Delhi HC says reserved DNB seats should be de-reserved before counselling if no eligible candidate exists
New Delhi, July 30
The Delhi High Court has held that where no candidate from a reserved category qualifies in a particular speciality, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences should, after obtaining the necessary approval from the State Government concerned, ensure that such seats are de-reserved before counselling so they can be filled by open category candidates instead of remaining vacant.
However, the Court clarified that once the seat matrix has been published and candidates have exercised their preferences, courts should not direct de-reservation of seats midway through the admission process.
Answering a reference arising out of a split verdict, Justice Dinesh Mehta allowed the appeal filed by NBEMS and set aside the Single Judge's direction ordering conversion of an OBC Radiodiagnosis seat at General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula into an unreserved seat for the 2025 DNB (Post Diploma) admission process. The Court held that the writ petition filed by the candidate was liable to be dismissed.
The Court observed that while an unfilled educational seat may appear to be a waste of national resources, vacancies could arise due to several practical reasons, including the absence of qualified candidates in a reserved category, failure of candidates to report, or ineligibility discovered during counselling.
It cautioned that permitting de-reservation after counselling would create inequitable consequences because more meritorious general category candidates may never have opted for the institution, believing the seat was unavailable to them.
As a result, a less meritorious candidate could unfairly secure admission while those higher in merit remained excluded.
The Bench further observed that a candidate belonging to the unreserved category cannot claim a seat specifically reserved for another category. It noted that while reserved category candidates may compete for open category seats on merit, the reverse is impermissible under the reservation framework.
Rejecting the argument that the seat would otherwise have gone waste, the Court noted that NBEMS had already taken a policy decision in its 15th Accreditation Committee meeting held on August 9, 2024, that unfilled two-year DNB (Post Diploma) seats would be transferred to the three-year DNB (Post MBBS) pool.
It held that this decision ensured the seat would not remain permanently vacant and found no merit in the contention that the policy was unenforceable merely because it was not incorporated in the counselling handbook. The Court observed that the handbook serves only as a guidance document and cannot be treated as a statutory instrument.
The Court also noted the practical impossibility of granting relief at such a belated stage. It observed that more than a year had elapsed since the 2025 admission session and the concerned two-year DNB seat had remained frozen because of interim orders. Had the candidate joined during that session, she would already have completed a substantial part of the course.
It said that directing admission at this stage would require commencement of training afresh, disrupt the academic calendar and raise issues relating to attendance requirements and the rights of candidates in the subsequent admission cycle.
At the same time, the Court clarified that it was not laying down an absolute proposition that courts can never direct de-reservation of vacant seats. It observed that in the present case, the existing policy of transferring unfilled seats to another course eliminated the concern of wastage. Nevertheless, it remarked that NBEMS ought to have published a revised seat matrix immediately after it became clear that no OBC candidate had qualified in Radiodiagnosis.
Issuing prospective directions, the Court ordered NBEMS to ensure that where candidates from any reserved category, including OBC, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Persons with Disabilities, do not qualify in a particular speciality, or fewer candidates qualify than the number of reserved seats, such seats should be de-reserved after obtaining the requisite approval from the concerned State Government and filled by open category candidates.
The Court further directed NBEMS to obtain prior or in-principle approvals well in advance so that seats do not remain vacant and deserving candidates are able to pursue studies in the institution of their choice. However, it categorically held that once the seat matrix has been declared and candidates have exercised their options, no court should direct de-reservation of such seats.
— ANI
Reader Comments
Finally some common sense! For too long we've seen seats lying vacant because no eligible candidate from a reserved category came forward, but the system refused to convert them. This will help many deserving open category students. However, the court also warned against mid-process changes – that balance is important. Good judgment.
Interesting point about the seats being transferred to the 3-year pool instead of going completely vacant. That shows the board already had a backup plan. The court just made the process more transparent by asking for de-reservation to happen before counselling. Makes the whole system more efficient.
I understand the rationale, but what about the promise of reservation? The whole point is to ensure representation. If we de-reserve every time no one qualifies, won't that defeat the purpose? Maybe we need better outreach and coaching for reserved category students to fill these seats, rather than just converting them. Just my two paise.
A very well-reasoned verdict. The court balanced three things: not wasting national resources, ensuring fairness in admissions, and protecting the reservation framework. The direction to get prior approval from state governments for de-reservation is practical and will help avoid last-minute chaos. Good job, Delhi HC! 🙌
But does this really solve the problem? The court says seats should be de-reserved before counselling, but what if the state government delays approval? And then the seat remains vacant anyway. They should have set a strict timeline for the government to respond. Otherwise, this might just be another circular argument.
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.