No Negative Equality in Law, No Review Without Prima Facie Proof: Delhi High Court Rejects Review Plea on DNB OBC-NCL Rejection

“OBC-NCL status is dynamic; outdated certificates can't revive lapsed claims,” Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition filed by Dr. Akash Laxmanrao Narade, challenging the rejection of his candidature for a DNB (Surgery) seat under the OBC-NCL quota for failing to produce a valid caste certificate by the stipulated cut-off date. The Court held that alleged procedural lapses in other candidates’ cases cannot create a right for the petitioner where none existed, and reiterated that review jurisdiction cannot be used to claim parity in illegality.

Justice Vikas Mahajan emphasized that the review power under Article 226 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC cannot be exercised merely to reargue an already adjudicated case, especially where no new evidence alters the legal outcome.

No Proof of OBC-NCL Status as on Cut-off Date: Petitioner’s Claim Legally Unsustainable

The petitioner, a serving Senior Medical Officer under GNCTD, had appeared in the NEET PG 2024 and was offered a DNB (Surgery) seat during counselling on 24.03.2025, but his candidature was rejected on the ground that he failed to submit a valid OBC-NCL certificate by the deadline of 25.02.2025. His new certificate was applied for on 27.03.2025 and issued on 28.03.2025, well after both the application deadline and the counselling date.

The Court reiterated its earlier view from the main judgment dated 28.05.2025, observing:

“Since the petitioner had applied for OBC-NCL Certificate on 27.03.2025 after the cut-off date, which came to be issued subsequently on 28.03.2025, the advantage of the said certificate was not given to the petitioner.” [Para 3]

Further, the earlier certificate relied upon by the petitioner—dated 10.09.2013—was held legally irrelevant, as OBC-NCL status is income-dependent and dynamic, unlike static caste status. The Court clarified:

“The OBC-NCL certificate of the petitioner issued on 10.09.2013… cannot be a prima facie proof of the petitioner having status of non-creamy layer… such status is a dynamic concept which can change anytime.” [Para 23]

RTI Disclosures About Other Candidates Not Ground for Review: Review is Not an Appeal

The petitioner sought review based on RTI responses indicating that other candidates, including Dr. Chandra Prakash, were allegedly admitted despite producing OBC-NCL certificates after the cut-off date. However, the Court firmly rejected the argument, calling it a misconceived attempt to claim ‘negative equality’.

“Even if Dr. Chandra Prakash has been allotted a seat contrary to the legal position… this Court cannot direct for granting parity to the petitioner, as there cannot be any negative equality, for equality is a positive concept.” [Para 29]

The Court invoked the settled law on review from Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320 and Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (1979) 4 SCC 389, observing that:

“Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived… the error must be manifest and not one which has to be fished out by reasoning.” [Paras 16–17]

Further, the Court noted that Dr. Chandra Prakash was not impleaded as a party in either the writ or review proceedings, making it inappropriate to adjudicate his case indirectly.

O.M. Dated 08.10.2015 Not Applicable Without Prima Facie Evidence

The petitioner heavily relied on Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2015, which permits provisional consideration of candidates who are unable to produce caste certificates but can furnish prima facie proof of claim. The Court outright rejected its applicability here:

“The OM explicitly states that in order to get provisionally appointed, the candidate must show some prima facie evidence that he is eligible. The petitioner had no such proof valid as on the cut-off date.” [Para 22]

The earlier 2013 certificate was considered insufficient to prove current non-creamy layer status, which is income-linked and must reflect recent financial years.

No Relief Under MCC Guidelines – Offline Counselling Conducted by GNCTD

The Court also dismissed arguments that Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) guidelines allow submission of certificates at the time of reporting. Justice Mahajan clarified that such rules applied to MCC online counselling, not to the offline counselling conducted by the GNCTD:

“The MCC counselling happens online… but in the petitioner’s case GNCTD was the designated counselling authority… the benefit of MCC guidelines will not enure to the petitioner.” [Para 31]

Court Refuses to Revisit Dismissed Claims under the Guise of Review

Summarizing the outcome, the Court ruled:

“No error apparent on the face of the record has been brought to the notice of this Court… nor is the material claimed to be new of such a character that it would have altered the judgment.” [Para 33]

Accordingly, the review petition and all pending applications were dismissed.

Strict Enforcement of Eligibility Criteria Affirmed

This judgment reaffirms the principle that procedural fairness cannot override legal compliance in matters of reservation and eligibility. The Delhi High Court has clarified that judicial sympathy cannot substitute statutory requirements, and that review is a limited remedy, not a second bite at the same cherry.

Date of Decision: 26.12.2025