Made To Run From Pillar To Post Due To Tussle Between Institutes Of National Importance: Delhi HC Grants Admission To 2 Doctors In Super Speciality Course At AIIMS

The Delhi High Court has granted admission to two young doctors who were declared ineligible for admission in the Super Speciality Program in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery and in Gastrointestinal Surgery, respectively, in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) for the session commencing from July 2024.

The aggrieved young doctors preferred Writ Petitions against the Office Memorandum and Notice by which they were denied admission.

A Single Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav remarked, “Unfortunately, the present matter is a classic case where the petitioners instead of focusing on their studies and contributing to the process of nation-building, have been made to run from pillar to post due to the tussle between the two Institutes of National Importance. In the given circumstances, the petitioners cannot be said to be at fault, rather the dispute appears to have arisen due to non-coordination between PGIMER Chandigarh, AIIMS and NMC as well as due to inaction and lack of clarity on the part of the institutions. Institutes of National Importance, such as AIIMS, play a crucial role in delivering quality education and producing skilled professionals who will ultimately serve the nation.”

The Bench also cautioned AIIMS, NMC (National Medical Commission), and other Institutes of national importance to maintain the highest standards befitting their professional stature.

Advocate Sameer Parekh appeared on behalf of the Petitioners while Advocates Anand Verma and Sudarshan Rajan appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Facts of the Case -

The Petitioners had completed their MBBS Degree from the Medical Colleges, New Delhi in the year 2018 and 2019 respectively and being desirous of pursuing post-graduation in MS (General Surgery), they made an Application for appearing in the Institute of National Importance-Combined Entrance Test (INI-CET Examination) for July 2021 session which was being conducted by AIIMS. However, due to the then prevailing COVID-19 pandemic in 2021, AIIMS issued a notification whereby the INI-CET Exam was rescheduled and accordingly, the Petitioners participated in the same. After declaration of results, the Petitioners were allotted seats at PGIMER-Chandigarh for the MS (General Surgery) program for the academic session 2021-2024. After a delay of around 48-51 days, the Petitioners got admission and then the PGIMER issued an authorisation slip indicating that the delay in joining shall be adjusted against the sanctioned due leaves in the 1st and 2nd year of the Course.

The Petitioners, on the pretext of such assurance on the part of PGIMER-Chandigarh, diligently continued their course and undertook all the required examinations. Thereafter, AIIMS issued a notification for online registration for the Institute of National Importance-Super Speciality Entrance Test (INI-SS Examination) and in order to pursue a super speciality course, the Petitioners registered for the same. They successfully qualified for the same and secured Ranks 1 and 2 in their respective specializations. They were allotted seats, however, to their utter surprise, AIIMS issued an Office Memorandum whereby they were declared ineligible. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners approached the High Court.

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “The foregoing discussion clearly leads to an indefeasible conclusion that AIIMS has failed to scrupulously follow the utmost professional standards while handling the case of the petitioners or even conducting the INI-SS examination, which otherwise it was reasonably expected to do. Being an Institute of National Importance, a bonafide duty is cast on AIIMS to not only adhere to the extant regulations but to also reflect a clear understanding in the brochures/prospectus/bulletin issued by it. An act on the part of the institution which takes the candidates by surprise at the sheer end of the selection process does not meet the judicial scrutiny, specifically because of the fact that the institution had ample opportunities of course correction in the facts of the case.”

The Court added that the conduct of PGIMER Chandigarh also reeks of logical inconsistencies and unprofessional standards which is not expected from an Institute of National Importance and therefore, deserves to be rebuked.

“… an even-handed assessment of PGIMER Chandigarh’s actions in handling the case of the petitioners highlights a pattern of lethargy, unprofessionalism and dilettante conduct. The mishandling on the part of PGIMER Chandigarh not only reflects poorly on its procedural and administrative efficiency but also demonstrates a lack of due diligence, accountability and high professional standards reasonably expected from an institution of its stature”, it further noted.

The Court said that a failure to adhere to a minimal standard of careful exercise by the authorities that are at the pinnacle of regulating and imparting medical education in India may result in detrimental effects which are profound and multifaceted.

“Thus, the very factum of the internal adjustment for availment or non-availment of leaves etc. and consequences thereto cannot be construed as attempting to dilute the stipulation of three completed years of the period of training, as required by AIIMS. Rather, it only focuses on the eligibility or pre-condition to appear in the postgraduate examination. If three completed years are sought to be interpreted by AIIMS to mean 36 months (1095 days), this interpretation cannot be faulted merely on the ground that certain relaxations are provided by PGIMER Chandigarh as per its notification or under leave rules etc. to appear in the examination”, it also noted.

The Court added that a need to uphold clarity and eliminate any form of ambiguity gains even more significance when the case relates to Institutes of National Importance, which are nothing but instrumentalities of the State, established in the national interest for catering to the public at large and are at the helm of imparting quality professional education in this Country.

“In essence, it would be a travesty of merit as also a blot on the unflinching faith reposed by the common man in the State, if such doctors brimming with brilliance are meted out with a treatment which endeavours to test their calibre not on merit but, unfortunately, on their ability to interpret unsaid terms and to navigate through bureaucratic mazes. It is disheartening to note that the deserving candidates who have gained the highest echelons in a gruelling examination process are made to suffer on account of overly convoluted procedural interpretations and also due to a lack of organisational coherence between the institutions of the same cluster”, it remarked.

Moreover, the Court said that it is imperative for such authorities to ensure that they have unblemished and unambiguous brochures, which are precise, clear, and free from any inconsistencies. It also observed that the said condition carries with itself an onerous expectation, especially in cases of crucial nature like admissions, which opens the door of opportunities for deserving students and therefore, these bodies must endeavour to meet such reasonable expectations with alacrity.

Accordingly, the High Court granted admission to the doctors and disposed of the Petitions.

Cause Title- Dr. Deepak Suresh Kumar & Anr. v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:9775)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Sameer Parekh, Sonali Basu Parekh, E.R. Kumar, Pratyusha Priyadarshini, and Aditi.

Respondents: SPC Umang Chopra, GPs Karan Malhotra, Aditya Malhotra, Advocates Anand Verma, Sudarshan Rajan, Apoorva Pandey, Ayush Gupta, Hitain Bajaj, Atyan Ahmed, Mahesh Kumar, and Ramesh Rawat.

Click here to read/download the Judgment