Delhi HC: Not joining SVR seat doesn't bar SPMD counselling for NEET

The Delhi HC ruled that NEET-PG candidates who didn't join an allotted Stray Vacancy Round seat are not ineligible for SPMD counselling. The court stated that "allotment" is not the same as "pursuing" a course, permitting their participation.

The Delhi High Court has directed that candidates who were allotted seats in the Stray Vacancy Round (SVR) of NEET-PG 2025 but did not join cannot be treated as "ineligible" for Sponsored Post MBBS DNB (SPMD) counselling, holding that mere allotment does not amount to "pursuing" a postgraduate course.

Allowing the writ petitions, the Court set aside communications dated March 5 and 6, 2026, issued by the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), and permitted the petitioners to participate in the SPMD counselling process, subject to forfeiture of their security deposit.

The bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh ruled that the eligibility condition barring candidates "already pursuing" a postgraduate course applies only where a candidate has actually joined the course, not merely been allotted a seat.

Court's Reasoning: 'Allotment' Not 'Pursuing' a Course

The petitions were argued by Advocate Dr Alakh Alok Srivastava, appearing for the candidates, who contended that the denial of participation was arbitrary and contrary to the governing rules.

The Court accepted the submission that non-joining of a seat in the SVR attracts only the consequence of forfeiture of the security deposit and does not render a candidate ineligible for other counselling processes. The Court emphasised that the rules clearly distinguish between "allotment" and "joining." It noted that joining a seat leads to a binding admission, whereas failure to join only results in forfeiture of the deposit, with no additional disqualification prescribed.

Rejecting the stand of NBEMS, the Court held that expanding the meaning of "pursuing" to include mere allotment would amount to rewriting the rules. It observed that eligibility conditions must be strictly interpreted and cannot be widened through administrative interpretation to penalise candidates beyond what is expressly provided.

Reference to Supreme Court Precedent

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in State of U.P. v. Bhavna Tiwari, noting that even under that judgment, the consequence of not joining an SVR seat is limited to forfeiture of fees, and further penalties such as debarment are contingent on the implementation of the National Exit Test (NExT), which is yet to be enforced.

Court Addresses 'Seat Blocking' Concerns

While acknowledging concerns regarding "seat blocking," the Court observed that such issues must be addressed through clear regulatory provisions and not by imposing additional disqualifications not contemplated under existing rules.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petitions and directed that the petitioners be permitted to participate in SPMD counselling for the 2025 session, while upholding the forfeiture of their security deposit for non-joining of the SVR seats. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)