Abhishek Singh vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (Aiims, New Delhi) & Ors.

$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on:11.05.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 29.05.2026

+ W.P.(C) 3088/2026 & CM APPL. 14913/2026
ABHISHEK SINGH ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumeet Kapoor, Adv.

versus

ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS.
....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anand Varma. Mr. Ayush Gupta.
Mr. Pushpam, Advs. for R-1 & 2/
AIIMS
Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy,
CGSC with Ms. Usha Jamnal, ⁠Ms.
Nyasa Sharma, ⁠Mr. Ankit Khatri, Advs.
for R-3/UOI
Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Abhijit
Chakravarty, Ms. Anum Hussain Advs.
for R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

J U D G M E N T
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India (“ COI ”) seeking the following prayers:
“a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 1 of 27

No.1 and 2 to grant provisional admission to the Petitioner
in the MD-Pharmacology course at AIIMS Bhubaneswar
based on his merit rank and the seat allotment in the Open
Round of INICET January 2026 session;
b. Issue a Direction that the Petitioner be allowed to submit
his original academic documents immediately upon their
release by Respondent No.5 college as per law;
c. Issue an Interim Order that the seat allotted to the
Petitioner in MD-Pharmacology at AIIMS Bhubaneswar be
kept vacant and shall not be treated as a stray vacancy or
allotted to any other candidate pending the final disposal of
this petition;
d. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondents No.3
and 5 to accept the resignation of the Petitioner from the
MDPhysiology course at RDMC Banda and to release all
his original academic and eligibility certificates forthwith
as per law;
e. Issue a Direction to Respondent No.1 and 2 to release the
security deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- paid by the Petitioner for
the INI-CET Open Round;…”
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The petitioner is a qualified medical professional who has passed MBBS.
The petitioner participated in the NEET-PG 2025 and Institute of
National Importance Combined Entrance Test (“ INI-CET ”) January 2026
Examination for pursuing Post Graduate Medical Education.
3. The respondent No. 1, i.e. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 2 of 27

(“ AIIMS ”), New Delhi, is a body established under AIIMS Act, 1956 and
was responsible for conducting the INI-CET Exam.
4. The respondent No. 2, i.e., AIIMS Bhubaneswar, is an institute where the
petitioner was allotted a seat through NEET-PG Counselling process.
5. The respondent No. 3, i.e., Medical Counselling Committee (“ MCC ”) is a
regulatory body set up under the Directorate General of Health Services
(“ DGHS ”) and is responsible for managing the All India Quota for
NEET-PG Examination.

6. The respondent No. 4, i.e., National Medical Commission is a statutory
body established under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019
which regulates medical education and practice in India.
7. The respondent No. 5, i.e., Rani Durgavati Medical College (“ RDMC ”) is
a State Medical College in Uttar Pradesh wherein the petitioner
provisionally secured admission through NEET PG Counselling.
8. The petitioner secured a rank in the NEET PG 2025 and INI-CET January
2026 session. The petitioner was allotted a seat in the third round of
Counselling of NEET PG 2025 in RDMC, Banda in MD (Physiology)
Course on 06.03.2026. While the result for INI-CET Open Round was
awaited, the petitioner provisionally took admission in RDMC on
07.02.2026 and completed the admission formalities by depositing his
original documents and certificates.
9. The result for INI-CET Open Round Counselling conducted by AIIMS,
New Delhi was declared on 21.02.2026 wherein the petitioner secured a
seat in MD (Pharmacology) course in the respondent No. 2. However, his
admission was denied on account of petitioner‟s failure to deposit his
original documents with the respondent No. 2.
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 3 of 27

10. The petitioner submitted his resignation vide email dated 21.02.2026 to
RDMC to facilitate his move to AIIMS, Bhubaneswar and also physically
visited respondent No. 5, wherein he was informed that no provision for
“resignation” existed and therefore his resignation could not be accepted.
11. The petitioner physically reported to AIIMS, Bhubaneswar on 26.02.2026
i.e. before the deadline 28.02.2026 seeking provisional admission on the
basis of undertaking. However, since the original academic documents
were not returned to the petitioner by the respondent No. 5, the
respondent No. 2 refused the admission in the absence of original
documents. Consequently, the petitioner could not secure admission at
respondent No. 2. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
12. This Court vide order dated 12.03.2026, granted interim protection to the
petitioner regarding his seat with respondent No. 2.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
13. Mr. Sumeet Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the
petitioner appeared for two admission processes being INI-CET and
NEET PG. Having secured allotment in both the Counselling processes,
the petitioner was put in a position where had no option to exit one
admission process in order to join the other. He relies on the letter dated
23.02.2025 issued by the respondent No. 5 which stated that there is no
option available for resignation from the allotted seat. The said letter
reads as under:


Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 4 of 27

14. He further states that equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not merely limited to correcting mistakes of the
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 5 of 27

state, it also extends to preventing injustices caused by systemic failures
beyond petitioner‟s control. The Court under Article 226 of the COI must
intervene where the application of rules in the specific circumstances
results in an arbitrary and unjust outcome.
15. He further relies on Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health
Sciences (2012) 7 SCC 389 and states that a meritorious student cannot
be denied admission due to circumstances beyond his control and no fault
of his own. The acts of the petitioner such as resigning on the day of
declaration of results, travelling to Bhubaneswar sending scanned
documents and offering an undertaking demonstrates clear bonafides on
part of the petitioner.
16. He emphasises on the core purpose of submitting the original documents
i.e. verification of eligibility of a qualified candidate and to prevent fraud.
In the facts of the present case, both the requirements were served
without the physical production of the originals. The coloured scans of
the original documents were sent by the petitioner on 27.02.2026 and the
undertaking issued by RDMC having custody of the originals was also
submitted to the AIIMS, Bhubaneswar. Further, in an independent letter
dated 24.02.2026 RDMC confirmed the custody of the original
documents. The same reads as under:

Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 6 of 27

Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 7 of 27

17. He also states that the forfeiture of Rs. 3 lakhs which was furnished as
security deposit is arbitrary and unconscionable as the same is taken to
deter the candidate from casually abandoning the confirmed seat. The
petitioner never abandoned the seat, rather he immediately wrote
representations and resigned.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1
AND 2
18. At the outset, Mr. Anand Varma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.
1 and 2, states that no Cause of Action has arisen within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court. He states that only those facts constitute a
Cause of Action which have a nexus to the lis involved in the case. He
places reliance on Union of India &Ors. Adani Exports Ltd. &Anr.,
(2002) 1 SCC 567 and Dr. Neha Chandra v. Union of India &Ors., W.P.
(C) 13613/2024 .
19. He highlights that the respondent No. 2 is situated at Bhubaneswar,
Odisha and the respondent No. 5 is situated at Banda, Tindwara, Uttar
Pradesh. The main dispute in the present petition is that the petitioner is
not allowed to take admission in the respondent No. 2 as the respondent
No. 5 has not released the original documents within the stipulated time
line. The petitioner is a resident of Mumbai, Maharashtra and the
petitioner has no dispute with regards to the respondent No. 1, AIIMS,
New Delhi.
20. It was submitted the petitioner has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of
this Court by alleging that Respondent No. 2/AIIMS, Bhubaneswar is a
regional branch of Respondent No. 1/AIIMS, New Delhi. Rather, the
respondent No. 2 is an autonomous institute established under the All
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 8 of 27

India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 and the AIIMS
(Amendment) Act, 2012, and functions independently of the respondent
No. 1. Consequently, any grievance pertaining to the respondent No. 2
cannot be attributed to the respondent No. 1. Thus, the present petition
cannot lie within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and is liable to be
dismissed at the threshold due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
21. He also states that the dispute and reliefs sought in the present petition,
namely admission in respondent No. 2/AIIMS, Bhubaneswar and release
of original documents from respondent No. 5/RDMC pertain exclusively
to the respondent Nos. 2 and 5. The petitioner having confined the
substantive reliefs to the aforesaid respondents, no substantive relief is
claimed against the respondent No. 1 or qua the conduct of the INI-CET
examination. The prayer seeking refund of the security deposit of Rs. 3
lakhs is merely ancillary to the principal relief of admission at the
respondent No. 2 and that the said amount has been forfeited in terms of
the notification dated 21.02.2026. Thus, the present writ petition is not
maintainable.
22. He points out that the respondent No. 2 has acted in terms of the
prospectus. Part A of the prospectus clearly notes that physical
verification with reference to the original documents will be done at the
time of reporting and candidature shall be subject to verification. Further
Part B of the prospectus reiterates the same. Furthermore the result
notification dated 21.02.2026 mentioned that the candidature shall be
cancelled if the candidate fails to submit the required
documents/certificates. Thus, the respondent No. 2 acted within the four
corners of the prospectus. In this regard reliance is placed on Varun
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 9 of 27

Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 1133.
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER ON THE
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
23. The learned counsel for the petitioner while replying to the preliminary
objections raised by the learned counsel of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2,
states that Article 226 (2) of the COI uses the words “ Wholly or in Part ”
to define the territorial nexus required by the High Court to entertain the
Writ Petition.

24. He further points out that the prospectus and the information brochure
contain an unambiguous jurisdiction clause. This jurisdiction clause
forms part of the Cause of Action under Article 226 of the COI.
25. Independent of the jurisdiction clause, the acts of respondent No. 1
including issuance of prospectus and offer letter, declaration of open
round results, forfeiture of Rs. 3,00,000/- security deposit and issuance of
email dated 05.03.2026 and the failure of the portal of the respondent No.
3 (based in Delhi), to provide an option of resignation, constitute Cause
of Action, which confers jurisdiction on this Court.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
26. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the
documents on record.
27. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the COI is
vested with the obligation to protect the rights of individuals. The scope
of judicial interference or judicial review in the academic matters is well
settled by a catena of judgments by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and this
Court. Even though the Court must exercise reluctance to interfere in the
matters of education, the Courtretains the power to scrutinise any
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 10 of 27

arbitrary decision. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in All India Shri Shivaji
Memorial Society v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 6 SCC 605 has
observed as under:
34. In other words, normally, courts should not interfere
with the decisions taken by expert statutory bodies
regarding academic matter: may it relate to qualification
for admission of students or qualification required by
teachers for appointment, salary, promotion, entitlement to
a higher pay scale, etc. However, this does not mean that
courts are deprived of their powers of judicial review. It
only means that courts must be slow in interfering with the
opinion of experts in regard to academic standards and
powers of judicial review should only be exercised in cases
where prescribed qualification or condition is against the
law, arbitrary or involves interpretation of any principle of
law [Also see: Medical Council of India v. Sarang [Medical
Council of India v. Sarang, (2001) 8 SCC 427 : 5 SCEC
83]]. Consequently, where a candidate does not possess the
minimum qualifications, prescribed by an expert body, for
appointment or promotion to a particular post in an
educational institution, such a candidate will not be entitled
to get appointed or will be deprived of certain benefits,
which is the case we have in hand.”
28. With this background in mind, I shall now deal with the preliminary
objection of the respondent No. 1 and 2.
29. The expression „Cause of Action‟ refers to a bundle of facts giving rise to
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 11 of 27

a legal claim. In order to determine whether the Cause of Action has
arisen so as to confer jurisdiction upon a Court, in Mussummat Chand
Kour v. Partab Singh, 1888 SCC OnLine PC 14, Lord Watson
elaborated as under:
“…Now the cause of action has no relation whatever to the
defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it
depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the
plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the
plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the
media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a
conclusion in his favour...”
30. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd.,
(2002) 1 SCC 567 further emphasised that for a High Court to entertain a
writ petition, the facts pleaded must constitute a cause to empower the
Court to decide the controversy between the parties. The facts pleaded
must have a reasonable nexus to the lis involved in the facts of the matter.
The relevant paragraphs read as under:
“17. It is seen from the above that in order to confer
jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition or a
special civil application as in this case, the High Court must
be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the
cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as
to empower the court to decide a dispute which has, at least
in part, arisen within its jurisdiction. It is clear from the
above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the
respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 12 of 27

the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action
within the court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts
pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the
lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing
with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give
rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial
jurisdiction on the court concerned. If we apply this
principle then we see that none of the facts pleaded in para
16 of the petition, in our opinion, falls into the category of
bundle of facts which would constitute a cause of action
giving rise to a dispute which could confer territorial
jurisdiction on the courts at Ahmedabad.
18. As we have noticed earlier, the fact that the respondents
are carrying on the business of export and import or that
they are receiving the export and import orders at
Ahmedabad or that their documents and payments for
exports and imports are sent/made at Ahmedabad, has no
connection whatsoever with the dispute that is involved in
the applications. Similarly, the fact that the credit of duty
claimed in respect of exports that were made from Chennai
were handled by the respondents from Ahmedabad have
also no connection whatsoever with the actions of the
appellants impugned in the application. The non-granting
and denial of credit in the passbook having an ultimate
effect, if any, on the business of the respondents at
Ahmedabad would not also, in our opinion, give rise to any
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 13 of 27

such cause of action to a court at Ahmedabad to adjudicate
on the actions complained against the appellants.”
31. In Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (2011) 10 GSTR 20,
it was held that even a miniscule Cause of Action shall confer jurisdiction
upon the Court. Another aspect that was highlighted by the Constitution
Bench of this Court, relevant in the present case is that the doctrine of
forum conveniens should be scrutinised by the Court before entertaining
the petition. The relevant concluding paragraph reads as under:
“35. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are inclined to
modify the findings and conclusions of the Full Bench
in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR
2010 Delhi 43; [2011] 166 C-C 87 (Delhi) and proceed to
state our conclusions in seriatim as follows :
(a) The finding recorded by the Full Bench that the sole
cause of action emerges at the place or location where the
Tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority is situate
and the said High Court (i.e., Delhi High Court) cannot
decline to entertain the writ petition as that would amount
to failure of the duty of the court cannot be accepted
inasmuch as such a finding is totally based on the situs of
the Tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority totally
ignoring the concept of forum conveniens.
(b) Even if a minuscule part of cause of action arises within
the jurisdiction of this court, a writ petition would be
maintainable before this court, however, the cause of action
has to be understood as per the ratio laid down in the case
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 14 of 27

of Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim (2007) 136 C-C
665; (2007) 11 SCC 335.
(c) An order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of
cause of action to make the writ petition maintainable in the
High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate
authority is situated. Yet, the same may not be the singular
factor to compel the High Court to decide the matter on
merits. The High Court may refuse to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum
conveniens.
(d) The conclusion that where the appellate or revisional
authority is located constitutes the place of forum
conveniens as stated in absolute terms by the Full Bench is
not correct as it will vary from case to case and depend
upon the lis in question.
(e) The finding that the court may refuse to exercise
jurisdiction under article 226 if only the jurisdiction is
invoked in a mala fide manner is too restricted/constricted
as the exercise of the power under article 226 being
discretionary cannot be limited or restricted to the ground
of mala fide alone.
(f) While entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of forum
conveniens and the nature of cause of action are required to
be scrutinised by the High Court depending upon the factual
matrix of each case in view of what has been stated
in Ambica Industries v. CCE(2007) 213 ELT 323; [2009] 20
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 15 of 27

VST 1 (S.C.) and Union of India v. Adani Exports
Ltd.(2002) 1 SCC 567.
(g) The conclusion of the earlier decision of the Full Bench
in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR
2010 Delhi 43; (2011) 166 C-C 87 (Delhi) (page 115):
“… that since the original order merges into the appellate
order, the place where the appellate authority is located is
also forum conveniens” is not correct.
(h) Any decision of this court contrary to the conclusions
enumerated hereinabove stands overruled.
(Emphasis Supplied)
32. Thus, it is a trite law that the facts which have no relation to the dispute in
hand or the relief prayed for cannot be said to constitute Cause of Action.
33. To examine whether the Cause of Action in the present petition has arisen
in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, it is pertinent to refer to various
Sections of the prospectus of INI-CET Examination showing the role of
AIIMS, New Delhi. The various sections read as under:
“Section II: Administration
INI-CET is administered by the Examination Section, AIIMS New
Delhi in consultation with nodal officers from all INIs. AIIMS,
New Delhi is the sole authority for conduct of all aspects related
to Combined Entrance Test such as application, conduct of exam,
declaration of results, Seat Allocation as its responsibility is
limited to these aspects of INI-CET only.
Admission/Seat allocation into any of the participating INI will
be governed by the rules and regulation of respective Institute as
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 16 of 27

applicable and will be administered by the Head of Institutions of
respective INIs (the details are mentioned in Part B of the
Prospectus of INICET, January 2026). All disputes with regards
to any matter referred to herein shall be subjected to the
jurisdiction of Delhi Courts only.”
xxxx
“Section V: Seats available for admission into postgraduate
courses forJanuary 2026 Session of various INIs
1. Seats available for all Indian Nationals (excluding
sponsored & Foreign National seats)
A consolidated list of seats available for admission into
postgraduate courses in participating INIs for January 2026
session of various INIs will be prepared and published by
Examination section, AIIMS New Delhi on the basis of official
information received from respective INIs. The INI-wise list
received from various INIs shall be accessible from Seats
Available Tab of the INI-CET portal. These lists are subjected
to change as per the decision of respective INIs and shall be
updated as per information received by the Examination
Section, AIIMS, New Delhi. The list of seats available shall
not be changed after the declaration of the results. The
updated consolidated list of available postgraduate seats for
seat allocation (INI-wise and speciality-wise) for January
2026 session shall be published before the declaration of
results.”
xxxx
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 17 of 27

“Section XIII: Legal and Disciplinary Action Legal and
disciplinary action will be initiated by AIIMS, New Delhi against
persons who are found to be guilty of misconduct for reasons
mentioned below (including but not limited to)
….
4. submitting fabricated documents or documents which have
been tampered with; or…”
(emphasis supplied)

34. A perusal of the above sections of the prospectus sheds light upon the
role of AIIMS, New Delhi. It was not only entrusted with the task of
conducting the examination of INI-CET, wherein the petitioner secured a
seat, but was also given the authority to initiate any legal or disciplinary
actions in case the documents submitted by the candidates were forged or
fabricated. Further the prospectus makes it crystal clear that AIIMS, New
Delhi is the sole authority responsible for Seat Allocation among other
things. To my mind, the issue in the present case pertains to seat
allocation, and therefore the Cause of Action squarely falls within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court as the agency responsible for such seat
allocation, i.e. AIIMS, New Delhi, is situated in Delhi.
35. One of the primary reliefs prayed for, among others, is to keep the
allotted seat to the petitioner in the respondent No. 2 institute, vacant and
grant him provisional admission on the seat allotted and the release of 3
lakhs security deposit paid by the petitioner. Hence, to adjudicate this
prayer squarely, it shall be the Courts of Delhi that shall have
jurisdiction.Therefore, there is no gainsaying that the Cause of Action
arose in Delhi as the respondent No. 1 was entrusted with the task of
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 18 of 27

conducting the exam and allocating the seats is situated in Delhi namely
the respondent No. 1.
36. The Information Brochure for open round seat allocation INI-CET PG
has an exclusive jurisdiction clause being Clause No. 16 which confers
jurisdiction on the High Court of Delhi to adjudicate the disputes with
respect to examination and seat allocation. Further, Clause No. 12 of Part
B of INI-CET Prospectus also confers jurisdiction on the High Court of
Delhi to adjudicate „ any dispute referred to herein ‟. Both the clauses read
as under:
“16. All disputes pertaining to the conduct of the
examination by AIIMS and seat allocation will be subject to
the jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi only.”
xxxx
“12. General Information
a) If a candidate is at any stage found to have provided false
information/certificate or is found to have withheld or
concealed some information in his/her application form,
he/she will be debarred from admission, his/her residency
will be terminated with immediate effect.
b) If ineligibility is detected at any stage,
candidature/admission of the candidate will be cancelled
without any notice.
c) The decision of the Director of the Institute shall be final
in the matter of selection of candidates for admission to
various courses and no appeal will be entertained in this
regard.
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 19 of 27

d) Selected candidates must join the course on the date
stipulated in the letter of selection, failing which the
selection/admission shall stand cancelled/withdrawn.
e) The selected candidates will have to submit the original
Permanent Registration Certificate at the time of joining.
….
j) Any dispute in regard to any matter referred to herein
shall be subject to the jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi
only.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
37. Even though the exclusive jurisdiction clause in a prospectus is not
binding upon a Court conferred with Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226
of the COI, the clauses in the prospectus and the information brochure
also confer the jurisdiction upon the High Court of Delhi. What is
material here is that the Clause Nos. 12 (d) and (e) read with Clause No.
12 (j) of the Part B of prospectus explicitly state that in case of
cancellation of allotment the dispute shall be referred to the High Court of
Delhi, as the exam conducting authority and the seat allocation authority
is situated in Delhi. Further the word „herein‟ has to be given wide
interpretation so as to include any dispute with respect to allocation of
seats and cannot be construed in a restrictive sense. The dispute raised by
the petitioner herein is regarding cancelling of admission due to him
being unable to submit the original documents including Permanent
Registration Certificate. Additionally, Clause No. 16 also mandates that
disputes qua seat allocation to be within the jurisdiction of High Court of
Delhi. In view of the aforesaid clauses, squarely covering the disputes of
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 20 of 27

petitioner, the refusal by this Court to entertain the writ petition would be
highly improper.
38. My attention has also been drawn to a letter dated 22.02.2026 wherein the
respondent No. 5 itself admitted that there was no option available for
seat resignation and requested DGHS at New Delhi for necessary
guidance for the petitioner‟s resignation which further strengthens the
argument of the petitioner that it was the respondent No. 1 who was
responsible for conduct of exams and allocation of seats.

39. No doubt the petitioner was granted admission in respondent No. 5 at
Uttar Pradesh and wants admission in the respondent No. 2 institute
situated at Bhubaneswar but it is the respondent No.1 which is the nodal
agency for conducting admissions and allotting seats which is situated at
Delhi. Hence, I am of the view that this Court constitutes the appropriate
forum conveniens.
40. I have given anxious consideration to the respondent‟s argument with
respect to the maintainability of the petition, however I do not find myself
aligning with the same.
41. The respondent No. 1 and 2 have placed reliance on Riddhima Singh v.
CBSE, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7168 and more particularly on the
following paragraphs reproduced below:
“5. Subsequent to the events of the First Writ Petition, the
Appellant preferred the underlying writ petition seeking
compensation from CBSE for alleged “intentional
harassment, mental trauma of holding back the Petitioner in
Class VII for two academic years in violation of RTE Act.”
Without adjudicating on the merits of the matter, the Ld.
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 21 of 27

Single Judge vide the Impugned Judgment placed reliance
on the binding dictum of this Court in Sterling Agro
Industries Ltd. v. Union of India. and dismissed the writ
petition on the grounds of non-conveniens, noting that the
Appellant has attempted to found territorial jurisdiction in
Delhi merely because CBSE is headquartered in Delhi.
6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Ld.
Single Judge erred in not considering that Clause 18.3.2 of
the CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws explicitly states that the
legal jurisdiction for suits filed against the CBSE shall be
the Union Territory of Delhi. Learned Counsel submits that
the grievance caused to the Appellant is due to the actions
of CBSE in not conducting Grade VIII examinations within
an appropriate period of time and therefore, as the cause of
action arose in the Union Territory of Delhi, the
appropriate forum for adjudication of the matter is this
Court.
xxxx
12. The principle emerging from Shristi Udaipur (supra) is
squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In
essence, the basis of the Appellant's claim for compensation
is the loss of an academic year due a delay in examinations
for Grade VIII. As the responsibility for conducting the
examinations fell on the Respondent School, it is plain that
the most vital part of the cause of action arose in Uttar
Pradesh, where the Respondent School is located.
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 22 of 27

Moreover, it must also be noted that the Appellant is a
resident of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, on a holistic
examination of these circumstances, as the Appellant has
failed to produce any material establishing that the
grievance caused to her is directly attributable to the
actions of the CBSE, we cannot but conclude that this Court
is not the appropriate forum for adjudication of this
matter.”

42. The judgment of Riddhima Singh (Supra) is distinguishable on facts.
The petitioner in the said judgment, claimed compensation for the loss of
academic year due to delay in class VIII Examination. The relief was
against the respondent school as the responsibility to conduct the
examination was also upon the respondent school. Therefore, CBSE had
no role in the relief claimed. The most vital part of Cause of Action arose
in Uttar Pradesh. The Court also noted that the appellant failed to produce
any material to establish that the grievance caused is directly attributable
to the actions of CBSE. Therefore, the Court held that the exclusive
jurisdiction Clause of Delhi will not grant the Courts in Delhi the
territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. In the present case, the
respondent No. 1 has a substantial role and the relief prayed against the
respondent No. 2 is also substantial and not ancillary. This Court in W.P.
(C) 6512/2026 titled Aarnav Shandilya v. Union of India & Ors. has
already held that existence of nodal agency responsible to conduct the
examination, is sufficient to give this Court the territorial jurisdiction to
try the matter. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
“16. As per Clause No. 8 of Information Brochure, it is JAB
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 23 of 27

which prima facie seems to be organising body of the JEE
(Advance) Examination. The same is situated in Delhi and
thus, this Court will have the jurisdiction.”
43. Ms. Rudy, learned counsel, also points out the order of this Court passed
in Dr. Azhar Ali Sheikh v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 4914/2026
dated 15.04.2026 and in Dolly v. National Medical Commission and Ors,
W.P.(C) 3083/2026 dated 17.03.2026 wherein this Court held that it does
not have jurisdiction. Both the judgments are with respect to NEET PG
and is peculiar to their own facts. In Dr.Azhar Ali Sheikh (Supra) the
colleges allotted were in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. MCC was only
facilitating the process through its portal and had no active role in the
same. Further, Dolly (Supra) is also distinguishable on the same premise
that MCC was only a facilitating body which had just provided its portal
to facilitate the exam and has no active role in conducting the exam. The
petitioner therein has sought a seat in UP through UP NEET PG
Counselling, which is a State Counselling Process. In the present case the
issue is with regard to seat allocation for which respondent No. 1
(situated as Delhi) is responsible.
44. Having held that this Court has jurisdiction to try the dispute at hand, I
shall now move on to the relief prayed by the petitioner.
45. It is demonstrated from the facts above that immediately upon securing
the admission with respondent No. 2, the petitioner took a prompt step to
resign from the respondent No. 5 institute. This reflects the bonafide on
behalf of the petitioner to secure his original documents. However,
despite his efforts the documents remained in the custody of the
respondent No. 5 which made it impossible for the petitioner to produce
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 24 of 27

the originals before the respondent No. 2 within the timeline stipulated.
This inability cannot be construed as a negligence or the lack of intent on
part of the petitioner rather it is a systemic failure on part of authorities
concerned.
46. The petitioner in the present case, is a meritorious student who has,
through substantial academic effort, hard work and merit based
competition, secured a seat in respondent No. 2 Institute. Admittedly,
once the petitioner has secured admission, there existed no mechanism
which enabled the petitioner to formally resign from the seat allotted at
respondent No. 5. The same is also evident from the letter dated
23.02.2026 reproduced above. The petitioner has secured the allotment of
seat in respondent No. 2 on merit and cannot be denied admission for
non-supply of documents which are under the respondent No. 5‟s
possession. Therefore, denial of admission to the petitioner solely on
account of non-production of documents which remained withheld by
respondent No. 5 would amount to penalising the petitioner for no fault
attributable to him.
47. The argument of the respondent No. 1 and 2 that the admission was
denied in strict compliance of the prospectus does not cut much ice. A
meritorious candidate cannot be made to suffer owing to systemic and
administrative deficiencies operating within the admission framework.
The rigidity of procedural requirements cannot be permitted to defeat
substantive justice, particularly where the eligibility and bona fides of the
candidate are otherwise undisputed. Rule and regulation are handmaid of
justice and cannot come in the way of Court granting substantive relief
who is not only meritorious and has secured admission in a fair
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 25 of 27

transparent and competitive manner.
48. It is also to be noted that the petitioner does not seek exemption from
verification, rather, the petitioner‟s case arises out of failure on part of the
respondent No. 5 to release the original documents in its custody which
made it physically impossible for the petitioner to produce them for
verification. Thus, the petitioner cannot be faulted for the circumstances
arising out of administrative vacuum and procedural inflexibility on part
of respondent No. 5 and other authorities concerned.

49. Reliance placed on Varun Kumar Agarwal (Supra) also does not help
the case of the respondents. Relying on the said judgment the respondents
argue that respondent No. 2 has correctly the rejected the candidature of
the petitioner as the submission of original documents was condition
precedent and was so clearly mentioned in the prospectus. The judgment
of Varun Kumar Agarwal (Supra) was predicated on the fact that AIIMS
had expanded the zone of consideration of students by changing the
contents of prospectus midway after the publication of the results. In the
present case, even though the prospectus lays down the requirement that
physical verification of the documents is necessary, the inability to do so
on part of the petitioner was due to the failure of the respondent No. 5 to
release the documents and the systemic failure which did not give option
to the petitioner to resign. The broader purpose of such physical
verification was to verify the identity of the petitioner. The same was
fulfilled by the coloured scans of the documents and the undertaking that
the documents were in possession of RDMC which was further fortified
by the independent letter of RDMC to DHGS. The prospectus cannot be
read rigidly so as to debar a meritorious candidate especially when the
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 26 of 27

larger purpose of the condition prescribed has been fulfilled.
50. The respondent No. 5 has been served as per the affidavit of service.
Despite service, there is nobody appearing on behalf of the respondent
No. 5.
CONCLUSION
51. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the
respondent No. 5 is directed to release the documents in its possession
within 1 week from the uploading of this order. The respondent No. 1 and
2 are further directed to accept the documents from the petitioner and if
found in order, grant admission to the petitioner in MD (Pharmacology)
course in the respondent No. 2.



JASMEET SINGH, J.
th
MAY 29 , 2026/(MU)

Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:54:42
W.P.(C) 3088/2026 Page 27 of 27