Delhi HC Upholds Cumulative PG Residency Across Institutions; Dismisses AIIMS Appeal in INI-SS Admission Dispute

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and upheld a single-judge ruling restoring the candidature of a top-ranked aspirant in the Institute of National Importance Super-Specialty Entrance Test (INI-SS) for admission to the DM (Critical Care Medicine) course.

The Court held that the required postgraduate residency experience could be counted cumulatively across recognised institutions and that eligibility conditions cannot be expanded beyond what is expressly stated in the governing prospectus.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia affirmed the earlier order and ruled that the requirement of 1,095 days of postgraduate residency did not mandate completion of the entire training in a single institution.

Observing that the governing prospectus did not impose such a restriction, the bench dismissed AIIMS’ appeal and reiterated that academic eligibility must be determined strictly on the basis of clear and explicit conditions.

The Court emphasised that institutions cannot read additional requirements into admission rules that are not expressly stipulated.

It observed that once the language of the prospectus is clear, eligibility cannot be made subject to interpretations or administrative discretion that introduce new conditions not borne out from its plain wording.

The dispute arose in relation to admission to the January 2026 session of the DM (Critical Care Medicine) programme, conducted through the INI-SS entrance examination.

The relevant eligibility clause required candidates to complete three years of postgraduate residency, amounting to 1,095 days, by the prescribed cut-off date.

The respondent candidate had completed postgraduate residency in Anaesthesiology across three recognised medical institutions through successive rounds of authorised counselling.

The cumulative duration of his residency exceeded the prescribed requirement. Upon completion of his training, he was awarded an MD degree, certifying that he had fulfilled the required tenure in accordance with the applicable medical education regulations.

Despite successfully qualifying the entrance examination and being provisionally treated as eligible at various stages of the selection process, the candidate’s candidature was later cancelled.

AIIMS took the view that the residency experience had to be acquired entirely from a single institution and that fragmented residency across multiple institutions compromised training standards.

Challenging the decision, the candidate argued that neither the prospectus nor the governing regulations mandated completion of residency from one institution.

He contended that the eligibility condition merely required completion of three years of residency, without prescribing the institutional source from which such training must be obtained.

While interpreting Clause 4.3.2 of the prospectus, the High Court held that a plain reading of the provision only required the candidate to possess the requisite qualification and complete the prescribed tenure of three years by the stipulated date.

The clause, the Court noted, was silent on whether such residency had to be undertaken in a single institution.

Rejecting AIIMS’ argument that such a requirement could be implied, the bench observed that any eligibility condition must be clear, explicit and uniformly applicable.

It added that institutions cannot impose additional criteria by interpretation when the governing prospectus does not expressly provide for them.

The Court also noted that AIIMS itself had previously adopted a flexible interpretation of similar eligibility conditions. Referring to an earlier case concerning Dr. Jay Mehta, the bench recorded that AIIMS had agreed to consider experience gained after the award of an MD degree.

In that context, the Court observed that it was difficult to appreciate why the 96 days of senior residency experience gained by the respondent after completion of his MD degree could not be counted towards the prescribed eligibility requirement.

The bench further observed that there was no allegation that the candidate had suppressed any information during the application process. On the contrary, he had made full disclosure of his academic and residency background while submitting his application for the super-specialty entrance examination.

Taking note of the material on record, the Court held that the respondent had completed 1,026 days of residency during the course of his MD programme and had thereafter acquired an additional 96 days of senior residency experience, resulting in a cumulative total of 1,122 days of residency experience.

This period, the Court observed, clearly exceeded the prescribed requirement of 1,095 days under the prospectus.

The Court further clarified that the residency experience which culminated in the award of the MD degree was the relevant consideration for determining eligibility.

In the present case, although the respondent had undergone training at two earlier institutions, the MD degree was ultimately awarded on the basis of the residency completed at GCS Medical College, Ahmedabad, which satisfied the regulatory framework governing postgraduate medical education.

Significantly, the bench also recorded that AIIMS had not raised any objection to the respondent’s residency background during earlier stages of the admission process.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the subsequent cancellation of the candidature lacked justification and did not withstand judicial scrutiny.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the single-judge ruling restoring the candidate’s candidature.

Reiterating a broader principle governing academic admissions, the Court observed that eligibility criteria must be interpreted strictly in accordance with the express terms of the governing prospectus and cannot be expanded through administrative interpretation.

Case Title: All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors. v. Meet Bhadresh Shah

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia

Date of Judgment: 28.02.2026