Delhi High Court news: The Delhi High Court has delivered a split verdict in a case related to the reservation of Other Backward Class (OBC) seat to Unreserved Category (UR) for a general category candidate in a Radio-Diagnosis course in a government hospital.A bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla differed in opinion over a petition filed by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), challenging a single-bench order that allowed a plea directing the board to reserve the seat and offer it to meritorious candidates. The court referred the matter to the Chief Justice to be placed before the larger bench.The Delhi High Court bench differed on whether the judiciary can mandate the de-reservation of a vacant OBC medical seat to the UR category to prevent “national wastage”. Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla noted that the sole seat of DNB PDCET (Radio-Diagnosis) in the Panchkula Government Hospital was reserved for OBC candidates.Upholding the single judge’s decision, Justice Shukla noted that the courts in our country have stressed from time to time that medical seats should not be wasted. There is no doubt that reservation as a constitutional right should be given full opportunity, but once there is no eligible candidate available, wasting the seat would not serve the purpose of reservation.He added that the medical seats, especially in government universities, are a scarce public resource in our country, as the alternative lies in private universities, which are exceptionally costly. In these circumstances, converting the seat, in the absence of any explicit bar, is clearly beneficial.Dissenting from Justice Shukla, Justice Hari Shankar stated that a court cannot direct the de-reservation of a reserved seat in the absence of a statutory provision or binding executive instruction.Also Read | ‘Sacrifice your wishes’: Calcutta High Court steps in as parents fight for custody of child with ADHDHe asserted that such a direction transgresses the legitimate boundaries of judicial jurisdiction and enters the exclusive domain of the executive.Story continues below this adDispute over de-reservation of OBC seatThe litigation before the Delhi High Court was initiated by Dr Aditi Panwar, a general category candidate who appeared for the Diplomate of National Board-Post Diploma Centralized Entrance Test (DNB PDCET) 2025. She sought admission to a Radio-Diagnosis seat at Government Hospital, Panchkula, which was reserved for the OBC category.Upon securing 142nd rank in Radio-Diagnosis in the UR category, the respondent Panwar chose Government Hospital, Panchkula, as her first preference and Ivy Health and Life Science Punjab as the second. As per the indicative seat matrix issued by the appellant NBEMS, only one seat was available at the hospital, which was reserved for the OBC category.Despite being aware of the reservation, she argued that because no OBC candidate had qualified for the seat, it should be converted to the UR category to prevent it from lapsing or being transferred to the NEET-PG pool.However, on the same day, the respondent was allotted her second preference, i.e., Ivy Health, which she rejected and sought representation on seeking allotment of the vacant OBC seat in the Panchkula Government Hospital. Due to a lack of response, the respondent approached the Delhi High Court by way of a petition seeking allotment of the vacant seat reserved for OBCs.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Woman’s left kidney removed instead of right, her family gets Rs 1.5 croreA single judge originally allowed her petition, directing the NBEMS to reserve the seat and offer it to meritorious candidates. Then, the NBEMS challenged the Delhi High Court single judge’s order by the present petition, arguing it lacked the authority to change the nature of the seat and that the seat should instead be transferred to the post-MBBS pool to prevent wastage.‘Reservations not against equality’The core issue before the Delhi High Court is whether the OBC category seat should be de-reserved as proposed by the respondent, as it is lying vacant in view of the non-availability of any OBC category candidate or be converted for NEET-PG as contested by the appellant.She was allotted a UR seat in Ivy Health (her second preference) but she declined it.Instead, she submitted the representation for the de-reservation of the OBC seat on the ground that Ivy Health is a private hospital and the vacant seat would otherwise lapse for want of qualified OBC candidates in the relevant academic year.The appellant contends that opting for a reserved seat by a UR candidate is void ab initio, and in any case, the said seat could not be allotted to the respondent as per the handbook, as she had already rejected her allotment of seat in Ivy Health.There is no doubt that reservations are not against equality, reservation is indeed a tool for social justice.Also Read | ‘Not by choice’: Punjab and Haryana High Court orders release of medical dues to retired employee for treatment amid CovidArticle 15(5) of the Constitution enables the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes for admission in educational institutions.There is no distinction carved out between undergraduate and postgraduate courses, the Delhi High Court noted.No doubt, sometimes constitutional courts have remarked that there cannot be reservations in super-speciality courses.However, neither the Supreme Court nor this court has held in any case that reservations in super speciality courses are impermissible altogether.It is nobody’s case before us that reservation is not permissible altogether.In this background, the sole seat of DNB PDCET (Radio-Diagnosis) in the Panchkula Government Hospital was reserved for OBC candidates.Leaving seat vacant won’t benefit reserved category: Justice ShuklaThe Supreme Court in various judgments, including Era Lucknow Medical College (supra), has held that non-filling of medical seats amounts to national wastage and has, from time to time, devised various mechanisms for filling these seats, including even extending the last date of admission, which is ordinarily considered sacrosanct.This court does not wish to burden this judgment with a discussion of these precedents.It is clear that the Supreme Court has, on several occasions, intervened to minimise the wastage of medical seats, keeping in view the abysmal doctor-population ratio.Interestingly, the opposing parties premise their case on the proposition that medical seats need not go vacant, though they adopt different approaches to achieve this result.The respondent contends that the seat ought to be de-reserved to prevent its lapse, and the appellant contends for its addition to the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-Postgraduate (NEET-PG) pool.Also Read | ‘More takers than jobs in India’: Rajasthan High Court denies bail to duo who paid Rs 16 lakh for fake medical certificatesTherefore, apparently, there is no quarrel as far as the proposition of law is concerned relating to the wastage of medical seats.It is clear that the courts are not averse to converting the vacant reserved seats to the unreserved category, where there is non-availability of eligible reserved candidates.Although there is no statutory provision or executive mandate that requires the court to de-reserve, or there is no binding law as such that would automatically require conversion of a reserved DNB PDCET seat into an unreserved seat, leaving it vacant would not benefit the reserved category, nor would it benefit the public.Once there is no eligible reserved candidate available, the wastage of a seat would lead to obstruction of public interest.The creation of any seat in the specialised or super specialised courses is to train eligible people for that very course; if the seat is transferred to some other pool or category, the very purpose of existence of that seat gets defeated.It would not in any way mean that the seats of reserved category people are taken away, as the seats are not being converted because of the denial of reservation to the reserved category; the seats are being converted because no eligible reserved candidate was available anyway after proper efforts.Regret inability to agree with Justice Shukla: Justice Hari ShankarHaving read the draft opinion of Justice Shukla, Justice Hari Shankar said he regretted his inability to agree with the view taken by the former.The principal ground on which he differed was in the view that the court is empowered to direct the radio diagnosis seat at the Panchkula hospital to be de-reserved and thrown open to unreserved general category candidates.Reservation is a measure of social justice, which has withstood constitutional scrutiny by the Supreme Court.It owes its origin to Article 15 of the Constitution. De-reservation of a reserved category seat compromises this consideration.If there is any applicable statutory provision or executive instruction which envisages such de-reservation, then of course, a court can mandate compliance therewith.In the absence of the above, the law is settled on the point that a court cannot extend the reach of its jurisdiction to direct de-reservation of a reserved category seat.