For nearly 20 doctors who had cleared the examination and secured seats in secondary DNB courses, what should have been the beginning of the next phase of their careers has turned into a period of uncertainty.
The doctors, admitted to Post-Diploma DNB programmes across different specialities and states, are facing possible cancellation of their seats after they could not upload the required No Objection Certificates (NOCs) during the PDCET 2026 counselling registration process.
The National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) has issued show-cause notices to the affected candidates, asking them to explain why their candidature should not be cancelled.
For these young doctors, the issue goes beyond a missing document. Talking to the Health Outlook, it was found that some had already resigned from their jobs, relocated for their DNB training or paid substantial amounts towards service bonds.
The Federation of All India Medical Associations (FAIMA), which has taken up their cause, said that the students are now finding themselves caught between a career opportunity they had worked towards and an administrative requirement they say they could not fulfil because of delays in obtaining NOCs from state authorities.
“The situation has left the doctors feeling that months of preparation and a crucial career decision could come undone over a document that was dependent, in part, on another authority,” said Dr Manish Jhangra, patron and founder of FAIMA.
The issue arose during the PDCET 2026 counselling registration, when candidates were required to submit the necessary documents within the prescribed window. According to FAIMA and affected candidates, some state health authorities could not issue the NOCs within the five-day registration period, leaving the doctors unable to upload documents that they were still waiting to receive.
NBEMS, however, has maintained that the NOC requirement was mandatory and was not introduced for the first time this year. It said candidates had been informed of the requirement during counselling and had also furnished undertakings regarding the eligibility conditions.
The show-cause notices refer to Clause 5 of the PDCET 2026 counselling handbook. They state that candidates who are employed or under a bond are required to furnish an NOC, relieving letter or study-leave document from the competent authority. The notices also provide that a relieving letter is required before a candidate can actually begin training.
The difficulty for the affected doctors is that the counselling process involves multiple authorities. While NBEMS determines the admission requirements and timelines, NOCs may have to be obtained from state health departments or employers.
FAIMA has argued that the students should not bear the consequences of delays that were beyond their control and has sought relief for the affected candidates.
For the doctors themselves, the stakes are high. A DNB seat is not simply another academic opportunity. It represents years of medical training, a significant financial commitment and an important step towards specialist qualification. Some candidates had already made decisions based on the expectation that they would join their allotted seats.
That is why the present uncertainty is particularly distressing. Having left jobs or paid bonds to move ahead with their training, they now face the possibility of having to reconsider their career plans if their admissions are cancelled.
The issue also raises a broader question about how admission systems can accommodate situations in which a candidate's compliance depends on a document issued by another authority.
The immediate concern is to determine the status of the affected candidates on the basis of their individual circumstances and the explanations submitted to NBEMS. The larger lesson, however, is about coordination.
Clear timelines between central counselling authorities, state health departments and employers could help prevent similar situations. “Where documents depend on another government authority, counselling systems could also consider mechanisms that allow candidates to establish that they had applied for the document within time and were awaiting its issuance,” said a student on the condition of anonymity.
For doctors standing at the crossroads between jobs they have left and courses they have been selected for, such flexibility could make the difference between continuing their specialist training and losing an academic year.
The controversy also underlines a basic concern in medical education: while rules are necessary to ensure a transparent admission process, the implementation of those rules needs to account for the realities faced by candidates, like use when compliance depends on several institutions, argued another student.
