### Selection Process Deviating From Prospectus Guidelines Is Legally Vitiated Despite Candidate Participation Without Protest

The Petitioner, a qualified Obstetrician and Gynecologist, applied for the Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) Fellowship (January 2026 session) at AIIMS.

The Prospectus prescribed a two-stage selection process: Stage-I (Written Test - 60 marks) and Stage-II (Departmental clinical/practical/lab-based assessment - 40 marks).

The Petitioner secured the highest marks in Stage-I (52.667/60) compared to Respondent No. 3 (46.667/60).

However, Stage-II was conducted as an online CV-based interview via Google Meet rather than a practical/lab assessment.

Using this methodology, Respondent No. 3 scored 36/40, overtaking the Petitioner (26/40) in the final merit list.

The Petitioner challenged the result, alleging the deviation from the Prospectus was arbitrary and illegal.

Whether the selection process for Stage-II deviated from the mandatory terms of the Prospectus and thereby violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

Whether a candidate is estopped from challenging the selection process after participating in it and failing to secure a seat.

Whether the restrictions under the PCPNDT Act, 1994, prohibited the conduct of a clinical/practical/lab-based assessment for entrance purposes.

The Court primarily applied the principle that a Prospectus is a binding "force of law" upon both the candidates and the selecting authority, as established in *Punjab Engineering College v. Sanjay Gulati* and *Varun Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India*.

The court also applied the doctrine of "no estoppel against illegality" from *Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar*, which holds that while a candidate accepts the procedure by participating, they do not accept patent illegalities or deviations from statutory/notified rules.

Furthermore, the court referred to the *PCPNDT Act, 1994*, specifically Section 4, determining it regulates diagnostic techniques but does not categorize academic/skill assessments using simulators or "phantoms" as illegal.

The Court found that the phrase "departmental clinical/practical/lab-based assessment" in the Prospectus created a mandatory expectation of physical skill evaluation which cannot be substituted by an online CV-based interview.

Such a change in evaluation criteria mid-stream constitutes an impermissible deviation from the Prospectus.

Regarding estoppel, the Court reasoned that the Petitioner had only one week between the Stage-I result and Stage-II assessment, making it impractical to file a challenge beforehand.

Following *Meeta Sahai*, the Court held that participating in a process does not waive the right to challenge its fundamental illegality, as the "rules of the game" were changed after the process commenced.

The Court rejected AIIMS's defense regarding the PCPNDT Act, noting that the Act only bars sex selection (Section 6) and not medical skill assessments, which could have been conducted via simulators or video loops without violating the law.

The Court quashed the Stage-II result for the MFM Fellowship declared on 22.12.2025 and directed AIIMS to reconduct the Stage-II assessment strictly in accordance with the "departmental clinical/practical/lab-based assessment" criteria mentioned in the Prospectus.

The interim stay on the seat allocation was ordered to continue until the assessment is reconducted.