonk or Self-Appraisal by the

trainee on the OPJR Portal by 09.04.2026 was not executed. Non-

fulfilment of such statutory mandatory requirements shows that the

allotment was just a procedural technicality and respondent No.8

never “joined” and/or “pursued” the course.

27. It is submitted that the State Government‟s order dated 09.03.2026

only directs relieving of selected doctors and is not a blanket direction

that relieves all in-service candidates. Respondent No.8 never

submitted relieving application and continued his duty at CHC

Dhanur. Further, respondent No.1‟s Notice dated 02.03.2026 required

that in-service candidates‟ training can start only after being relieved

from parent organization, hence, it was statutorily impossible for

respondent No.8 to „pursue‟ the State course. The petitioner‟s

assumption that mere “allotment” in the State Counselling means

“pursuing” under Clause No. 2.3 of NBEMS Handbook, is wrong in

light of the judgment Remika Devi (supra). Since the respondent No.8

never joined or pursued the seat allotted through State Counselling,

allotment in the Final Allotment List of First Round abides by Clause

No. 2.3 of NBEMS Handbook and Remika Devi (supra).

28. It is submitted that the respondent No.8 participated in Sponsored Post

MBBS DNB Seats Counselling for Academic Session 2025 and

having secured an All India Rank of 67414, he was allotted a “General

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 14 of 31

Medicine” seat at Mohandai Oswal Hospital, Ludhiana, in First

Round, after which he physically reported to the said institute and paid

Rs. 1,25,000/- as annual course fee, thereby securing his seat. Further,

the reply by the DH Tonk to the respondent No.1‟s letter seeking

status of the respondent No.8 categorially states the respondent No.8

“is not pursuing the course”.

29. In Remika Devi (supra), this Court held that when rules provide

financial penalty for non-joining, extra-statutory punishments like

disqualification or ineligibility cannot be imposed. The State rules

provide financial consequences for non-joining allotted seats, hence,

cancelling respondent No.8‟s specialized DNB seat is arbitrary and

ultra vires. Even otherwise, respondent No.8‟s All India Rank is

67414, whereas petitioner‟s rank is 70279, hence, even if a vacancy

arises, it would go to the next meritorious candidate in the rank and

there are many candidates with higher rank than the petitioner. Also,

as observed in Index Medical College vs. State of M.P., 2021 SCC

OnLine SC 318, submitting a secured medical seat to stray round

forges risk of seat going waste, which is against public interest.

30. Lastly, it is submitted that the last date for completing the formalities

to join the State Quota seat was 09.04.2026 and now the State Quota

seat has irrevocably lapsed qua him. Hence, currently the only

position respondent No.8 has is at the Central DNB seat at Mohandai

Oswal Hospital, Ludhiana and if such seat is cancelled it would lead to

double jeopardy, as for non-joining the State Seat respondent No.8 is

liable to financial penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs under the State bonding

rules and Ms. Dubey, learned counsel, also states that respondent No.8

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 15 of 31

is ready and willing to deposit the said Rs. 10 Lakhs. Further, if the

seat is cancelled the respondent No.8 would be left without any PG

medical seat, which would cause irreparable injury his career, which

cannot be compensated in terms of money.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

31. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material

available on record, including the case laws cited.

32. The present matter is with respect to the medical seats allotted during

Sponsored Post MBBS DNB Seats Counselling for Academic Session

2025 by respondent No.1 in terms of NBEMS Handbook. The

petitioner has initially sought setting aside of the Second Round

Allotment List dated 02.04.2026 to the extent that the respondent No.1

has allotted the Sponsored Post MBBS DNB Seats for Admission

Session 2025 to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and not re-allotted the

previously assigned seats of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in the second

round. The petitioner‟s primary contention is that respondent Nos. 4 to

8, in view of the NBEMS Handbook, are not entitled to the seats

allotted to them and if the said seats allotted to respondent Nos. 4 to 8

are cancelled, the petitioner will get a better option.

33. As for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are concerned, upon careful perusal of

the Counter Affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.1 dated

16.04.2026, it is clear that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have admitted

that they are already pursuing PG Medical Course allotted through the

State Counselling and have no objection if the seats allotted to them in

the Sponsored Post MBBS DNB Seats Counselling for Academic

Session 2025 are released and go into to the Stray Round of

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 16 of 31

counselling. Hence, in view of the same and in view of absence of any

objection/counter by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6, the seats allotted to

respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in Sponsored Post MBBS DNB Seats

Counselling for Academic Session 2025 shall form part of Stray

Round of counselling.

34. Coming to the case of respondent Nos. 7 and 8, both have placed

heavy reliance on the judgment of Remika Devi (supra) to urge that

they were merely allotted seat and never “joined” and/or “pursued”

the course and hence, Clause No. 2.3 of the NBEMS Handbook is not

applicable to them. At this stage it is relevant to examine whether the

ratio given in Remika Devi (supra), while also considering Bhavna

Tiwari (supra), is applicable to the case of respondent Nos. 7 and 8.

The relevant paragraphs of Remika Devi (supra) reads as under:-

“33. The controversy, therefore, turns on the interpretation

of the expression “already pursuing a Post Graduate

course” as contained in Clause No. 2.3 of the Handbook.

Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be

apposite to reproduce the relevant condition issued by the

respondent No. 1:

“2.3. Candidates already pursuing a Post Graduate

course (MD/ MS/ DNB/ PG Diploma/ NBEMS Diploma)

are not eligible for admission to Sponsored Post MBBS

DNB seats of 2025 admission session for the entire

duration prescribed for the course already joined by them

earlier. This shall be irrespective of their resignation or

discontinuation from the said course due to any reason.”

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 17 of 31

(emphasis supplied)

34. The said clause, on a plain reading, disqualifies only

those candidates who are already pursuing a postgraduate

course. The provision further employs the expressions

“resignation” and “discontinuation”, which, in my

considered view, necessarily presupposes that the candidate

has first joined the course. A person who has not joined a

course cannot, in law or in common parlance, be said to be

either resigning from or discontinuing the same.

35. The respondents have sought to contend that the term

“pursuing” ought to be interpreted broadly so as to include

even cases of mere allotment of a seat. This submission is

based on erroneous interpretation of the said clause and

thus, liable to be rejected. It is well settled that while a

purposive interpretation may be adopted to further the

object of a provision, the same cannot be stretched to

rewrite the rule or introduce a disqualification which the

rule making authority has consciously not incorporated. If

the intent was to treat even allotment as a ground of

ineligibility, the same should have been explicitly provided.

36. The same is also evident from the clause Nos. 5 and 6 of

the Allotment Letter of the SVR wherein it is in clear words

stated that the effect of joining would be such that the

candidate will not be able to resign from said seat and the

only consequence of non-reporting to the allotted college

would be forfeiture of security deposit. …

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 18 of 31

37. The above clauses clearly demonstrate that the rules

treat joining as a distinct and consequential step, separate

from allotment. It clear that allotment and joining are

distinct stages of Counselling process and are governed by

different provisions. While joining leads to a binding

admission with no option of resignation, non-joining, i.e.

mere allotment, attracts only forfeiture of the security

deposit. No further disability, much less ineligibility for a

separate Counselling process, is contemplated. In such a

scenario, the rules governing allotment and joining stages

are different and cannot be commingled.

38. Reliance has been placed on Bhavna Tiwari &Ors.

(Supra) by all the parties. The petitioners, by placing

reliance, contend that factual matrix is similar as to that of

the petitioners’ case and thus, should also be allowed the

same whereas the respondents have placed reliance

contending that the as per Hon’ble Supreme Court there

should be severe consequences for seat blocking. …

39. On perusal of the judgment, one thing that is clear is

that the judgment clearly recognises the distinction between

allotment and joining and prescribes consequences for both.

While the consequences for allotment and joining of SVR

would be that no resignation would be permitted, the

consequences for allotment and subsequent failure of

joining would only be forfeiture of deposit. Once NExT is

implemented, the candidate upon non-joining, would be

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 19 of 31

debarred for 1 year from NExT. It is an admitted position

that NExT has not been implemented as of yet.

40. The contention of the respondents that such an

interpretation of the extant rules should not only include the

candidates who have joined but also the candidates who

have been allotted as it is necessary to curb seat blocking,

also does not merit acceptance. I am cognizant of the fact

that seat blocking is a matter of serious concern. However,

the measures to address such concerns must emanate from

the regulatory framework. Where the rules itself prescribe

the consequence of non-joining as forfeiture of the security

deposit, the respondents cannot, by administrative

interpretation, impose an additional penalty of ineligibility

for participation in a SPMD Seats Counselling process.

Eligibility and non-eligibility conditions must be applied in

a strict sense. Expansion of such conditions should not be

made so as to curtail the right of the candidate which is

otherwise available on literal interpretation of the eligibility

conditions and extant rules. In the absence of NExT, in my

considered view the candidate cannot be any debarred from

participating in the SPMD Seats Counselling.

41. The argument sought to be advanced by the respondents

that a stricter interpretation is warranted in the interest of

maintaining discipline in the Counselling process is, no

doubt, a matter of policy. However, such an interpretation

must flow clearly from the defined provisions.

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 20 of 31

xxxxxxxx

43. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that the

respondents themselves have, in certain instances, permitted

candidates who were allotted seats in state quota to

participate in SPMD Seats Counselling and have further

allotted seats in the first round of said Counselling. While I

do not rest my conclusion solely on such instances, they do

indicate that the interpretation now sought to be advanced

is not supported by any consistent or uniform practice. In

my considered view, no distinction can be drawn between

candidates allotted seats under the State Quota and the

present petitioners so as to justify the denial of seats to the

latter.”

(Emphasis added)

35. A perusal of the paragraphs, reproduced above, clearly shows that,

Clause No. 2.3 of the NBEMS Handbook only disqualifies candidates

already pursuing a PG course and by using expressions “resignation”

and “discontinuation”, it presupposes that the candidate has joined the

course. Hence, a candidate who never joined a course cannot be said

to be either resigning or discontinuing the same. It was also observed

that mere allotment is not equal to “pursuing”.

36. Coming to the case of respondent No.7, the facts are that in the State

Counselling he was allotted a seat in MD Anaesthesiology at MAMC,

Agroha and reported for the same on 19.02.2026. Thereafter, in the

Sponsored Post MBBS DNB Seats Counselling for Academic Session

2025 he was allotted a seat in DNB General Medicine at MAMC,

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 21 of 31

Agroha. On 10.03.2026, he surrendered the seat allotted through State

counselling and on 11.03.2026, he reported to MAMC, Agroha, and

completed admission formalities including payment of one-year

annual course fee and on 16.03.2026, he was officially relieved from

his prior duties and on 17.03.2026 he joined the course at MAMC,

Agroha and since then has been pursuing the said course.

37. At this juncture it is relevant to look at the reply sent by MAMC,

Agroha to respondent No.1‟s communication seeking status of the

respondent No.7, which is extracted below:-

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 22 of 31

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 23 of 31

38. A perusal of the communication, reproduced above, clearly shows that

the MAMC, Agroha has accepted that respondent No.7 has “not

joined the department” and also is not “pursuing the course”.

Additionally, it is also unequivocally stated that respondent No.7 has

“surrendered the seat without joining the department on 10.03.2026”.

This communication from the concerned institution clearly shows that

the respondent No.7 neither joined nor pursued the course allotted

through the State Counselling and hence, applying the ratio of Remika

Devi (supra), his surrender of seat cannot be said to be either

resigning or discontinuing and hence, clearly not debarred under

Clause No. 2.3 of the NBEMS Handbook.

39. After surrendering the seat allotted through State counselling,

respondent No.7 reported to MAMC, Agroha, and completed

admission formalities including payment of one-year annual course

fee and on 17.03.2026 he joined the course at MAMC, Agroha and

since then has been pursuing the said course and there is even

Continuation Certificate certifying that respondent No.7 is pursuing

the said course for last two months issued the Head of the Department

of General Medicine, which is extracted below:-

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 24 of 31

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 25 of 31

40. In view of the above discussion, Clause No. 2.3 of the NBEMS

Handbook is not applicable to respondent No.7 and he has been

pursuing the course at MAMC, Agroha since 17.03.2026. Hence, I

find no merits in the contentions of the petitioner to disturb respondent

No.7‟s seat.

41. The eligibility/ ineligibility of respondent No.8 is being considered in

detail in W.P.(C) 5824/2026. The said writ petition is filed by the

respondent No.8 as the petitioner.

W.P.(C) 5824/2026

42. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking the following prayers:-

“(a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other

appropriate writ, order, or direction, to quash and set aside

the impugned Show Cause Notices dated 02.04.2026 and

15.04.2026 (bearing Ref. no.: P- 11016(12)/1/2025-C&R

(1975)/25661139538) issued by Respondent No. 1, along

with any subsequent adverse administrative orders or

cancellation notices issued against the Petitioner in this

regard;

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other

appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the

Respondents to regularize the Petitioner's allotment to the

Sponsored Post MBBS DNB course (General Medicine) at

Mohandai Oswal Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab, and permit

him to join and pursue the said allotted course without any

hindrance, impediment, or coercive action;

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 26 of 31

c) Issue a Writ of Declaration, or any other appropriate

writ, order, or direction, reading down Clause 2.3 of the

Information Bulletin/Handbook for SPMD Counselling

2025 issued by the Respondent , clarifying that the

expression "already pursuing a Post Graduate course"

cannot be interpreted to include candidates whose prior

admission process was procedurally defective, void ab

initio, or lacking mandatory statutory prerequisites (such as

the execution of bonds or submission of a relieving order);

(d) In the alternative to prayer (c), issue a Writ of

Declaration, or any other appropriate writ, order, or

direction, striking down Clause 2.3 of the Information

Bulletin/Handbook for SPMD Counselling 2025 issued by

the Respondent as being arbitrary, unreasonable, and

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, to the

extent that it fails to provide intelligible differentia between

a validly enrolled candidate and a candidate holding a

procedurally invalid "Joined" status;

(e) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate

writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondent No. 1

(NBEMS) to immediately permit the Petitioner to

participate in the ongoing/upcoming rounds of the

Centralized Merit-Based Counselling for Sponsored Post

MBBS DNB seats for the 2025 admission session, and allot

a seat commensurate with the Petitioner’s merit and rank;

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 27 of 31

(f) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring

that the Petitioner is not "already pursuing" a postgraduate

course within the meaning of Clause 2.3 of the NBEMS

Information Bulletin, as the Petitioner never concluded the

mandatory joining formalities for the State-allotted seat;

(g) Award the costs of the present Writ Petition in favour of

the Petitioner; and

(h) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the present case, and in the interest of

justice and equity.”

43. The petitioner herein is respondent No. 8 in W.P.(C) 4491/2026 and

the respondent herein is the respondent No. 1 in W.P.(C) 4491/2026.

44. For the sake of brevity, facts and submissions made on behalf of the

petitioner (respondent No. 8 in W.P.(C) 4491/2026) are not repeated

and are substantially the same.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

45. Ms. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent (in addition to

submission made in W.P.(C) 4491/2026 on behalf of NBEMS) has

made the some additional submission with regards to the petitioner. It

is submitted that the Remika Devi (supra) is not applicable and

distinguishable on facts as therein the petitioner did not report to the

respective institution and did not complete the admission formalities,

whereas, in the present case, the petitioner reported, joined and

blocked the seat allotted to him in the first round of state counselling

and had he not joined the seat, the seat would have been available for

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 28 of 31

Second and/or Third Rounds or stray round of counselling.

46. It is submitted that the petitioner joined and blocked the allotted seat

in first round of State counselling in Post MBBS Diploma

(Paediatrics) at District Hospital, Tonk, Rajasthan, as he physically

reported at the DH Tonk, Rajasthan and submitted original documents

and signed the initial surety bond, which are the primary requirements

for joining and retaining the seat, as per Clause Nos. 8, 11 and 12 of

instruction booklet issued by Government of Rajasthan for NEET PG

Counselling 2025. In view of the same, petitioner‟s contention that the

never completed the final joining formalities such as depositing the

entire admission fees, executing the mandatory Bank Guarantee of Rs.

1.5 lakhs and service bond of 8.5 lakhs and was not relieved from his

employment, is misleading.

47. Further, as admitted by the petitioner in terms of order dated

09.03.2026, the candidate had to initiate the relieving process, but the

petitioner did not initiate any steps for initiating relieving process and

consequently, blocked the seats as well as continued to draw salary

and remuneration being „in service‟.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

48. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material

available on record, including the case laws cited.

49. In the present case, in the State counselling the petitioner was allotted

a Post MBBS Diploma (Paediatrics) seat DH Tonk, but as per him he

never officially joined the course. The reply sent by DH Tonk, to the

respondent‟s communication seeking status of the petitioner, is

extracted below:-

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 29 of 31

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 30 of 31

50. A perusal of the email, reproduced above, clearly shows that the DH

Tonk has accepted that although petitioner took admission, however,

he is not pursuing the course. This email from DH Tonk conclusively

shows that the petitioner never joined or pursued the course and

applying the ratio of Remika Devi (supra) it is clear that Clause No.

2.3 of NBEMS Handbook is not applicable to the petitioner, as the

said clause only bars candidates who are “already pursuing” a Post

Graduate course. “Allotment” and “Joining” are entirely distinct

stages, and a candidate cannot be deemed to be “pursuing” a course

without actually having joined it. The petitioner, in my considered

view, does not fall under Clause No. 2.3 of NBEMS Handbook.

51. In Remika Devi (supra) I have also held that seat blocking is a matter

of serious concern, but such measures are to be addressed by the

regulators. The non-joining the seat allotted through State Counselling

carries a financial penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs, which the petitioner is

ready and willing to pay and shall deposit the same within 4 weeks

from pronouncement of this judgment.

CONCLUSION IN W.P. (C) 4491/2026

52. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with direction

that the seats allotted to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in Sponsored Post

MBBS DNB Seats Counselling for Academic Session 2025 shall form

part of Stray Round of counselling and the petitioner will be permitted

to appear in the Stray Round of counselling, if and when conducted.

53. It is also directed that legitimately secured seat by respondent No.7 at

“General Medicine” at MAMC, Agroha, Hisar shall remain entirely

unaffected.

W.P.(C) 5824/2026 & W.P.(C) 4491/2026 Page 31 of 31

54. In view of the discussion in W.P.(C) 5824/2026, herein above, it is

directed that legitimately secured seat by respondent No. 8 at “General

Medicine” at Mohandai Oswal Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab shall also

remain unaffected.

55. With the said direction, the present petition is disposed of, along with

pending applications, if any.

CONCLUSION IN W.P. (C) 5824/2026

56. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed to the

extent that the petitioner is permitted to join and pursue the Sponsored

Post MBBS DNB course (General Medicine) at Mohandai Oswal

Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab. The petitioner shall pay the penalty of Rs.

10 Lakhs to the concerned authority within 4 weeks from

pronouncement of this judgment.

57. With the said direction, the present petition is disposed of, along with

pending applications, if any.

JASMEET SINGH, J

MAY 29

th

, 2026 / HG