Supreme Court Rejects Plea Relating To AIIMS' Allotment Of PG Medical Seats On Institutional Preference

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a writ petition challenging the AIIMS' alleged practice of allotting over 50 percent medical seats of a particular discipline in post-graduation by way of 'Institutional Preference'.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe passed the order, observing that it was not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The question of law was however left open.

The petitioner, a 23-year old aspirant of a post-graduate medical course, filed the petition contending that the allotment of over 50% seats by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences by way of "Institutional Preference" was contrary to the Court's judgments in AIIMS' Students Union v. AIIMS and Ors. (2002) and Saurabh Chaudri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2003).

As per claims, she had appeared in INICET exam conducted by AIIMS and secured All India Rank 287. Her marks put her at 99.655 percentile and during the process, she opted for 6 disciplines across 17 institutes. But in the first round of counselling itself, the petitioner failed to secure a seat for any of the discipline at any of the institute.

Allegedly, candidates below the petitioner's rank secured seats based on "institutional preference". In the second round as well, the petitioner failed to secure a seat on the same grounds. Aggrieved, she filed the present petition.

It was contended that in the abovementioned judgments, the Supreme Court struck down "institutional reservation" but allowed "institutional preference" upto 50% of the seats available to open category. However, AIIMS has been allocating over 50% seats, and in some cases even 100% seats, to candidates qualifying for "institutional preference", she contended. The petitioner argued that as per the judgments, only preference could be given to candidates who undertook their MBBS at AIIMS, not reservation.

She further contended that the intent behind the aforementioned judgments was not to allow candidates who score low marks in the competitive exams to secure a seat to the detriment of candidates who scored higher. She also argued that AIIMS' practice of 'institutional reservation', instead of 'institutional preference' had a chilling effect on public health in the country, besides the same being violative of her rights under Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 41 of the Constitution. A violation of Article 21 was also claimed, contending that such 'reservation' risked persons having access to healthcare professional of low intent and acumen.

Among other reliefs, the petitioner prayed that she be allotted a seat in any one of the disciplines opted for. She further sought a mandamus restricting 'institutional preference' in post-graduate education to 50 percent.

Opposing the petitioner's stance, AIIMS filed a counter affidavit informing that the petitioner's failure to secure a seat was due to her own actions and not due to any omission or malafide act on behalf of AIIMS. It was further alleged that the petitioner suppressed many important facts.

The counter affidavit claimed that the petitioner secured a rank of 860 in the exam and was extremely selective in choosing 10 seats out of a total possible of 400. Further, there were only 75 unreserved seats in the subject/institution combination that she opted, and less than 20 of these were given based on institutional preference.

AIIMS also relied on a recent Supreme Court judgment, that is, Student Association AIIMS, Bhopal and Others v. AIIMS, New Delhi and Others, stating that it formed the basis for implementation of the institutional preference system followed by AIIMS. It claimed that the Supreme Court directed implementation of institutional preference through a roster system and the same was being followed.

"Institutional preference cannot exceed 50% of the total unreserved seats in any institution and also cannot exceed 50% of the MBBS seats at that institution. It is submitted that the actual number of seats permissible under Institutional Preference varies from 18% to 24% of all the PG seats available at various institutions", the affidavit stated.

Since under the top Court's directives, there was no subject-wise 'reservation' of seats for institutional preference, AIIMS also clarified that seats allocated for institutional preference can vary from discipline to discipline. This however is subject to the overall condition that the allocated seats will not exceed 50% of the unreserved seats at the institution. Subject-wise reservations provided only for SC, ST, OBC, EWS and PWD would be separate.

Considering the submissions of both sides, the Court refused to entertain the petition under Article 32 but left the question of law open.

The petition was drawn by Advocate Nikhil A Menon and filed through AoR Vipin Nair.

Appearance: Sr Adv PB Suresh, AoR Vipin Nair, Advocates PB Sashaankh, Aditya Narendranath, Haresh Nair, Deeksha Gupta, MB Ramya, Puspita Basak, Madhavi Yadav (for petitioner);

AoR Dushyant Parashar, Advocates Manu Parashar, Dinesh Pandey, Nagarjun Sahu, Ramprasad H Alva B, AoR Pranjal Kishore (for respondents)

Case Title: DR. SUKRIT NANDA M. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR., Writ Petition (C) No. 464 of 2024

Click here to read the order