Courts cannot direct the de-reservation of a reserved category seat absent explicit statutory or executive mandate. Judicial intervention in reservation policies to prevent seat wastage must remain within the bounds of correctional jurisdiction, avoiding encroachment upon executive authority responsible for educational seat distribution and social quotas.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 15(5) - Reservation in professional educational institutions - Higher specialty courses - Whether a court can direct the de-reservation of a seat reserved for a specific backward social category in the absence of explicit statutory or executive authority - Principle of preventing wastage of scarce medical seats versus sanctity of constitutional reservation policy. (Paras 29, 30, 65)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope and ambit - Power of appellate court in intra-court appeals - Requirement of demonstrating patent error or perversity - Jurisdiction is correctional; court cannot substitute its own policy views for that of the executive authority regarding seat matrix and reservation policies. (Paras 21, 15, 17)

Facts of the case:
A candidate belonging to the unreserved category sought the allocation of a post-diploma seat in a medical course reserved for a backward social category. Upon finding the seat vacant due to the non-availability of eligible reserved category candidates, the candidate approached the court seeking an order to de-reserve the seat and include it in the general pool to prevent the wastage of educational resources. The lower court granted the relief, prompting an appeal by the authority responsible for the examination.

Findings of Court:
The court reached a split verdict. One perspective held that in the interest of preventing the non-utilization of public educational resources, the court could direct the de-reservation of a vacant reserved seat specifically where no eligible reserved candidates are available, provided it does not harm the overarching social justice policy. The opposing perspective asserted that such a direction constitutes an impermissible judicial invasion into the exclusive domain of executive policy-making, noting that the court lacks the power to mandate the conversion of a reserved seat absent a specific legal or executive instrument permitting such action.

Issues: Whether a court is empowered to issue a writ of mandamus directing the conversion of a vacant reserved category seat to the unreserved quota to prevent seat wastage, and whether such action satisfies constitutional requirements for reservation.

Ratio Decidendi: The judicial authority to direct de-reservation is circumscribed by the lack of statutory or executive mandate. While the wastage of professional seats is a significant public interest concern, judicial intervention to reclassify reserved seats into an unreserved pool risks undermining the constitutional and executive safeguards for backward classes, necessitating that such decisions be left to the appropriate executive body.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; point of difference referred to Hon’ble Chief Justice for assignment to a third judge or Full Bench.

Table of Content
1. nature of the dispute involving de-reservation of reserved seats in medical admission counselling. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 10)
2. parties' contentions regarding the authority to de-reserve seats and the interpretation of counselling guidelines (handbook and mom). (Para 6 , 7 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. the obligation to prevent wastage of public medical seats and the scope of judicial review in administrative/admission matters. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
4. judicial precedents on the permissibility of converting vacant reserved seats to the unreserved category in the absence of valid candidates. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)
5. the court's limited power to direct the central authorities to exercise their discretion to prevent the wastage of specialized medical seats. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77)

JUDGMENT :

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal assails the impugned judgment dated 16.06.2025 passed by learned Single Judge whereby W.P.(C) 7066/2025, instituted by Respondent No. 1 herein, was allowed with a direction to de-reserve an Other Backwards Classes “OBC” hereinafter category seat to unreserved “UR” hereinafter category in the Respondent No. 3 Hospital.

2. Briefly put, the dispute revolves around the right of Respondent No. 1, a UR candidate, to seek de-reservation of a seat in Respondent No. 3 Hospital earmarked for OBC category, on the ground that the seat having remained vacant in academic year 2025 due to lack of eligible candidates, would otherwise lapse and ought to be converted to prevent wastage.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Shorn off unnecessary details, Respondent No. 1 is a practicing Radiologist who appeared for the DNB PDCET 2025 Diplomate of National Board Post Diploma Centralised Entrance Test conducted by the Appellant (National Board of Examinations). Admittedly, Respondent No. 1 belongs to the UR category. The Appellant is the authority that conducts the said examination.

4. Upon securing 142nd rank in Radio-Diagnosis in the UR category, Respondent No. 1 chose Respondent No. 3 Hospital as her first preference and Ivy Health and Life Science Punjab “Ivy Health” hereinafter as the second. As per the Indicative Seat Matrix issued by the Appellant, only one seat was available at Respondent No. 3 Hospital which was reserved for the OBC category. Admittedly, Respondent No. 1 was aware that the seat belonged to OBC category and claimed that since no OBC candidate had qualified as per the results of the First Round dated 17.05.2025, the seat in Respondent No. 3 Hospital ought to be de-reserved i.e., converted to UR category.

5. However, on the same day itself, i.e., 17.05.2025, Respondent No. 1 was allotted her second preference i.e., Ivy Health, which she rejected and sought a representation on 19.05.2025 seeking allotment of the vacant OBC seat in Respondent No. 3 Hospital. Due to lack of response, Respondent No.1 approached this Court by way of a writ petition seeking allotment of the vacant seat reserved for OBCs.

6. The Appellant’s stance before the learned Single Judge was that it did not have the authority to convert the OBC seat to UR quota. However, Respondent No. 4 i.e., State of Haryana, maintained that the impugned seat was part of the All-India Quota and that accordingly, the Appellant was the competent authority to de-reserve the seat. Respondent No. 5, Union of India, vide letter dated 10.06.2025 also directed Respondent No. 1 to take a decision in light of the learned Single Judge’s order dated 29.05.2025 and “defend the case on behalf of the Ministry”.

7. The Appellant placed reliance on Clause 4.6 of the Handbook of Centralised Merit Based Counselling for Admission to Post Diploma DNB Courses (2025 Admission Session) “Handbook” hereinafter and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 762

Cases Referred (14)