The Delhi High Court has ruled that once a seat matrix for medical admissions is published and candidates have submitted their choices, courts cannot direct authorities to de-reserve an unfilled seat and hand it to a general category candidate. The judgment came from a reference made after a Division Bench gave a split verdict in an earlier appeal.
Background of the Case
Dr. Aditi Panwar, an unreserved category candidate, appeared for the DNB Post Diploma Centralized Entrance Test 2025 in Radio-Diagnosis and secured the 142nd rank. The seat matrix showed one Radio-Diagnosis seat at General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula, reserved for an OBC candidate. Since no OBC candidate had cleared this branch for several years, Dr. Panwar still opted for this hospital as her first preference, listing IVY Health and Life Science, Punjab, as her second choice.
She was eventually allotted the Punjab seat, while the Panchkula seat stayed vacant. When her representation went unanswered, she moved the High Court seeking a direction to convert the reserved seat to unreserved category and grant her admission.
A Single Judge accepted her plea in June 2025, ordering the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to convert the seat and offer it to eligible candidates by merit. NBEMS challenged this before a Division Bench, which delivered a split opinion, leading to the present reference.
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for NBEMS, Mr. Waize Ali Noor, argued that the petitioner knew the seat was reserved for OBC candidates yet still opted for it. He pointed to Clause 4.6 of the counselling handbook, which bars converting a vacant reserved seat to another category. He also submitted that de-reservation falls within the Executive's domain, not the Court's, and cited minutes of NBEMS's 15th Accreditation Committee Meeting showing unfilled DNB seats were meant to go to the three-year PG course pool, not lie wasted.
Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, appearing for Dr. Panwar, countered that no OBC candidate had cleared the exam for years, so the seat was bound to remain empty. He argued that a vacant seat serves no purpose and amounts to a loss of national resource, relying on a Himachal Pradesh High Court ruling in Archana Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh.
Court's Observations
Justice Dinesh Mehta held that a general category candidate cannot stake a claim on a seat reserved for another category, though the reverse is permissible. The Court noted several reasons a seat can stay vacant - from no candidates applying to eligibility gaps - and cautioned that de-reserving seats after the process is complete could deprive more meritorious candidates who never got the chance to apply, since the seat wasn't open to them earlier.
The Court also observed that IVY is a private institution while the Panchkula hospital is government-run, meaning the two carry different fee structures and facilities, which could have influenced who applied.
Justice Mehta remarked,
"Once, the seat matrix has been declared and candidates have filled in their options, no direction can be given by the Court to de-reserve the seat(s)."
Decision
The Court answered the reference in the negative, holding that the Single Judge's direction was not sustainable. The writ petition was dismissed, and NBEMS's appeal was allowed.
However, the Court directed that going forward, if fewer reserved-category candidates clear an exam than there are seats, NBEMS must seek approval from the concerned State to de-reserve such seats in advance, before the seat matrix is finalised and options are filled.
Case Details
Case Title: National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences v. Dr. Aditi Panwar and Others
Case Number: LPA 438/2025
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Mehta
Decision Date: 29 July 2026
