Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a Group 'A' Medical Officer in Government service, sought admission to the DNB Ophthalmology course under the in-service quota after qualifying the NEET-PG 2025 examination. In the third round of counselling, she was allotted a DNB Ophthalmology seat at Respondent No. 5 College by Respondent No. 2 State CET Cell on 13th February 2026, with a last date to join of 17th February 2026. She was also simultaneously allotted an MS Ophthalmology seat at another college, but elected to retain the DNB seat. The petitioner paid the necessary fees, completed admission formalities, and physically joined the course on 31st March 2026 after being relieved from government service. When she attempted to register on the NBEMS Online Portal for Joining and Registration (OPJR) on 1st April 2026, she received an error message indicating failure due to non-availability of seats or date of submission being over. Despite repeated inquiries to the college and CET Cell, she discovered on 16th April 2026 that Respondent No. 5 College had converted the DNB seat into an MD/MS seat and that this conversion, not communicated to CET Cell, resulted in the seat being simultaneously reflected in the All India counselling process, causing the portal discrepancy. The Joint Director of Health Services and the Dean of Respondent No. 5 College both wrote to NBEMS requesting regularization of the petitioner's admission, but no action was taken. The petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to NBEMS to enable her registration. The State acknowledged the technical error and confirmed no third-party rights would be affected, as the seat remained vacant throughout All India counselling. Respondent No. 5 College supported the petitioner's case and offered to create a supernumerary seat if necessary. The Court found that the petitioner's inability to register was solely due to an admitted technical discrepancy for which she bore no responsibility. It held that having been validly allotted the seat, accepted it, and joined the course, she could not be deprived of pursuing the programme because of an administrative lapse. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court directed NBEMS to forthwith reopen the OPJR and enable the petitioner to complete registration, treating her admission as duly regularized upon completion. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226, Constitution of India - Regularization of Admission - Technical Error in Seat Allocation - Where candidate has been validly allotted seat, accepted it, joined course, and is unable to register due to technical discrepancy for which she is not at fault, High Court may exercise jurisdiction to direct reopening of portal and regularization of admission, as ends of justice require; Held that petitioner entitled to relief as she was denied registration due to admitted technical error and no third-party rights affected (Paras 14-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct NBEMS to register the petitioner for the DNB Ophthalmology course, given that her inability to register on the OPJR was due to a technical discrepancy in the seat allocation process and not attributable to any fault on her part
Final Decision
Writ Petition disposed of. Respondent No. 6 – NBEMS directed to forthwith reopen the OPJR and enable Petitioner to complete registration as a student of DNB Ophthalmology course. Upon completion, NBEMS shall process the same and treat the admission as duly regularized. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- High Court under Article 226 can direct regularization of admission where the candidate is not at fault and administrative error is the sole cause
- technical discrepancies in seat allocation process should not deprive a validly admitted candidate of the opportunity to pursue the course
