The Delhi High Court clarified that seats reserved for OBC candidates in postgraduate medical courses cannot be de-reserved for general category candidates after the counselling process, emphasizing the executive’s exclusive domain in altering reservation matrices.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dr. Aditi Panwar, a general-category candidate, secured the 142nd rank in the 2025 Diplomat of National Board - Post Diploma Centralized Entrance Test (DNB PDCET) for Radiodiagnosis. The seat matrix published for the DNB (Post Diploma) 2025 session earmarked a single Radiodiagnosis seat at Government Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula, Haryana for OBC candidates. The seat had remained vacant for five to six years. Dr. Panwar opted for this seat as her first preference, despite its OBC reservation, and was instead allotted a seat at IVY Health and Life Science, a private institution. She filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to de-reserve the OBC seat and admit her.
Key Facts
- 28.01.2025: NBEMS issued notification for two-year PG/DNB Post Diploma courses.
- 2025: Dr. Panwar appeared for DNB PDCET and secured rank 142 in Radiodiagnosis.
- Seat matrix (date not specified) showed one OBC-reserved Radiodiagnosis seat at Government Hospital, Panchkula.
- 09.08.2024: Minutes of the 15th Accreditation Committee Meeting decided that vacant DNB seats would be re-allocated to three-year PG courses.
- 16.06.2025: Single Judge allowed the writ petition and ordered de-reservation of the OBC seat.
- 24.02.2026: Division Bench heard the intra-court appeal filed by NBEMS.
- 18.05.2026: Division Bench delivered a split verdict; one judge modified, the other dismissed the petition.
- 28.07.2025: Interim order froze the seat pending final decision.
- 29.07.2026: Present judgment pronounced.
Procedural History
- 28.01.2025: NBEMS notification for DNB Post Diploma seats.
- 16.06.2025: Single Judge dismissed NBEMS’s objections and directed de-reservation of the OBC seat.
- 24.02.2026: NBEMS filed intra-court appeal before Division Bench.
- 18.05.2026: Division Bench issued split judgment; one judge upheld the Single Judge’s order with modification, the other dismissed the petition.
- 29.07.2026: Division Bench (Justice Dinesh Mehta) delivered the final judgment, answering the reference question.
Parties' Positions
- Appellant (NBEMS): Asserted that Clause 4.6 of the handbook expressly prohibits conversion of a vacant reserved seat to another category, that reservation decisions lie with the State Government, and that de-reservation is an executive function not subject to judicial direction.
- Respondent (Dr. Aditi Panwar): Contended that the OBC seat had remained vacant for years, that denying her admission would waste a valuable resource, and that the court should order de-reservation to allow her admission.
Relief Sought
Dr. Panwar sought a mandamus directing NBEMS to de-reserve the OBC-reserved Radiodiagnosis seat at Government Hospital, Panchkula, and admit her in that seat.
The Legal Issue
Whether the High Court can direct the de-reservation of a seat reserved for OBC candidates in a government medical college after the counselling process has been completed, and whether such direction encroaches upon the executive’s exclusive authority under the reservation framework and the provisions of Clause 4.6 of the handbook.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- Clause 4.6 of the Handbook Centralized Merit Based Counselling for Admission to Post Diploma DNB Courses (2025 Admission Session) unequivocally bars conversion of any vacant reserved seat to another category.
- Reservation of seats is a statutory duty of the State Government; the NBEMS lacks jurisdiction to alter it.
- The minutes of the 15th Accreditation Committee Meeting (09.08.2024) demonstrate that vacant seats are to be re-allocated to three-year PG courses, negating any claim of “wastage”.
- Judicial interference would set a precedent that courts can override executive decisions on reservation, contrary to established jurisprudence.
For the Respondent
- The OBC seat had remained unfilled for five to six years; allowing it to stay vacant defeats the purpose of reservation and wastes national resources.
- No OBC candidate cleared the exam for Radiodiagnosis; therefore, the seat should be made available to the general category to ensure optimal utilisation.
- Citing Archana Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh (12.08.2018), the respondent argued that vacancy of reserved seats warrants remedial action to prevent loss of educational opportunities.
- Requested that the court direct NBEMS to de-reserve the seat, or at the very least, approach the State Government for the same.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming the principle that when a seat is earmarked for a particular reserved category, a candidate belonging to the general category cannot lay claim to that seat. It observed that the reverse - reserved-category candidates seeking admission in unreserved seats - is permissible, but not vice-versa. The judgment stressed that reservation policy is a matter of public policy and executive discretion, not a matter for judicial re-direction after the seat matrix has been published and candidates have filed their options.
"Accordingly, the OBC seats allocated to the Respondent No.3 Hospital for DNB PD for 2025 Admission Session should be converted to UR category by the Respondent No.1 and be offered to all candidates including the Petitioner in order of merit..."
The Court examined Clause 4.6 of the handbook, noting that while the handbook is a guideline, it reflects the Board’s procedural rules. The Court held that the clause, read in conjunction with the minutes of the 15th Accreditation Committee Meeting, demonstrates that vacant OBC seats are to be re-allocated to three-year PG courses, thereby eliminating any justification for de-reservation on the ground of “wastage”.
The judgment further observed that the Division Bench’s split decision highlighted the need for a uniform approach. It rejected the argument that the court could intervene to de-reserve seats merely because they remained vacant, emphasizing that such intervention would disrupt the balance between reservation policy and merit-based admission.
Importantly, the Court clarified that once the seat matrix is declared and candidates have exercised their options, the court cannot issue a direction to de-reserve the seat. However, it did not lay down an absolute bar on future de-reservation; it merely stipulated that any such action must be taken prior to the declaration of the seat matrix and with the requisite approval of the concerned State Government.
The Court also distinguished the present case from service-jurisprudence, noting that reservation in educational institutions follows a distinct statutory and regulatory regime. It reiterated that the handbook is not a statute and cannot be read as law to override legislative intent.
The Verdict
The appeal filed by NBEMS is allowed. The writ petition filed by Dr. Aditi Panwar is dismissed. The Court directs that de-reservation of OBC seats may only be effected before the seat matrix is published and after obtaining approval from the appropriate State Government. No direction is issued to admit the petitioner, and the earlier order of the Single Judge dated 16.06.2025 is set aside.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Reservation Cannot Be Overridden Post-Counselling
- Courts will not entertain petitions seeking de-reservation of seats after the counselling process is complete.
- Candidates must file any challenge to reservation before the seat matrix is finalized.
Executive Approval Is Mandatory for De-reservation
- Any alteration to reserved seats requires prior approval from the State Government.
- Educational bodies must incorporate de-reservation provisions in their internal policies before publishing seat matrices.
Handbook Guidelines Are Not Statutory Law
- Clause 4.6 of the handbook is a procedural rule, not a statute; it cannot be used to compel the Board to act contrary to statutory reservation mandates.
- Legal arguments must focus on statutory provisions and executive orders rather than internal guidelines.
Practical Takeaways for Practitioners
- Advise clients to raise reservation-related grievances before the counselling round closes.
- Ensure that any request for de-reservation is accompanied by a formal application to the State Government.
- Cite the Court’s emphasis on the executive’s exclusive domain when arguing against judicial intervention in reservation matters.
