AIIMS Giving PG Seat Preference to its Own Doctors? Plea in Supreme Court Cites Violation of Norms

New Delhi: While considering a plea by an INICET aspirant alleging that AIIMS was erroneously giving 'institutional preference' to its doctors as de facto reservation, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 29) sought responses of the Union Government and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in this regard.

Allegedly, despite scoring 99.65% and securing 287th rank in the Institutes of National Importance Combined Entrance Test (INICET) exam, the petitioner was unable to get a seat in AIIMS, when even a candidate from AIIMS, who ranked 10,721 in the exam, secured admission.

Filing the plea, the petitioner challenged AIIMS's reservation quota for "institutional preference" above 50% in postgraduate admissions. The issue is likely to be heard next on August 5, 2024.

The issue concerns institutional preference quota offered by AIIMS. It is an internal reservation system where a percentage of PG medical admissions are reserved for MBBS students (belonging to general category) already studying in the institute.

Also Read: AIIMS institutional preference system for PG admissions challenged in SC

As per the latest media report by the Times of India, the petitioner completed MBBS from Madras Medical College in 2024 with 20 gold medals and is currently a registered medical practitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner secured 287th rank with 99.65%. 

In the plea, the petitioner challenged the excessive reservation of seats or 'super reservation' under 'institutional preference' in postgraduate admissions. The petitioner argued that it violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 

The counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Mr. P B Suresh referred to the decision in Saurabh Chaudri and Others v. Union of India & Ors, where the Court had held that AIIMS being an institute of national excellence, institutional preference to the extent of 50% of the total seatsl could be granted. However, as per the petitioner's counsel, the authorities have granted reservation and not institutional preference and in some disciplines 100% of the seats have been allotted were granted to institutional candidates.

In the judgment in the case of Saurabh Chaudri, even though the Court had upheld the constitutionality of the institutional preference quota of 50%, which was increased from 25% fixed in AIIMS Students Union vs AIIMS & Ors) in PG admissions in AIIMS, the Court had clarified that this was only an interim measure. Further, the Court had directed the State to develop a mechanism to ensure proper allocation of seats based on merit.

However, as per the petitioner, these directions have not been implemented even after 21 years. The plea stated that in breach of SC rulings in 2002 and 2023, where the top court allowed institutional preference up to 50% of the available seats in the open category, "AIIMS has allocated over 505 of the seats available in certain disciplines (and in some cases even 100% of the seats) to candidates who qualify to avail institutional preference. SC had said that preference could be given to candidates who have undertaken their MBBS studies at AIIMS and not reservation of seats for such candidates."

Further, TOI has reported that the plea stated that "institutional preference would necessarily mean that all other factors being equal between two candidates, one qualifying for an 'Institutional Preference' would be preferred over the candidate who does not qualify for the same."

Live Law has reported that during the hearing of the case, the CJI pointed out that the disputed issue was at two levels- application of quota as reservation and such reservation exceeding the limit of 50%.

"They have done two things, they have implemented reservation and in some subjects the reservation has gone up to more than 50%," noted the bench.

Noting the submission that 'institutional preference' quota exceeded 100% in some cases, the top Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra agreed issuing notice in the plea. "issue notice returnable on 5 August 2024," the bench ordered.

INI CET is conducted to admit medical students in several postgraduate courses in 11 prominent medical institutions including AIIMS, New Delhi, and Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry (JIPMER).

The admission in the seats under the INI-CET examination are filled via two separate entries- institutional preference (50%) and open competition (50%). Earlier, AIIMS Students association had challenged the existing system for institutional preference for Post-Graduate admissions (PG admissions) in AIIMS. 

While considering a plea seeking a defined criterion for determining the seat matrix for the institutional preference candidates in the INI-CET examination, the top Court in 2022 had directed all the AIIMS institutes to adopt roster based reservation followed by Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry (JIPMER).

To view the SC Order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/aiims-institutional-preference-245661.pdf

Also Read:INI CET: Supreme Court directs all AIIMS to follow JIPMER like roster for Institutional Preference Candidates