Justice Jasmeet Singh, Delhi High Court
NEET-PG 2025| Candidate Allotted SVR Seat But Not Joined Can Not Be Treated As ‘Pursuing’ PG Course; No Bar To SPMD Counselling: Delhi High Court
|The Court emphasised the distinction between “allotment” and “joining” in NEET-PG counselling.
The Delhi High Court held that candidates who were allotted seats in the Stray Vacancy Round (SVR) in NEET-PG 2025 but did not join, cannot be treated as “pursuing” a postgraduate course, and therefore cannot be disqualified from Sponsored Post MBBS DNB (SPMD) counselling.
The Court emphasised the distinction between “allotment” and “joining” in NEET-PG counselling. It held that mere allotment of a postgraduate medical seat, without actual joining, cannot render a candidate ineligible for subsequent counselling processes, setting aside the exclusion of candidates from SPMD counselling.
Justice Jasmeet Singh after considering the rules prescribed in the allotment letter observed, “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”.
On the argument that the provision must be construed in a manner so as to prevent seat blocking, the Bench further noted, “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”.
Advocate Dr. Alakh Alok Srivastava appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Ruchira Gupta appeared for the respondent.
As per the alleged facts in the matter, two NEET-PG 2025 candidates participated in the counselling process and were allotted postgraduate medical seats in the Stray Vacancy Round (SVR) under the All India Quota (AIQ). However, they did not join the allotted seats, opting instead to pursue admission through SPMD (Sponsored Post MBBS DNB) counselling conducted by the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences.
The candidates initially being found eligible for SPMD counselling, were later declared ineligible on the ground that they had already been allotted PG seats in NEET-PG counselling. Challenging this decision, the candidates approached the High Court, arguing that mere allotment without joining does not amount to “pursuing” a postgraduate course, and under existing rules, the only consequence of non-joining is forfeiture of the security deposit, especially since NExT has not yet been implemented.
The Bench noted that the controversy, therefore, turned on the interpretation of the expression “already pursuing a Post Graduate course” as contained in Clause No. 2.3 of the Handbook issued by the National Board Of Examination In Medical Sciences.
The Bench noted, “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”.
“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”, the Bench further noted.
Importantly, the Court noted that the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of U.P. v. Bhavna Tiwari also recognises the distinction between ‘allotment’ and ‘joining’. It clarified that harsher consequences, such as debarment from the National Exit Test (NExT), would apply only once NExT is implemented.
Allowing the petitions, the Court set aside the communications declaring the petitioners ineligible and permitted them to participate in SPMD counselling, subject to forfeiture of their security deposit.
However, the Bench even noted that, “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”.
Cause Title: Remika Devi v. National Board Of Examination In Medical Sciences And Others [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2373]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Dr. Alakh Alok Srivastava and Arpit Dangi, Advocates.
Respondents: Ruchira Gupta, Sumriddhi Agrawal, Yashika Sharma, Mohtisham Ali, Vikrant Nilesh Goyal, Laavanya Kaushik, Khyaati Bansal, Advocates.