All India Institute Of Medical Sciences vs Meet Bhadresh Shah & Ors.

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 27.02.2026
Date of Decision: 28.02.2026
+ LPA 94/2026 & CM APPLs. 12911-12/2026
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES.....Appellant
Through: Mr.Anand Varma, Adv. with
Mr.Ayush Gupta, Adv.
versus
MEET BHADRESH SHAH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Anushree Kapadia with Mr.
Pranay Bhardwaj, Mr. Shivank Singh
& Ms. Pragay Jaishwal, Advocates
for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC with Ms.
Usha Jamnal, GP for UoI.
Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Abhijit
Chakravarty, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr.
Tanishq Srivastava, Mr. Vedant Sood,
Mr. Bhanu Gulati & Ms. Ramanpreet
Kaur, Advocates for Respondent
No.3/NMC.
Ms. Charu Mathur, Advocate for
Respondent No.4.
Mr. Kapil Midha with Ms. Vartika
Gautam, Advocates for Respondent
No.5.
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 1 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

J U D G M E N T
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.
1. By instituting the proceedings of this intra-court appeal under Clause
X of the Letter Patent, the appellant seeks exception to the judgment and
order dated 02.02.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 78/2026,
whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the order under challenge
therein, dated 02.01.2026 cancelling the candidature of the respondent no.1
for admission to a Super-Speciality Medical Course, namely D.M. in Critical
Care Medicines (CCM) at All India Institute of Medical Sciences
(hereinafter referred to as the “ AIIMS ”) has been quashed.
BACKGROUND FACTS
2. The facts of the case which are not in dispute are as under:-
2.1. For admission to Super-Speciality Courses, namely D.M./M.Ch. at
Institutes of National Importance for medical education, a common entrance
test known as the Institute of National Importance Super-Speciality Entrance
Test (hereinafter referred to as the “ entrance test ”) was conducted by the
AIIMS on 22.11.2025.
2.2. The last date for admission in the course is 28.02.2026, and the last
date of fulfilment of eligibility for admission was 31.01.2026. As per Clause
4.3.2 of the Prospectus issued by the AIIMS, the eligibility for admission
was that the candidate must have completed the requisite qualification,
degree and tenure by 31.01.2026. The said clause further prescribed that the
candidates who were likely to complete their three years (365 x 3 = 1095
days) tenure, qualification and degree after 31.01.2026 would not be eligible
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 2 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

to appear in the examination. Clause 4.3.2 of the Prospectus is extracted
hereunder: -
“ 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.”
2.3. The respondent no.1, desirous of seeking admission to a Super-
Speciality course based on the said entrance examination, applied for the
same and on the basis of his performance in the entrance examination,
secured an All India Rank 4. Accordingly, he was allotted a seat in D.M.
(CCM) programme at AIIMS.
2.4. When the respondent no.1 reported for joining at AIIMS on
01.01.2026, he was informed that he did not fulfil the eligibility as
prescribed in Clause 4.3.2 of the Prospectus and accordingly, by means of an
order dated 02.01.2026 his candidature was cancelled and in addition, the
security money of Rs.3,00,000/- was forfeited for reporting and holding the
seat in question for non-fulfilment of eligibility criteria under Clause 4.3.2
of the Prospectus.
2.5. The respondent no.1 represented his cause against the order of
cancellation of his candidature, dated 02.01.2026 and ultimately instituted
W.P.(C) 78/2026, which has been allowed by learned Single Judge by means
of the judgment and order dated 02.02.2026, which is under challenge
herein.
2.6. The respondent no.1 completed his MBBS course at GCS Medical
College, Ahmedabad in the year 2021 and appeared, thereafter, in NEET PG
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 3 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

on 11.09.2021, which was rescheduled twice on account of the situation
which prevailed because of pandemic – COVID-19. The National Medical
Commission – respondent no.3 issued a circular on 11.01.2022, whereby it
was provided that due to pandemic the Post-Graduate courses would
commence from 01.02.2022.
2.7. On the basis of NEET PG held on 11.09.2021, the respondent no.1
participated in the first round of counselling on 29.01.2022 and was allotted
a seat in MD (Anaesthesiology) course at Pramukhswami Medical College,
Karamsad. He accordingly joined the said medical college on 01.02.2022
and resigned from there on 15.02.2022. During his stay at Pramukhswami
Medical College, he underwent 15 days of post-graduate residency training.
2.8. The respondent no.1 thereafter participated in the second round of
counselling held on 02.03.2022 and was accordingly allotted a seat in AMC
MET Medical College, Ahmedabad, where he took admission on
08.03.2022; however, he resigned from this seat as well on 30.04.2022 after
undergoing 54 days of post-graduate residency training.
2.9. The respondent no.1 participated in the third round of counselling,
which was held on 29.04.2022 and was allotted GCS Medical College,
Ahmedabad, where he joined on 02.05.2022 and left on 21.02.2025,
completing his PG course and was accordingly awarded his MD degree.
During his study while undergoing the PG course, he completed 1026 days
of post-graduate residency training.
2.10. Thus, the respondent no.1 completed 1026+54+15 = 1095 days of
post-graduate residency training while undergoing the PG course at three
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 4 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

different institutes, which were allotted to him on the basis of the
counselling conducted in the first, second and third rounds.
2.11. The reason being indicated by the appellant for cancelling the
candidature of the respondent no.1 is that while completing his PG course at
GCS Medical College, Ahmedabad, where he joined on 02.05.2022 and
completed his course on 21.02.2025, he had undergone the training only for
a period of 1026 days, which falls short of 1095 days of the requisite
training in terms of the provisions contained in Clause 4.3.2 of the
Prospectus and accordingly, he is ineligible for admission to the course in
question.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
3. It has been argued by Shri. Anand Varma, learned counsel
representing the appellant, that learned Single Judge while passing the
impugned judgment and order has deviated from the provisions contained in
Clause 4.3.2 of the Prospectus, according to which a candidate to be eligible
for admission to Super-Speciality course in an Institute of National
Importance, ought to have undergone three years of tenure, qualification and
degree, which is equal to 1095 days, on or before 31.01.2026 and since in
the instant case, the respondent no.1 while completing his PG course from
GCS Medical College, Ahmedabad had undergone the said training only for
a period of 1026 days, he is ineligible. The submission, thus, is that it is
legally impermissible to take into account the period of training which was
undergone by the respondent no.1 at Pramukhswami Medical College,
Karamsad for 15 days and thereafter at AMC MET Medical College,
Ahmedabad for 54 days for the purposes of reckoning the requisite days of
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 5 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

training for the reason that it is only the period of training underwent by a
candidate in a PG course which leads to award of degree, that is relevant.
4. He has further argued that since after taking admission, firstly at
Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad and thereafter at AMC MET
Medical College, Ahmedabad, the respondent no.1 did not complete his
course in either of these two institutions and therefore, any experience
gained by him in these two institutions cannot be permitted to be taken into
account for the purposes of considering his eligibility, otherwise the same
would lead to dilution of the requisite qualification as per the relevant clause
of the Prospectus.
5. He has further argued that any interpretation of any terms or
conditions as given in the Prospectus including that of Clause 4.3.2 has to be
left to the AIIMS for the reason that such prescription has been set out by
the experts of the appellant – institute and therefore, any interpretation of the
said clause other than the manner in which it is being interpreted by the
appellant – institute, would be unwarranted.
6. It is the submission on behalf of the appellant – institute further that
such matters relate to academic policy and therefore ought to be left to the
experts. He has also contended that non-acceptance of the interpretation of
such a clause in terms of how the same is interpreted by the body of experts
would be impermissible, as this is an arena which should be left to the
experts. In this regard, it has also been argued that the Courts, while
exercising the power of judicial review, should not assume the role of
experts and give their own interpretation to a provision which relates to
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 6 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

academic policy.
7. Drawing our attention to Clause 2.1 of the Post-Graduate Medical
Education Regulations, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “ PGMER – 2023 ”),
which are statutory in nature having been framed by the National Medical
Commission – respondent no.3 in exercise of its powers conferred on it
under Section 25(1), 57(2) and 35 of the National Medical Commission Act,
2019, it has been argued that the provisions relating to qualification,
duration of course and component of Post-Graduate training as available in
the PGMER – 2023 are ad idem with the provision contained in Clause 4.3.2
of the Prospectus issued by the AIIMS. Clause 2.1 of the PGMER – 2023 is
extracted herein below: -
“2.1 List of qualifications, duration of the course and components of Post-
graduate Training shall be as indicated below:
S.No. Name of Qualification Duration of Course
(including period of
examination)
i. Post-graduate broad-speciality
Qualifications (Annexure-1)
3 Years/2 years *
ii. Post-graduate super-speciality Courses
(Annexure-2)
3 Years
iii. Post-graduate diploma Courses
(Annexure-3) @
2 Years
iv. Post-Doctoral Certificate Courses
(PDCC) (Annexure-4)
1 year
v. Post-Doctoral Fellowship (PDF)
Courses (Annexure-5)
2 years
vi. D.M./M.Ch. (6 years Course)
(Annexure-6)
6 years
The period of training, including the period of examination, shall *
be two years for the students, who possess a recognized two-year
post-graduate diploma course in the same subject.
@ Medical colleges/institutions may apply to Medical Assessment
and Rating Board (MARB) for converting diploma seats to degree
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 7 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

seats. No more new applications will be entertained for permission
to start or increase in number of diploma seats.”
8. Learned counsel representing the appellant – institute has referred to a
judgment of this Court in Dr. Deepak Suresh Kumar v. All India Institute
of Medical Sciences & Ors., 2024 SCC Online Del 8946 , to argue that it
will be outside the sphere or scope of powers of judicial review of this Court
to interfere in the understanding of the appellant – institute regarding
interpretation of the tenure of training which occurs in Clause 4.3.2 of the
Prospectus and therefore, in his submission Shri. Varma has argued that the
very premise on which the learned Single Judge has based his judgment and
order, which is under challenge herein, is erroneous for the reason that the
interpretation being offered by the appellant – institute ought to have been
accepted by the learned Single Judge rather than rendering his own
interpretation to the said clause.
9. Learned counsel representing the appellant has also relied upon the
judgments in (i) NIMS University v. Union of India, (2023) 16 SCC 316,
(ii) Rajat Duhan v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, 2019 SCC
OnLine Del 11437, (iii) IIT, Kharagpur v. Soutrik Sarangi, (2021) 17 SCC
79 and (iv) Sanchit Bansal v. Joint Admission Board, (2012) 1 SCC 157, to
contend that the process of evaluation or selection of candidates for
admission, the process of achieving the objective of selected candidates who
will be better equipped to suit the specialised courses are all technical
matters in academic field and therefore, the Court ought not interfere in such
processes. His further submission is that the Court would interfere only if
any violation of any enactment, statutory rule or regulation is found or the
challenge is based on bias or mala fide or ulterior motive or where the
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 8 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious. The submission is that
AIIMS is an institution of excellence and maintains a high academic
standard and therefore, it would be justified in laying down stringent
condition for admission.
10. On the aforesaid counts, learned counsel for the appellant has urged
that the instant appeal be allowed and the judgment and order under
challenge passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No.1
11. Defending the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Single
Judge, learned counsel representing the respondent no.1 Ms. Anushree
Kapadia has argued that the respondent no.1 has completed the requisite
Post-Graduate residency experience from three different institutions and
there is no rule or regulation or any provision contained either in the
Prospectus issued by the AIIMS or in the PGMER – 2023 framed by the
National Medical Commission – respondent no.3; neither is there any other
circular which states that the requisite experience has to be from a single
institute. Her submission, therefore, is that the contention of the appellant
that the requisite experience has to be obtained from a single institute is
erroneous. In this view, the submission is that the learned Single Judge has
taken a correct view of the matter.
12. It has further been argued that the change of institutes by the
respondent no.1 was not voluntarily done by him, rather it occurred on
account of an unprecedented overlap of counselling because of COVID-19
and an interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore,
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 9 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

such a change is not attributable to the respondent no.1 for which he cannot
be penalised.
13. It is also the submission on behalf of the respondent no.1 that ever
since the respondent no.1 made his application pursuant to the issuance of
the Prospectus, at no stage he was declared ineligible until the process
culminated in offering him the seat at AIIMS in D.M. (CCM) programme
and therefore, the appellant – institute is estopped from raising the issue of
ineligibility.
14. Ms. Kapadia has also pleaded and argued that by operation of the
doctrine of legitimate expectation, since the respondent no.1 was not
declared ineligible at any stage of the selection process, holding him
ineligible at a time when he was already offered admission, is unlawful and
unwarranted.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has also submitted that after
completing his post-graduate course i.e. MD in Anaesthesiology from GCS
Medical College, Ahmedabad, he held the position of senior resident in the
department of Anaesthesiology of the said medical college from 11.03.2025
till 14.06.2025, thereby he gained experience of 96 days and even if the
experience obtained by the respondent No.1 in Pramukhswami Medical
College, Karamsad and AMC MET Medical College, Ahmedabad is not
taken into account for the purposes of reckoning his eligibility for appearing
in the entrance test for admission to Super-Speciality course, the 96 days’
experience gained by him while working as senior resident can be taken into
account and, therefore, the respondent No.1 would be held to have
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 10 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

experience of 1026+96=1122 days which exceeds the requisite experience
as per Clause 4.3.2 of the prospectus. In this view, the submission is that the
respondent No. 1 fulfilled the eligibility criteria and, therefore, cancellation
of his candidature is illegal.
16. Drawing our attention to the application form submitted by
respondent No. 1 for appearing in the entrance examination for admission to
Super-Speciality course in January, 2026 session, it has been stated by
learned counsel for the respondent that disclosure of the said experience
gained by the respondent No.1 as senior resident after completion of his MD
degree was clearly made in the application form and, therefore, ignoring the
said experience, cancellation of candidature of the respondent No.1 cannot
be justified.
17. The submission further, in this regard, on behalf of the respondent No.
1 is that in Dr. Deepak Suresh Kumar (supra), in respect of the petitioner of
W.P.(C) No. 9642/2024 (Dr. Jay Mehta), it was brought to the notice of the
Court that subsequently AIIMS had written a letter to the PGIMER,
Chandigarh from where Dr. Jay Mehta had completed his MD course to call
Dr. Jay Mehta back to complete the deficiency in training period.
18. It has been submitted that having regard to these facts, this Court in
Dr. Deepak Suresh Kumar (supra), granted liberty to PGIMER,
Chandigarh to call Dr. Jay Mehta back to complete the training for the
deficient period so that he could not face any other controversy in future due
to non-completion of training period. It is, thus, submitted that denying the
benefit of 96 days’ experience gained by respondent no. 1 while he worked
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 11 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

as a senior resident, is untenable.
19. On behalf of the respondent no.1, reliance has been placed on Dr.
Deepak Suresh Kumar (supra), and it has been argued that in almost similar
facts and circumstances, this Court had not approved the ineligibility of the
candidates in the said case and allowed continuance of their studies in the
Super-Speciality course at AIIMS. Therefore, in her submission, Ms.
Kapadia submits that a similar approach ought to be adopted in this matter
as well and accordingly, the judgment and order under challenge herein
passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with so as to call for
any interference by this Court in the instant intra-court appeal.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No.3 – NATIONAL
MEDICAL COMMISION
20. Mr. T. Singhdev, learned counsel representing the respondent No.3
has supported the arguments made on behalf of the appellant. He has
submitted that so far as Clause 2.1 of PGMER – 2023 is concerned, it
provides the duration of post-graduate course to be 03 years and that would
mean 1095 days. His submission is that the provision of Clause 4.3.2 of the
prospectus issued by the AIIMS is akin to Clause 2.1 of PGMER – 2023 and
further that any deviation from the said provision cannot be permitted
legally for the reason that the eligibility criteria has been fixed by the experts
of the field and, therefore, the Courts, while examining the issues related to
academic policy should be circumspect. In substance, as already observed
above, he has supported the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
21. From the facts as can be gathered from the pleadings available on
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 12 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

record and the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties, what we find is that it is a case where a student of proven merit,
even having scored an All-India Rank 4 in the entrance examination
conducted for admission to Super-Speciality medical courses in institutes of
national importance, is being denied admission.
22. So far as the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the
appellant that any eligibility criteria for the purposes of making admission to
Super-Speciality course in the field of medical education has to be left with
the experts and while exercising powers of judicial review, this Court has to
be circumspect in interfering in such criteria, we may observe that it is
settled position of law that the process of evaluation or selection of
candidates for admission and the process of achieving the objective of
selected candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialised
courses are all technical matters in academic field and therefore, the Court
ought not interfere in such processes. Reference in this regard be placed on
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in NIMS
University (supra), Rajat Duhan (supra), IIT, Kharagpur (supra) and
Sanchit Bansal (supra).
23. Accordingly, the interpretation sought to be given by the appellant to
Clause 4.3.2 of the prospectus that experience in residency, to be counted for
the purposes of determining the eligibility for admission to Super-Speciality
course, shall necessarily be from one institute is to be accepted. In our
opinion, the reason as to why experience gained only in one institute has to
be taken into consideration for the purposes of reckoning the eligibility in
terms of Clause 4.3.2 of the prospectus is that any experience gained in other
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 13 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

two institutes, in the instant case, are not relevant, neither were they taken
into consideration for the purposes of award of MD degree to the respondent
No.1.
24. We are also of the opinion that it is the experience which leads to the
award of the MD degree that is relevant even for the purposes of
determining the eligibility for seeking admission to the Super-Speciality
course. In the instant case, the experience gained by the respondent No.1 in
the earlier two institutes did not have any relevance so far as the award of
MD degree is concerned for the reason that he was awarded the MD degree
only on the basis of the experience gained while pursuing his MD degree in
the third institute, namely GCS Medical College, Ahmedabad.
25. We may also note that since determination of the eligibility criteria
for admission to Super-Speciality course is related to academic policy and,
therefore, such issues should be left to the experts. In this respect, we are
also of the opinion that any interpretation sought to be given to Clause 4.3.2
of the prospectus other than the interpretation which, as per AIIMS, is the
correct interpretation will not be permissible. Accordingly, we have no
hesitation in holding that for fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per Clause
4.3.2 of the prospectus, the experience acquired or gained by the candidate
in the institute from where he has been awarded the degree, alone can be
taken into account and the experience gained in any other institute is not
relevant.
26. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that experience gained by the
respondent No.1 in Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad and AMC
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 14 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

MET Medical College, Ahmedabad, is not relevant for the purposes of
determining his eligibility for taking admission to Super-Speciality course in
an institute of national importance as per the prescription available in Clause
4.3.2 of the prospectus. To this extent, we are in complete agreement with
the submission made on behalf of the appellant.
27. Having observed as above, we now need to consider as to whether on
the basis of the disclosure of experience made by the respondent No.1 in his
application form for seeking admission to the Super-Speciality course, he
was eligible in terms of Clause 4.3.2 of the prospectus.
28. In this respect, we may refer to certain facts of Dr. Deepak Suresh
Kumar (supra) decided by this Court. The said matter was decided by this
Court by means of the judgment and order dated 16.12.2024 passed in two
writ petitions, namely W.P.(C) 8943/2024 and W.P.(C) 9642/2024. In
W.P.(C) 8943/2024, there were two petitioners, whereas in W.P.(C)
9642/2024, there was only one petitioner, namely Dr. Jay Mehta.
29. The petitioners in W.P.(C) 8943/2024 had appeared in the entrance
examination held by AIIMS in the year 2024, whereas the petitioner of
W.P.(C) 9642/2024 had appeared in the entrance examination held in the
year 2025. The petitioners of W.P.(C) 8943/2024 were held to be ineligible
for the reason that the leave available to them while they were pursuing their
MD Course at PGIMER, Chandigarh, was adjusted in the experience gained
by them, and therefore, the AIIMS did not find them eligible. In respect of
these petitioners of W.P.(C) 8943/2024 initially an interim order was passed
by the Court reserving two seats for them and, thereafter, by means of
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 15 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

another interim order they were granted provisional admission and it is in
the background of these facts that the Court held the petitioners of W.P.(C)
8943/2024 to be eligible and, accordingly, granted them relief holding that
these petitioners could not be said to be at fault rather, there appeared to be
some dispute on account of lack of coordination between PGIMER,
Chandigarh, AIIMS and National Medical Commission as well as due to
inaction and lack of clarity by the institutes.
30. Noticing in Dr. Deepak Suresh Kumar (supra), this Court held that
on the date when the petitioners of W.P.(C) 8943/2024 were ordered to be
given provisional admission, they had completed the tenure of three
complete years of the period of the training and, therefore, the Court found
them eligible.
31. So far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) 9642/2024 (Dr. Jay Mehta) is
concerned, the Court in Dr. Deepak Suresh Kumar (supra), found that he
did not complete the requisite three years training, however, the Court also
noticed that the AIIMS itself had written a letter to PGIMER, Chandigarh,
from where he had obtained the MD degree, to call him back to complete the
deficiency in the training period. Considering the said letter of the AIIMS,
the Court granted liberty to PGIMER, Chandigarh, to call Dr. Jay Mehta
back to complete the deficiency in the training period so that he would not
face any other controversy in future due to non-completion of the training
period.
32. It is relevant to note at this juncture itself that the letter in respect of
Dr. Jay Mehta written by AIIMS to PGIMER, Chandigarh was for arranging
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 16 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

training for the deficient period post award of post-graduate degree and,
therefore, it is now not open to AIIMS to take a stand that the experience
gained by the respondent No.1 of 96 days while working as senior resident
in the department of Anaesthesiology in the institute from where he obtained
his MD degree which is a post MD experience, cannot be counted for the
purposes of determining the eligibility of respondent No.1. Once the AIIMS
itself had agreed in case of Dr. Jay Mehta, the petitioner of W.P.(C)
9642/2024, that he will be held to be eligible provided he completes the
training for the deficient period, post award of MD degree, we do not see
any tenable reason why the experience gained by the respondent No.1 post
award of MD degree cannot be taken into account for the purposes of
reckoning the eligibility period in terms of Clause 4.3.2 of the prospectus. It
may also be noticed that Clause 4.3.2 of the prospectus, in the instant case,
is in pari materia with the similar clause which was discussed in Dr.
Deepak Suresh Kumar (supra). The said clause available as Clause 4.3.2 in
the prospectus issued by AIIMS for entrance examination (January, 2025
session) finds mentioned in paragraph 45 of Dr. Deepak Suresh Kumar
(supra), which is extracted as under:
“45. ……..
“ 4.3.2. The candidates must have completed the requisite qualification,
degree and tenure by 31-7-2024. The candidates who are likely to
complete their 3 years requisite qualification, degree and tenure after 31-
7-2024 will not be eligible to appear in this examination .””
33. If we compare clause 4.3.2 of the prospectus issued by AIIMS for
entrance examination for admission to January, 2025 session with Clause
4.3.2 of the prospectus issued for making admission to January, 2026
session, we find that both are identical except that three years’ period
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 17 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

occurring in the said Clause has now been made more explicit by
mentioning that three years will be 365x3=1095 days. There is no
difference, at all, between these two Clauses.
34. We may also notice that a specific reference of 1095 days in Clause
4.3.2 of the prospectus for admission to January, 2026 session was inserted
in addition to three years’ experience on certain observations made by this
Court in Dr. Deepak Suresh Kumar (supra) to the effect that the said
Clause which existed in the prospectus issued for admission to January,
2025 session was not specific.
35. Accordingly, we reiterate that once AIIMS in the case of Dr. Jay
Mehta had agreed to take into account the experience gained by a candidate
post award of MD degree, it, on any count, cannot be appreciated why the
experience gained by respondent no.1 of 96 days post award of MD degree
cannot be counted for the purposes of determining his eligibility to seek
admission to Super-Specialty course.
36. It is also of some relevance to note that it is not a case where the
respondent no. 1 had suppressed any information; rather, he made complete
disclosure while filling up his form for appearing in the entrance test for
admission to Super-Speciality course.
37. We may also note that neither at the time of scrutiny of application
forms nor at the time of declaration of ineligible candidates, did the AIIMS
ever declare respondent no.1 to be ineligible. It is only at the end of the
process i.e. when the respondent No.1 was offered a seat in D.M. (CCM) at
AIIMS and he went to report for his joining on 01.01.2026 that he was first
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 18 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

told verbally that he is ineligible and, thereafter, on the next date i.e.
02.01.2026, he was handed over the order cancelling his candidature.
38. Such discrepancies had occurred in earlier examinations as well,
which have been noticed by this Court in Dr. Deepak Suresh Kumar
(supra) and this Court has disapproved the same.
39. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that the respondent
No.1 was eligible for admission to Super-Speciality course for the reason
that he had completed 1026 days while pursuing his MD Course and,
thereafter, he gained senior residency experience of 96 days post MD
Degree. The total senior residency experience would, thus, be
1026+96=1122 days, which is more than 1095 days’ experience as per the
prescription in Clause 4.3.2 of the prospectus.
40. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we
do not find any good ground to interfere with the operative part of the
impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Resultantly, we direct that the experience gained by the respondent No.1 of
96 days post award of MD degree shall be counted for the purpose of
determining his eligibility to seek admission to Super-Specialty course in
view of the stand taken by the Appellant in Dr. Deepak Suresh Kumar
(supra) wherein in the similar facts, the experience gained post award of
MD degree was considered for grant of admission for Super-Specialty
course.
41. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby disposed of with the aforesaid
directions. The pending applications also stand disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 19 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40

42. Since today is the last date of seeking admission, we direct that this
order shall be communicated to the concerned authorities of AIIMS by
learned counsel for the appellant forthwith so that respondent No.1 may
complete the requisite formalities of joining the D.M. (CCM) programme at
AIIMS.
43. There shall be no order as to costs.
(DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(TEJAS KARIA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 28, 2026
“shailndra”/N.khanna
Signature Not Verified
LPA 94/2026 Page 20 of 20
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:49:40