The ruling came while hearing petitions filed by NEET-PG 2025 candidates who were denied eligibility for DNB counselling after being allotted seats in the Stray Vacancy Round (SVR) but choosing not to join them.

Key Verdict: Allotment vs Joining Clearly Distinguished

The bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh emphasised that there is a clear legal distinction between seat allotment and joining a course.

The Court held that:

• Only candidates who have actually joined a postgraduate course can be considered as “pursuing” it.

• Mere allotment of a seat, without joining, does not attract disqualification from participating in other counselling processes.

The Court observed that joining a seat results in a binding admission, whereas failure to join only leads to forfeiture of the security deposit, with no additional penalty.

NBEMS Notifications Set Aside

The High Court set aside communications issued on March 5 and 6, 2026 by the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), which had declared such candidates ineligible for SPMD counselling.

Allowing the petitions, the Court directed that:

• Candidates who did not join their allotted SVR seats must be allowed to participate in DNB counselling

• However, they will still face forfeiture of their security deposit for non-joining

Background of the Case

The petitioners had participated in NEET-PG 2025 counselling under the All India Quota and were allotted seats in the Stray Vacancy Round (SVR).

However, they chose not to join those seats and instead opted for admission through the SPMD (Sponsored Post MBBS DNB) route.

Initially considered eligible, they were later declared ineligible by NBEMS on the grounds that they had already been allotted PG seats. This prompted them to approach the High Court.

Court’s Interpretation of Eligibility Rules

The dispute centred around the interpretation of the phrase “already pursuing a postgraduate course”mentioned in Clause 2.3 of the NBEMS handbook.

The Court clarified:

• Terms like resignation or discontinuation apply only when a candidate has joined a course

• A candidate who never joined cannot be considered as pursuing, resigning, or discontinuing the course

The bench further stressed that eligibility conditions must be interpreted strictly and cannot be expanded through administrative decisions.

On Seat Blocking Concerns

While acknowledging concerns around “seat blocking,” the Court noted that:

• Such issues must be addressed through clear regulatory provisions

• Authorities cannot impose additional penalties beyond those already defined in rules

Reference to Supreme Court Judgment

The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court ruling in State of U.P. vs Bhavna Tiwari, observing that:

• The consequence of not joining an allotted seat is limited to forfeiture of fees

• Additional penalties like disqualification depend on the implementation of National Exit Test (NExT), which is not yet enforced

Final Outcome

The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favour of the candidates and directed that:

• They be permitted to participate in SPMD counselling for the 2025 session

• Their only penalty remains the loss of security deposit

This judgment is expected to impact future interpretations of NEET-PG counselling rules and provide clarity to thousands of aspirants navigating multiple admission pathways.

Why This Decision Matters

• Clarifies ambiguity in NEET-PG counselling rules

• Protects candidates from additional disqualification beyond stated rules

• Ensures fair access to DNB counselling opportunities

• Reinforces strict interpretation of eligibility conditions