Delhi HC slams AIIMS for lack of clarity in denying SS admission, comes to aids of two doctors

New Delhi: Slamming All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi for its inaction and lack of clarity while dealing with academic issues, the Delhi High Court recently granted admission to 2 young doctors in the Institute's Super Speciality Program in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery and Gastrointestinal Surgery, respectively who were previously denied admission due to alleged ineligibility. 

Noting that the petitioners were not at fault in this matter and confirmed that there is no question about their competence or academic brilliance as they not only passed the exam but also attained the top scores, the court granted them admission for the session that had already started since July 2024.

Also read- AIIMS Announces Time Table for Final MBBS Supplementary Professional Exams, details

Observing that the petitioners were denied admission on short notice even after receiving the acknowledgement slip which confirmed their provisional admission, A Single Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said, "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 bonafide 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."

Therefore, the bench warned AIIMS, NMC, and other top institutes to uphold clarity and maintain the highest standards befitting their professional stature in their guidelines and procedures. 

The case concerns the petitioners who had completed their MBBS Degrees from the CMC Vellore, Tamil Nadu and Vardhaman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi in the years 2018 and 2019 respectively.  Desiring to pursue a postgraduate degree in MS (General Surgery), they applied to take part in the Institute of National Importance-Combined Entrance Test (INI-CET Examination) for the July 2021 session, organized by AIIMS.

However, due to the then prevailing COVID-19 pandemic in 2021, AIIMS issued a notification whereby the INI-CET Exam was rescheduled and accordingly, the Petitioners participated in the same. After the declaration of results, the Petitioners were allotted seats at PGIMER-Chandigarh for the MS (General Surgery) program for the academic session 2021-2024. After a delay of around 48-51 days, the Petitioners got admission and then the PGIMER issued an authorisation slip indicating that the delay in joining shall be adjusted against the sanctioned due leaves in the 1st and 2nd year of the Course.

The Petitioners, on the pretext of such assurance on the part of PGIMER-Chandigarh, diligently continued their course and undertook all the required examinations. Thereafter, AIIMS issued a notification for online registration for the Institute of National Importance-Super Speciality Entrance Test (INI-SS Examination) and in order to pursue a super speciality course, the Petitioners registered for the same. They successfully qualified for the same and secured Ranks 1 and 2 in their respective specializations. 

Consequently, they completed all the requisite formalities and on 21.06.2024, after verification of all the documents and deposition of security amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, they were issued an acknowledgement slip confirming their admission. Medical examination was also scheduled to be taken before the commencement of the session on 15.07.2024. 

However, AIIMS issued an Office Memorandum declaring that the petitioners were ineligible to take admission in the postgraduate program in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery and in Gastrointestinal Surgery in AIIMS, as they had not completed their 3 year course as on cut-off date of 31.07.2024 i.e., within 3 calendar years. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners approached the High Court.

While considering the matter, the bench took note that "An act on the part of the AIIMS 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.”

Further, it noted that "Allowing the bureaucratic conflicts to jeopardize the future of talented students would amount to endorsing a grave injustice as the same touches upon the very foundation of meritocracy, especially when no fault appears to have been committed by the students." 

Observing the matter, the court remarked, "Unfortunately, the present matter is a classic case where the petitioners instead of focusing on their studies and contributing to the process of nation-building, have been made to run from pillar to post due to the tussle between the two Institutes of National Importance. In the given circumstances, the petitioners cannot be said to be at fault, rather the dispute appears to have arisen due to non-coordination between PGIMER Chandigarh, AIIMS and NMC as well as due to inaction and lack of clarity on the part of the institutions. Institutes of National Importance, such as AIIMS, play a crucial role in delivering quality education and producing skilled professionals who will ultimately serve the nation.”

Acknowledging that PGIMER Chandigarh's inconsistent and unprofessional conduct falls short of expectations for an Institute of National Importance that warrants criticism, the bench noted "… an even-handed assessment of PGIMER Chandigarh’s actions in handling the case of the petitioners highlights a pattern of lethargy, unprofessionalism and dilettante conduct. The mishandling on the part of PGIMER Chandigarh not only reflects poorly on its procedural and administrative efficiency but also demonstrates a lack of due diligence, accountability and high professional standards reasonably expected from an institution of its stature." 

Further, the court noted that the information bulletin, as already noted above, issued by AIIMS, particularly Clause 4.3.2 therein, clearly reflects an understanding that eligibility to participate in INI-SS examination is the completion of the course within 3 years. According to AIIMS, this three years tenure should strictly be construed to be 1095 days. 

While passing the order, the court noted that the postgraduate course and its examination are distinct from the eligibility criteria for the INI-SS examination. While interconnected, it is clear that PGIMER Chandigarh is not bound by the criteria set by AIIMS.

“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”, it also noted.

The Court added that a need to uphold clarity and eliminate any form of ambiguity gains even more significance when the case relates to Institutes of National Importance, which are nothing but instrumentalities of the State, established in the national interest for catering to the public at large and are at the helm of imparting quality professional education in this Country.

“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 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”, it remarked.

Moreover, the Court said that such authorities must ensure that they have unblemished and unambiguous brochures, which are precise, clear, and free from any inconsistencies. It also observed that the said condition carries with itself an onerous expectation, especially in cases of crucial nature like admissions, which opens the door of opportunities for deserving students and therefore, these bodies must endeavour to meet such reasonable expectations with alacrity.

"Therefore, in view of the judicial pronouncements and the legal position discussed above as well as balancing the scales of equity, the Court confirms the provisional admission granted to the petitioners vide interim order dated 08.10.2024," it further noted while disposing of the present and pending petition in this case. 

To view the order, click on the link below: 

Also read- HC relief to doctor, AIIMS directed to add DM Cardiology Seat at PGIMER