Delhi HC Backs Fragmented Residency for AIIMS Admission, Upholds Merit

Allowing a writ petition filed by Meet Bhadresh Shah, who secured an All India Rank of 4 in the Institute of National Importance Super-Specialty (INI-SS) January 2026 examination, a single-judge Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh quashed the AIIMS' rejection letter dated January 2, which had cancelled his candidature.

The Delhi High Court held that Clause 4.3.2 of the INI-SS prospectus only mandates completion of "3 years (1,095 days)" of requisite qualification and tenure by the cut-off date and does not stipulate that such residency must be completed from a single institution.

"A plain reading of the prospectus shows that it requires the requisite qualification, degree and tenure of three years by the prescribed date. It is totally silent on the fact that the three-year requirement has to be from a single institute," Justice Singh held.

The petitioner had completed his MD (Anaesthesiology) residency across three NMC-recognised institutions due to counselling reshuffles during the Covid-19 pandemic, aggregating more than 1,095 days of training, which was duly certified by the Gujarat University.

However, the AIIMS rejected his candidature at the final stage, contending that the residency experience was fragmented.

Rejecting the AIIMS' interpretation, the Delhi High Court held that eligibility conditions must be "clear, explicit and uniformly applicable" and cannot be supplemented by interpretative additions at a later stage.

"Once the language of the prospectus is clear and unequivocal, it cannot be left to the discretion of the institution to add words and interpret it in a manner not borne out from its plain reading," Justice Singh said.

The order noted that the AIIMS had accepted the petitioner's application, issued an admit card, allowed him to participate in counselling, and declared him successful, without raising any objection regarding eligibility until the final stage.

"An act on the part of the institution which takes candidates by surprise at the sheer end of the selection process does not meet judicial scrutiny," the Delhi High Court said, adding that such actions undermine meritocracy.

"Merit and fairness must prevail over technicalities. The right to pursue higher education, though not explicitly spelt out as a fundamental right, casts an affirmative obligation on the state and cannot be curtailed lightly on merely technical or procedural grounds," Justice Singh held.

Concluding that denial of admission in the present case would result in "a travesty to merit", the Delhi High Court allowed the petition and ruled that the petitioner's fragmented residency, totalling 1,095 days in the same discipline, satisfied the eligibility criteria under the prospectus, and directed that his candidature be restored.

- IANS