W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 1 of 27

$~J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on:19.01.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 02.02.2026

+ W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026

MEET BHADRESH SHAH ...Petitioner

Through: Ms. Anushree Kapadia,

Mr. Pranay Bhardwaj, Mr.

Shivank Singh, Advs.

versus

ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS .

...Respondents

Through: Mr. Anand Varma, Mr.

Ayush Gupta, Advocates.

Mr. Kanav Vir Singh

(SPC) for R-2

Mr. Siddharth Garg (Adv),

Mr. Himanshu Chaubey

(Adv), Mr. Srijan Sinha

(Adv), Ms. Lihzu Shiney

Konyak (Adv), Mr. Srajan

Yadav (Adv), Ms. Trisha

Garimala (Adv) for R-3

Mr. Kapil Midha, Ms.

Muskaan Garg, Advs. for

R-5

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 2 of 27

Mr. T Singhdev, Mr.

Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr.

Tanishq Srivastava, Mrs.

Yamini Singh, Mr. Vedant

Sood, Advs. for NMC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

J U D G M E N T

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court

to challenge the rejection letter dated 02.01.2026 issued by the

respondent No. 1 for cancelling the candidature of the petitioner for

admission in DM Critical Care Medicine programme at the respondent

No. 1 Institute.

FACTUAL MATRIX AS PER THE PETITIONER

2. The petitioner is a candidate seeking admission to the DM Critical

Care Medicine programme, for which he appeared in the Institute of

National Importance Super-Specialty (“INI-SS”) Entrance exam and

secured an All India Rank of 4. The respondent No. 1 is the All India

Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (“AIIMS”), which

conducted the INI-SS examination, the respondent No. 2 is the Union

of India, the respondent No. 3 is the National Medical Commission,

the respondent No. 4 is the Gujarat University, and the respondent No.

5 is the GCS Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre,

Ahmedabad.

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 3 of 27

3. The petitioner completed his MBBS degree in 2021 at GCS Medical

College, Ahmedabad and appeared for NEET-PG 2021 examination

on 11.09.2021, through which he was allotted a seat in MD

(Anaesthesiology). The NEET-PG 2021 examination was conducted

during the COVID-19 Pandemic because of which it also got

rescheduled twice.

4. National medical Commission (“NMC”) and Post-Graduate Medical

Education Board (“PGMEB”) on 11.01.2022 issued a circular

clarifying that due to COVID-19 pandemic, the academic session for

the post graduate Course would commence from 01.02.2022.

5. The petitioner was allotted MD (Anaesthesiology) seat in

Pramukhswami Medical College on 29.01.2022 through the first round

of counselling conducted by Medical Counselling Committee

(“MCC”) and the Admission Committee for professional post

graduate medical education Course. The petitioner joined the allotted

College on commencement of the said Course i.e. 01.02.2022 and

resigned from it on 15.02.2022, thereby undertaking his 15 days of PG

residency in the department of Anaesthesiology.

6. On 02.03.2022 through 2nd round of counselling the petitioner got

allotted AMC MET Medical College, Ahmedabad, and he took

admission in PG residency/course (Dept. of Anaesthesiology) on

08.03.2022 and resigned from it on 30.04.2022, thereby undertaking

54 days of PG residency training in the department of

Anaesthesiology.

7. On 29.04.2022, through 3rd round of counselling, the petitioner was

allotted GCS Medical College, Ahmedabad. The petitioner joined the

institution on 02.05.2022 and left it on 21.02.2025, thereby,

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 4 of 27

completing 1026 days of PG residency in the department of

Anaesthesiology.

8. During his postgraduate study, the petitioner transitioned between

three institutions in accordance with the authorised counselling

process. The petitioner undertook the medical residency in the first

and second rounds at different institutions for 15 and 54 days,

respectively, until he got admission in his top preference university,

i.e. the GCS Medical College, where he completed the remaining 1026

days of medical residency.

9. Based on this completion of tenure in accordance with NMC norms,

the petitioner was awarded MD Degree with registration number.

Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as a Senior Resident in the

department of Anaesthesiology, GCS Medical College and served

there from 11.03.2025 to 14.06.2025.

10. The petitioner applied for the INI-SS exam for the DM Critical Care

Medicine Programme (January 2026 session). The prospectus for the

said exam in its Clause 4.3.2 required the requisite qualification,

degree and tenure of 3 years i.e. 1095 days by the cut-off date of

31.01.2026.

11. The petitioner subsequently qualified all stages of the exam and

secured an All India Rank of 4, pursuant to which, when the petitioner

reported to AIIMS Delhi on 01.01.2026. He was informed about his

lack of residency experience as the same was obtained from three

different institutions.

12. The petitioner immediately wrote a representation to the Controller of

Examination stating that no rule or regulation provided that the said

experience has to be from a single institute or that cumulatively it was

impermissible.

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 5 of 27

13. The petitioner received an email by the Academic Section (PG Cell) of

the respondent No. 1 Institution, whereby the candidature of the

petitioner was cancelled in the light of not fulfilling the eligibility

criteria as laid in Clause 4.3.2 of the prospectus. The same required 3

years i.e. 1095 days to be completed by 31.01.2026 and as per the

certificate issued by GCS Medical College the same was fulfilled.

14. The petitioner then made several representations and also made an

offer to fulfil the eligibility by completing the remaining tenure of 15

days from Gujarat University before the cut-off date, however to no

avail. Hence, the present petition.

15. This Court vide Order dated 19.01.2026, reserved the judgment and

directed the respondent to not to allot the seat in question until the

judgment is pronounced.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

16. Ms. Anushree Kapadia, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that

the impugned action of the respondent No. 1 Institution is baseless,

arbitrary and also violates the principles of natural justice as the

rejection was made without any reasons, formal or official hearing or

show cause notice. Thus, the action violates Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India.

17. Ms. Kapadia, additionally submits that the petitioner has completed

the required medical residency experience from three different

institutions in piecemeal i.e. 15, 54, and 1026 days respectively. It is

contended by the petitioner that there is no rule or regulation contained

in the prospectus or the PGME regulations, 2023 or any circular,

which states that the requisite experience has to be from a single

institute and failing which the same will not be considered under

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 6 of 27

Clause 4.3.2 of the prospectus. It is also submitted that the petitioner

transitioned institutions in accordance with the counselling procedure

and all 3 institutes are duly recognised by the NMC.

18. The change of institutes is only because of the unprecedented overlap

of counselling due to COVID-19 and Stay Order of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court and is not attributable to the petitioner. Moreover, the

NMC has not objected to many students completing their residency

period cumulatively because of reshuffling.

19. Further, Ms. Kapadia, states that there is no intelligible differentia

between the petitioner and other candidates and there is also no

rational nexus between the rejection letter and the object for which

INI-SS exam is conducted.

20. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 1 is estopped from raising

issue of purported ineligibility of the petitioner for the subject seat at

the final stage of selection by operation of the doctrine of legitimate

expectation. The petitioner was not declared ineligible at any stage of

the proceeding until the admission process culminated. In this regard

reliance is placed on Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union

of India

1

and Union of India v. Hindustan Development

Corporation

2

.

21. In accordance with regulation 11.1 of the PGME regulations, 2023,

only the NMC is empowered to make any addition, deletion, or any

kind of amendment to the regulations. Further, the 3 years requirement

emanates from regulation 2.1 of the PGME regulations, 2023. The

interpretation adopted by the respondent No. 1 Institution amounts to

1

(1992) 4 SCC 477

2

(1993) 3 SCC 499

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 7 of 27

an additional requirement to the PGME regulations, 2023, added by

the respondent No. 1 Institution.

22. It is also submitted that this Court in its another decision titled Dr.

Deepak Suresh Kumar v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences

3

,

has taken a liberal view and a similar view may be adopted in the

instant petition as well.

23. Ms. Kapadia, also submits that the prospectus states 1095 days from

the date of joining and does not state that it has to be from a single

institute. Thus, once a degree certificate has been issued by the

University, the respondent No. 1 Institution cannot do academic

supervision by going behind the degree, it can only prescribe

eligibility condition. The University has accordingly issued a

certificate certifying 1095 days of required training. The relevant

certificate is reproduced as under:

3

2024 SCC Online Del 8946.

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 8 of 27

24. She also contends that there is no such rule that on each reshuffling the

period commences afresh. The respondent No. 1 Institute cannot go

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 9 of 27

behind the degree, it can prescribe eligibility standards but cannot

reinterpret or nullify any academic determination.

25. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner

has additionally completed 96 days as a Senior Resident in the GCS

Medical College in the Anaesthesiology department from 11.03.2025

to 14.06.2025, i.e. for a period of 96 days, and it being a higher

qualification, fulfils the said eligibility criteria.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 1

26. Mr. Varma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Institution, states

that the petitioner is seeking to read between the Clause 4.3.2 of the

prospectus, to urge that the tenure at different institutes can be

considered as one.

27. Further, it is stated that the prospectus provides for a Clause namely

3.3, whereby the respondent No. 1 retains its discretionary powers to

decide any question. Moreover, the candidature of all candidates were

provisional in nature and can be cancelled by the respondent No. 1.

Mr. Varma, further contends that the sought interpretation will have

grave consequences on standard medical training, whereby candidates

can collate their piecemeal training to satisfy eligibility.

28. It is also contended that the Court should not interfere in academic

policy matters, which are the domain of subject matter experts.

29. It is also submitted that the demanded interpretation if accepted would

create havoc because students will then claim to have completed their

training from several institutes during separate academic sessions.

Further, the purpose of ensuring single institute is that it ensures a

minimum threshold of knowledge and skill being imparted by the

institute. It is also the contention of the respondent that the petitioner

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 10 of 27

cannot challenge the admission process after having duly participated

in the said process.

30. Mr. Varma, further states that the respondent No. 1 Institution is not

bound by the certificate issued by the Gujarat University for

completion of degree, when it does not align with the AIIMS

prospectus or PGME regulations, 2023. In this regard, the learned

counsel heavily relies upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of

this Court delivered in Dr. Deepak Suresh Kumar (Supra).

31. With regards to the certificate of Senior Residency dated 16.06.2025,

it is submitted that the said certificate is issued in a very different

capacity, wherein the petitioner was not completing his academic

training but rather working as a professional. It is further submitted

that the aspect of equivalence cannot be judicially reviewed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

32. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the

documents placed on record.

33. It is pertinent to refer to Clause 4.3.2 of the prospectus, which is the

bone of contention between the parties in this matter, the said Clause

reads as under:

“4.3.2. The candidates must have completed the requisite

qualification, degree and tenure by 31.01.2026. The

candidates who are likely to complete their “3 years (365 ×

3) = 1095 Days” tenure, qualification or degree after

31.01.2026 will not be eligible to appear in this

examination.”

34. At the outset, it is clear that the core controversy in the present petition

is with respect to the question, whether the mandatory requirement of

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 11 of 27

1095 days in total can be considered as satisfied when the tenure is

completed in piecemeal at different institutions.

SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE IN ACADEMIC MATTERS

35. This Court is vested with the duty to protect fundamental and legal

rights of the individuals but at the same time at some instances the

Courts are required to exercise judicial restraint not as a matter of

abdication but as a rule of prudence such as in cases involving policy

matters or those requiring subject expertise. The scope of interference

or judicial review of decisions in academic matters is well settled. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically discussed this scope and

made the following observations in the judgment of All India Shri

Shivaji Memorial Society v. State of Maharashtra

4

:

“32. This Court time and again has reiterated that the

responsibility, of fixing qualifications for purposes of

appointment, promotion, etc. of staff or qualifications for

admissions, is that of expert bodies (in the present

case, AICTE), and so long as qualifications prescribed are

not shown to be arbitrary or perverse, the courts will not

interfere.

33. In AICTE v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [AICTE v. Surinder

Kumar Dhawan, (2009) 11 SCC 726 : 3 SCEC 520] , this

Court while dealing with the question regarding decision

taken by AICTE whether a bridge course should be permitted

to make diploma-holders eligible for engineering course,

observed as under: (SCC p. 732, paras 15-17)

“15. … AICTE consists of professional and technical experts

in the field of education qualified and equipped to decide on

4

(2025) 6 SCC 605.

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 12 of 27

those issues. In fact, a statutory duty is cast on them to

decide these matters.

16. The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic

or technical background to substitute themselves in place of

statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in

academic matters involving standards and quality of

technical education. …

17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the

role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a

question of educational policy or an issue involving

academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any

provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted,

applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with

education, the courts will step in.”

34. In other words, normally, courts should not interfere

with the decisions taken by expert statutory bodies

regarding academic matter: may it relate to qualification

for admission of students or qualification required by

teachers for appointment, salary, promotion, entitlement to

a higher pay scale, etc. However, this does not mean that

courts are deprived of their powers of judicial review. It

only means that courts must be slow in interfering with the

opinion of experts in regard to academic standards and

powers of judicial review should only be exercised in cases

where prescribed qualification or condition is against the

law, arbitrary or involves interpretation of any principle of

law [Also see: Medical Council of India v. Sarang [Medical

Council of India v. Sarang, (2001) 8 SCC 427 : 5 SCEC

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 13 of 27

183] ]. Consequently, where a candidate does not possess

the minimum qualifications, prescribed by an expert body,

for appointment or promotion to a particular post in an

educational institution, such a candidate will not be entitled

to get appointed or will be deprived of certain benefits,

which is the case we have in hand.”

(Emphasis added)

36. Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has addressed the pertinent

scope of interference in the case of Dr. Deepak Suresh Kumar

(Supra), the relevant paragraph reads as under:

“41. A bare perusal of the aforenoted judicial precedents

would lead to an inexorable conclusion that Courts are not

the domain experts to deal with academic matters, rather

the powers vest in the expert body to ascertain the bona fide

requirements of any course, more importantly, professional

courses. It cannot be gainsaid that the dilution of academic

standards, particularly in the case of professional

education, is at all impermissible and there exists a self-

imposed fetter on Courts to not interfere in the decisions

concerning the academic matters...”

(Emphasis added)

37. From a conspectus of the aforementioned observations, it is clear that

the Court must be slow and reluctant to interfere in education matters

as a rule of prudence, but at the same time the Court retains its power

of judicial scrutiny when any arbitrary decision is in question.

38. I am of the view that before arriving at a conclusion on whether this

Court has to interfere with the decision of the respondent No. 1

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 14 of 27

Institution, it is necessary to examine the nature and justifiability of

the decision in the light of peculiar facts of the case.

INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES & REGULATIONS

39. The Clause 4.3.2 of the prospectus is based on the premise that

regulation 2.1 of the PGME regulations, 2023 also provides a similar

framework for Qualifications, Duration of the Course and Components

of Post-Graduate Training, and the regulation reads as under:

40. A plain and conjoint reading of both, the Clause 4.3.2 and the

regulation 2.1, to my mind, shows that it requires “requisite

qualification, degree and tenure” being 3 years by the prescribed date.

The aforesaid Clause is totally silent on the fact that the 3 year

requirement has to be from a single institute or the same can be

considered when fragmented in durations. The respondent’s argument

that such a requirement is implicit and in the interest of ensuring

professional competence is bereft of reasoning. Any eligibility

condition must be clear, explicit and uniformly applicable. This

condition is treated as fulfilled by the prior educational Institutes,

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 15 of 27

however the same is not considered as applicable for the purpose of

the aforesaid admission process to the respondent No. 1 Institution.

41. The respondent No. 1 Institution issued prospectus to all the

candidates with no special clause or condition which explicitly

excluded such candidates, who have completed their residency tenure

from different institutions in fragmentations. Moreover, as pointed out

by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the delay in commencement

of the prior PG Course was triggered by several factors including

COVID-19 pandemic and Stay order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The delay or even the transitional inconsistency is not attributable to

the petitioner.

42. The respondent No. 5, namely, GCS Medical College and Research

Centre has considered the three periods of training by the petitioner at

three institutes, and thereafter granted an MD (Anaesthesiology)

degree. The respondent No. 4, namely, Gujarat University has also

certified that as per the PGME regulations the petitioner has

completed 3 years i.e. 1096 days of residency programme in the

department of anaesthesiology. The said certificate is recognised, valid

and has not been set aside. However, the same is not considered as

applicable for the purpose of admission process to the respondent No.

1 institute.

43. The Clause 4.3.2 of prospectus issued by the respondent no. 1

Institution, only requires 1095 days of residency requirement and not

that the same has to be continuous and from one recognised institution

only. Once the language of prospectus is clear and unequivocal, it

cannot be left to the discretion of the respondent No. 1 Institution to

add words and interpret in a way which is not borne out from the plain

reading. To my mind, there is no doubt that the impugned rejection

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 16 of 27

letter has been issued by the expert body which is the respondent No.

1 Institution, but the same does not meet the restricted test of judicial

scrutiny in education matters.

ADDRESSING THE 1095 DAYS CONUNDRUM

44. Essentially, it is the mandate of Clause 4.3.2 of the prospectus that as

on the cut-off date there has to be a completed tenure of possessing

experience of 1,095 days as MD (Anaesthesiology). In the instant

case, the following distribution of dates is pertinent for arriving at a

conclusion:

Institute Relevant

Dates

No. of

days of

training

Affiliated

University

Pramukhswami

MedicalCollege,

Gujarat.

01.02.2022-15.02.2022

15 days Bhaikaka

University.

AMC MET

Medical College.

08.03.2022-30.04.2022

54 days Gujarat

University.

GCS Medical

College, Hospital

and Research

Centre.

02.05.2022-21.02.2025

1026 days Gujarat

University.

45. To buttress his submission that the respondent no. 1 is entitled to

interpret the prospectus, Mr. Verma has heavily relied on the

observations of the Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in the

case of Dr. Deepak Suresh Kumar (Supra), wherein the Court has

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 17 of 27

denied to interfere with the decision of the respondent No. 1

Institution in a matter pertaining to interpretation of a term of the

prospectus and has categorically held that it is the Institution which is

the best judge in terms of any eligibility condition and the said Course

being a skill based course, the minimum requirement is a sacrosanct

condition, which needs to be complied with and no dilution of the

condition can be permitted. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment

heavily relied by the respondent No. 1 Institution read as under:

“91. It appears that there are two spheres, one relates to the

postgraduate course and its examination while the other

relates to the eligibility criteria to take part in the INI-SS

examination. At the outset, no doubt, both these spheres

appear to be deeply integrated, however, in no uncertain

terms, it can be concluded that the PGIMER Chandigarh

shall not be governed by the eligibility criteria set by AIIMS.

92. Thus, the very factum of the internal adjustment for

availment or non-availment of leaves etc. and consequences

thereto cannot be construed as attempting to dilute the

stipulation of three completed years of the period of

training, as required by AIIMS. Rather, it only focuses on

the eligibility or pre-condition to appear in the postgraduate

examination. If three completed years are sought to be

interpreted by AIIMS to mean 36 months (1095 days), this

interpretation cannot be faulted merely on the ground that

certain relaxations are provided by PGIMER Chandigarh

as per its notification or under leave rules etc. to appear in

the examination.

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 18 of 27

93. What logically flows from the aforesaid analysis is that

for a postgraduate student to be eligible to undergo a super

speciality course, one may have to complete three years

period of training imparted during the postgraduate course

by the cut-off date prescribed by AIIMS. As can be seen that

the period of examination is a part of three completed years

and therefore, even after the examination is over,

postgraduate students can continue to undergo the requisite

training so as to correct the deficiency, if any, to meet the

requirement of three completed years. Thus, the sacrosanct

condition which emerges is that the 36 months (1095 days)

training is to be undertaken by the postgraduate students.

Moreover, it is pertinent to bear in mind that the concerned

course is not just academic in nature rather the course is

skill based, wherein, the aspect of practical training is a

quintessential concomitant of the course. Any interpretation

to relax or tinker with the requisite prescription of training

period in a skill based course would ultimately defeat the

objective that the course strives to achieve. Though certain

internal benefits may be given by the concerned institute

within these 36 months to enable the students to appear in

internal examinations, etc., however, these benefits in no

way intend to dilute the mandatory prescription of three

completed years of the period of training. Any other

interpretation based on the institute- specific applicable

norms would result in diluting the mandatory prescription

of three completed years of the period of training.

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 19 of 27

94. In a given case, if any institute imparting postgraduate

course decides to take into consideration the weekly offs and

other holidays to be working days and thus, extends the

option to the students to attend the training during the

weekly offs and other holidays, the 36 months of training

would then be squeezed in a smaller period, which perhaps

is a preposterous proposition and may lead to bizarre

conclusions. This conclusion, if accepted, would open the

pandora’s box as then the entire medical education of this

country would be virtually left at the sole discretion of the

specific institutes which may devise their own conditions

and any objective of coherence between the institutes could

never be fulfilled, further leading to inherent inconsistencies

and chaos. Furthermore, the affidavit tendered by AIIMS

also states that it does not appear that any other institute is

granting any benefits of such nature to shorten the

mandatory prescription of 1095 days.

95. This institute-specific understanding of the mandatory

prescription of three years period would also certainly

impact the academic calendar, thereby, create anomalies in

the conduction of other competitive examinations. The

elephantine burden of this futile exercise would ultimately

be borne by the students who will again have to traverse

through the procedural maze of technicalities and

institutional norms, thereby, ultimately knocking on the

doors of Constitutional Courts to materialize their dreams

in getting a quality education. Such an interpretation cannot

be countenanced and must be thwarted.

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 20 of 27

…

110. Therefore, the Court does not deem it appropriate to

interfere in the understanding of the AIIMS regarding the

interpretation of three years tenure as it is supported by the

prospectus as well as the NMC’s understanding.”

46. The judgment of the Coordinate Bench relied upon by the respondent

is fundamentally distinguishable from the facts of the instant petition

on the basis that the core issue involved in that case was regarding the

delay in joining the postgraduate course and the subsequent authorised

adjustment against the sanctioned leaves by PGIMER, Chandigarh i.e.

whether the unavailed leaves by the petitioners could be utilised to

shorten the mandatory training period required.

47. On the other hand, in the facts of the instant case the Court is not

dealing with any relaxation or any adjustment accorded by the prior

educational Institutes. It was only in pursuance of the counselling

norms that the petitioner transitioned between different institutions in

his post-graduation training period. The core controversy in the

present case is only concerned with whether the completion of training

of 1095 days has to be from a single institution or that can be

considered as completed when pursued from different institutions in

fragmentations, that too in light of no clear and specific exclusion of

such fragmented completion of training from different institutions.

48. Thus, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the

judgment of Dr. Deepak Suresh Kumar (Supra) as relied upon by the

respondent No. 1 Institution. Also, in the present case the core issue is

substantially different, as the petitioner has duly undertaken the

required training of 1095 days.

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 21 of 27

49. In the present case the petitioner has not concealed or hidden his

experience/tenure, the same were duly available with the respondent

No. 1 Institution. The application for the said entrance examination

was duly accepted by the respondent No. 1 Institution on 18.11.2025,

in pursuance thereof an admit card was also issued. Thereafter on

11.12.2025, a list of ineligible candidates was published in which the

name of the petitioner was not included. Consequently, the petitioner

was interviewed on 12.12.2025 and his name was included in the

declaration of final result dated 19.12.2025. The issue concerning his

residency experience was not raised in the first round of counselling

conducted on 29.12.2025. The respondent No. 1 Institute did not

object at any time prior that the residency experience of the petitioner

was violative of Clause 4.3.2 of the prospectus. In similar

circumstances in the case of Dr. Deepak Suresh Kumar (Supra) the

Coordinate Bench of this Court observed as follows:

“69. At the first instance, if AIIMS was aware about the

mandatory prescription of 1095 days' period of training, the

same ought to have been reflected in clear and unequivocal

terms in the information bulletin itself.

70. Furthermore, the AIIMS had another opportunity to

mention its prescription of 1095 days of period of training

when it published the list of ineligible candidates on 27-5-

2024. However, at the said juncture as well, they failed to

do so, thereby, giving assurances to the petitioners that the

completion certificate uploaded by them adhered to the

prescribed AIIMS guidelines.

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 22 of 27

71. Thereafter, AIIMS had another opportunity to clarify if

there was any discrepancy at all when they conducted

counselling and the petitioners were allotted seats at AIIMS,

vide offer letter dated 19-6-2024. At this point as

well, AIIMS did not object to the candidature of the

petitioners. AIIMS was very well within its right to examine

the petitioners' completion certificates as provided

by PGIMER Chandigarh and to ascertain whether those

certificates complied with the mandatory prescription of

1095 days. Instead of allotting the seats to the

petitioners, AIIMS could have withheld the results of the

petitioners, examined the records, sought clarifications from

the petitioners and then, eventually declared the results.

72. However, AIIMS not only allowed them to participate in

the counselling process but also allotted them seats and

eventually, they were issued an acknowledgement slip

confirming their admission.

73. The entire castle of mandatory nature of 1095 days of

the period of training was built brick by brick only through

affidavits tendered by AIIMS and the arguments advanced

during the court proceedings. The court appreciates the

arduous efforts taken by AIIMS during the court

proceedings to justify their unflinching stance on 1095 days

of period of training, however, even if an iota of this careful

exercise had been done during the conduction of

examination, right from the framing of information bulletin

to the declaration of results and endeavours were made to

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 23 of 27

clear the ambiguity, the entire conflict would not have even

arisen at the first instance.

74. The foregoing discussion clearly leads to an

indefeasible conclusion that AIIMS has failed to

scrupulously follow the utmost professional standards while

handling the case of the petitioners or even conducting the

INI-SS examination, which otherwise it was reasonably

expected to do. Being an Institute of National Importance, a

bona fide duty is cast on AIIMS to not only adhere to the

extant regulations but to also reflect a clear understanding

in the brochures/prospectus/bulletin issued by it. An act on

the part of the institution which takes the candidates by

surprise at the sheer end of the selection process does not

meet the judicial scrutiny, specifically because of the fact

that the institution had ample opportunities of course

correction in the facts of the case.”

(Emphasis added)

50. Moreover, in the aforementioned judgment as relied by the respondent

No. 1, the Court has also highlighted the aspect that mechanical

considerations should not be allowed to prevail over meritocracy. In

this regard the Court observed:

“100. In essence, it would be a travesty of merit as also a

blot on the unflinching faith reposed by the common man in

the State, if such doctors brimming with brilliance are

meted out with a treatment which endeavours to test their

calibre not on merit but, unfortunately, on their ability to

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 24 of 27

interpret unsaid terms and to navigate through bureaucratic

mazes. It is disheartening to note that the deserving

candidates who have gained the highest echelons in a

gruelling examination process are made to suffer on

account of overly convoluted procedural interpretations and

also due to a lack of organisational coherence between the

institutions of the same cluster. As a natural corollary, the

selection process, which should otherwise be grounded on

merit, has been overshadowed by mechanical

considerations. While the Court does not dispute the

authority of the respondents to define eligibility criteria,

which is undeniably their exclusive domain, but what needs

to be ensured at the very least is that the same must be clear

and certain so as to weed out any form of arbitrariness or

negate any chances of fostering inequality.

101. On a jurisprudential plane, since the right to equal and

fair treatment is an inevitable component of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India, it is the utmost duty of the State to

ensure that such right is not jeopardized by any of the

actions of its instrumentalities. In the case at hand, the

repudiation of the claim of admission by the meritorious

candidates and consequently, leaving them in the lurch

cannot merely be ascribed to an administrative failure,

rather the same amounts to an infraction of their rights.

…

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 25 of 27

113. It is pertinent to point out that the need for interference

in the present case is predicated on the peculiar facts and

circumstances canvassed before this Court.

114. In the present case, the AIIMS had an opportunity to

reflect the prescription of 1095 days of period of training,

when it published the list of ineligible candidates on

27.05.2024. But admittedly, AIIMS failed to do so and did

not include the names of the petitioners in the list of

ineligible candidates.

115. Thereafter, AIIMS had another occasion to clarify the

situation when they conducted counselling and the

petitioners were allotted seats at AIIMS, vide an offer letter

dated 19.06.2024. At this point as well, AIIMS did not object

to the candidature of the petitioners. In fact, the AIIMS not

only allowed them to participate in the counselling process

but also allotted them seats and eventually, they were issued

an acknowledgement slip confirming their admission.

116. As a result of the actions of AIIMS, they completed all

the requisite formalities and on 21.06.2024, after

verification of all the documents and upon deposition of

security amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, they were issued an

acknowledgement slip confirming their admission.

117. It is only at the last stage when the medical

examination was scheduled that the AIIMS issued the

impugned orders indicating that the petitioners are

ineligible to take admission in the postgraduate program in

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 26 of 27

Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery and in

Gastrointestinal Surgery in AIIMS as they have not

completed their three years course as on cut-off date of

31.07.2024 i.e., within three calendar years.

(Emphasis added)

51. The respondent No. 1 Institution had several occasions to specify the

peculiar position of the petitioner and to afford him an opportunity of

hearing or an opportunity to make a representation. I am of the view

that the Courts are duty bound to act in order to protect the interest of

meritorious students and the same cannot be allowed to be violated by

adopting interpretations, which is contrary to the clear and express

language of the prospectus. It is pertinent to note that the right to

pursue higher education even though not explicitly spelt out as a

fundament right in the Constitution, it is an affirmative obligation on

part of the state to ensure that the same is not curtailed lightly on

merely technical or procedural grounds

5

. The action taken by the

respondent No. 1 Institution is devoid of reasons and lacks the essence

of justifiability.

52. I am of the view that merit and fairness prevails over technicalities and

the contention of the petitioner if not accepted would result in

substantial harm to his higher education prospects and a travesty to

merit.

CONCLUSION

53. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner’s tenure even if physically

fragmented in parts totalling to 1095 days in the same discipline falls

5

Farzana Batool v. Union of India, (2024) 15 SCC 818.

W.P.(C) NO. 78/2026 Page 27 of 27

within the parameters of Clause 4.3.2 of the prospectus for the

Institute of National Importance Super-Specialty Entrance Test for the

January 2026 session issued by the respondent No. 1 Institution.

Consequently, the impugned rejection letter dated 02.01.2026 is

hereby quashed and set aside.

54. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

55. The documents handed over in Court are taken on record.

JASMEET SINGH, J

FEBRUARY 2, 2026/SS