Court clarifies distinction between seat allotment and joining in postgraduate medical admissions, allows petitioners to participate in counselling.
In a significant judgment delivered on March 20, 2026, the Delhi High Court adjudicated in favor of petitioners Remika Devi and Shubham in a dispute concerning their eligibility for the Sponsored Post MBBS Diplomat National Board (SPMD) Seats Counselling. The court ruled that mere allotment of a seat does not equate to pursuing a postgraduate course and declared the petitioners eligible to participate in the SPMD Seats Counselling for the 2025 admission session.
Justice Jasmeet Singh presided over the case, examining the eligibility criteria outlined in Clause 2.3 of the Handbook governing SPMD Seats Counselling. The clause disqualifies candidates "already pursuing a Post Graduate course" from participating in the SPMD Seats Counselling. The petitioners contended that they had been declared ineligible by the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences, despite not joining the seats allotted to them in the Stray Vacancy Round (SVR) of the NEET PG 2025 Counselling.
The petitioners argued that the only consequence of not joining an allotted seat in the SVR was the forfeiture of their security deposit, as per the rules. They maintained that this did not amount to pursuing a postgraduate course, a position supported by a previous Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of U.P. v. Bhavna Tiwari.
The High Court's judgment emphasized the distinction between seat allotment and joining, noting that the rules governing the counselling process explicitly treat these as separate stages. The court highlighted that joining leads to binding admission with no option of resignation, whereas non-joining attracts only the forfeiture of the security deposit. Consequently, the court held that allotment alone, without joining, cannot be interpreted as disqualification from participating in the SPMD Seats Counselling.
Justice Singh underscored the importance of adhering to the literal interpretation of eligibility conditions and the existing rules, cautioning against expanding these to impose additional penalties not contemplated within the regulatory framework. The judgment also addressed concerns about seat blocking, acknowledging the need for robust regulations to prevent such practices but ruling against administrative imposition of disqualifications beyond the prescribed rules.
The court set aside the communications declaring the petitioners ineligible for the SPMD Seats Counselling and allowed them to participate in the counselling process, while forfeiting their security deposit for non-joining in the SVR.
This judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of eligibility criteria for postgraduate medical admissions and reinforces the importance of distinct treatment of allotment and joining stages in the counselling process.
Bottom Line:
Eligibility for Sponsored Post MBBS Diplomat National Board (SPMD) Seats Counselling - Mere allotment of a seat without joining does not amount to "pursuing" a postgraduate course under Clause 2.3 of the Handbook governing such Counselling.
Statutory provision(s): Clause 2.3 of Handbook governing SPMD Seats Counselling, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
