Anugrah Vyas vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences , New Delhi And Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~106
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010420562026

Date of decision: 13.10.2026

+ W.P.(C) 12968/2026 & CM APPL. 60294/2026
ANUGRAH VYAS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumeet Kapoor, Adv.
versus
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES , NEW DELHI
AND ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vikrant Nilesh Goyal, Mr.
Inderpreet Singh, Mr. Kunal Dixit, Advs. for UOI
Mr. Anand Varma, Mr Ayush Gupta Adv for R1-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH


: JASMEET SINGH, J ( ORAL )


1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following prayers:-
“a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents
No.1 and 2 to permit the Petitioner to join the course in
MD Microbiology against his allotted seat at AIIMS,
Rishikesh, upon the Petitioner producing the requisite
documents, as applicable;
b. Issue an Interim Order that the seat allotted to the
Petitioner in MD-Microbiology at AIIMS Rishikesh be
kept vacant and shall not be treated as a stray vacancy or
allotted to any other candidate pending the final disposal
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:58
W.P.(C) 12968/2026 Page 1 of 10

of this petition and grant provisional admission to the
Petitioner;
c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to
refund the security deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakhs only) paid by the Petitioner for the Open Round of
INI-CET July 2026 Session;
d. In the alternative, if the restoration of the specific
Microbiology seat at AIIMS Rishikesh is found not to be
vacant, direct the Respondent No.1 to allot to the
Petitioner an equivalent vacant seat in MD Microbiology
course at any participating AIIMS under the INI-CET July
2026 Session, preferably near the domicile of
Petitioner;....”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted a
post-graduate seat in MD Microbiology at AIIMS, Rishikesh, through
the Open Round of counselling for the INI-CET July 2026 Session. The
petitioner was denied admission on the ground that he had failed to
submit the physical set of original academic documents by the
prescribed deadline of 31.08.2026.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was unable to produce the original
documents within the stipulated period as the same were retained by
Index Medical College, Indore, in connection with the bond executed
by him under the Mukhyamantri Medhavi Vidyarthi Yojana, pursuant
to which he was required to render five years of rural or remote service
in the State of Madhya Pradesh or pay a penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/-.
4. The petitioner submits that he had, in the meantime, furnished
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:58
W.P.(C) 12968/2026 Page 2 of 10

self-attested copies of the requisite documents along with an
undertaking to produce the originals upon their release by Index
Medical College, Indore. However, the respondents declined to grant
him admission within the prescribed timeline.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioner has since obtained the original
documents pursuant to an order passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The State of Madhya Pradesh has also
issued a No Objection Certificate dated 16.09.2026, modifying the
terms governing the petitioner's bond.
6. Despite the aforesaid developments, the petitioner has been denied
admission to the allotted seat.
7. This Court, vide order dated 07.07.2026, was pleased to grant interim
relief in favour of the petitioner.
8. Mr. Varma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1- 2,
submits that the petitioner was well aware of the requirement to submit
the original documents on or before 31.08.2026. The petitioner having
failed to comply with the said requirement within the stipulated
timeline, the respondents cannot be faulted for denying him admission.
9. It is further submitted that the petitioner was bound by the conditions of
the bond executed with the State of Madhya Pradesh, requiring him to
render five years of rural service. The petitioner, in effect, seeks
relaxation of the said bond conditions, and the respondents cannot be
held responsible for his inability to produce the original documents
within the prescribed period.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents also relies upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramakrishna Medical College
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:58
W.P.(C) 12968/2026 Page 3 of 10

Hospital and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh and
Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3194 , particularly paragraph 21 which
reads as under:
“21. Secondly, this Court has repeatedly held that a medical
seat has life only in the year it falls due and that too only till
the cut-off date fixed. Even here, there are stringent
regulations of the National Medical Commission providing
that admission can only be made by the medical colleges
within the sanctioned capacity for which
permission/recognition has been granted. A seat falling
vacant in a particular year cannot be carried forward or
created in the succeeding year (See Faiza Choudhary v. State
of J&K, (2012) 10 SCC 149). No doubt, in rare and
exceptional circumstances, courts can direct increase in
seats for the same academic year not exceeding one or two
seats, if it finds that for no fault attributable to the candidate
and for the fault on the part of the authorities, the candidate
has suffered. This Court has also held that if in the same year,
the candidate cannot be accommodated, the Court can mould
the relief and direct the admission to be granted in the next
academic year. In S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, (2020) 17 SCC 465, it was held as under:—
“13.2. Under exceptional circumstances, if the court
finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate
and the candidate has pursued his/her legal right
expeditiously without any delay and there is fault only
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:58
W.P.(C) 12968/2026 Page 4 of 10

on the part of the authorities and/or there is apparent
breach of rules and regulations as well as related
principles in the process of grant of admission which
would violate the right of equality and equal treatment
to the competing candidates and if the time schedule
prescribed — 30th September, is over, to do the
complete justice, the Court under exceptional
circumstances and in rarest of rare cases direct the
admission in the same year by directing to increase the
seats, however, it should not be more than one or two
seats and such admissions can be ordered within
reasonable time i.e. within one month from 30th
September i.e. cut-off date and under no circumstances,
the Court shall order any admission in the same year
beyond 30th October. However, it is observed that such
relief can be granted only in exceptional circumstances
and in the rarest of rare cases. In case of such an
eventuality, the Court may also pass an order
cancelling the admission given to a candidate who is at
the bottom of the merit list of the category who, if the
admission would have been given to a more meritorious
candidate who has been denied admission illegally,
would not have got the admission, if the Court deems it
fit and proper, however, after giving an opportunity of
hearing to a student whose admission is sought to be
cancelled.
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:58
W.P.(C) 12968/2026 Page 5 of 10

13.3. In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of
admission can be granted to such a candidate in the
very academic year and wherever it finds that the action
of the authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of
the rules and regulations or the prospectus affecting the
rights of the students and that a candidate is found to be
meritorious and such candidate/student has
approached the court at the earliest and without any
delay, the court can mould the relief and direct the
admission to be granted to such a candidate in the next
academic year by issuing appropriate directions by
directing to increase in the number of seats as may be
considered appropriate in the case and in case of such
an eventuality and if it is found that the management
was at fault and wrongly denied the admission to the
meritorious candidate, in that case, the Court may
direct to reduce the number of seats in the management
quota of that year, meaning thereby the student/students
who was/were denied admission illegally to be
accommodated in the next academic year out of the
seats allotted in the management quota.””
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
placed on record.
12. It is evident that the petitioner was unable to produce the original
academic documents within the prescribed timeline on account of the
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:58
W.P.(C) 12968/2026 Page 6 of 10

subsisting bond conditions imposed by the State of Madhya Pradesh.
The original documents were retained by Index Medical College, Indore,
and could not be released without compliance with the conditions
imposed in connection with the bond.
13. However, the State of Madhya Pradesh has since issued a No Objection

Certificate dated 16.09.2026, which reads as under:
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:58
W.P.(C) 12968/2026 Page 7 of 10

Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:58
W.P.(C) 12968/2026 Page 8 of 10

14. A perusal of the aforesaid No Objection Certificate indicates that the
State of Madhya Pradesh has modified the terms governing the
petitioner's bond, permitting him to pursue his post-graduate course
subject to the condition that he shall fulfil the mandatory period of rural
service stipulated under the bond after completion of the MD
Microbiology programme.

15. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, the impediment that
prevented the petitioner from producing the original documents within
the prescribed timeline stands substantially addressed. The petitioner's
inability to comply with the document requirement within the stipulated
period must, therefore, be examined in the context of the circumstances
in which the original documents were retained and the steps taken by the
petitioner to secure their release.
16. The petitioner participated in the counselling process and was allotted
the seat on the basis of merit. The material placed on record indicates
that he took steps, including approaching the concerned authorities and
seeking release of his original documents, before the expiry of the
prescribed deadline. The original documents were ultimately released
pursuant to the intervention of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

17. In these circumstances, the petitioner ought not to be denied
consideration for admission solely on account of his failure to produce
the original documents by the prescribed date, particularly when the
documents were in the custody of a third party pursuant to a bond
imposed by the State and the petitioner had taken steps to secure their
release. The subsequent issuance of the No Objection Certificate dated
16.09.2026 further reinforces the petitioner's case that the impediment
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:58
W.P.(C) 12968/2026 Page 9 of 10

was not one that he could independently resolve within the limited time
available to him.
18. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents is
distinguishable on the facts. In Ramakrishna (supra) the Hon’ble
Supreme Court was primarily considering whether colleges could
receive compensatory seats in a subsequent academic year because seats
had remained vacant pursuant to interim judicial orders.
19.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer (a) above.
20.
The document handed over in court today is taken on record.




JASMEET SINGH, J
OCTOBER 13, 2026 / (MS)
(Corrected and released on 17.10.2026)

Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:58
W.P.(C) 12968/2026 Page 10 of 10