Delhi High Court: While considering a Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 16-7-2013 (‘impugned order’), whereby the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) (‘appellant’) was directed to pay emoluments to foreign-national postgraduate students at par with the Indian Junior Residents, the Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal*, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ, held that the seats under the ‘Foreign National’ category had been deliberately created as ‘no financial liability’ seats, outside the general merit pool, managed through diplomatic channels.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned judgement.
Background
The respondents were a group of foreign national doctors admitted to AIIMs in postgraduate courses under the category titled ‘Sponsored /Foreign National’. Their admission was made pursuant to the AIIMS prospectus, which contained Clause 2(c) and 2(f) in Section VIII, expressly stating that candidates admitted under the said category would not be entitled to any emoluments from the institute.
The respondents had asserted that even though they had been categorized along with ‘sponsored candidates’, they were in fact neither sponsored by their home government, nor did they have any financial support. They claimed that the denial of stipend was solely based on nationality despite undergoing the same training and performing the same duties as the Indian Junior Residents.
The appellant on the other hand had contended that that the seat for foreign nationals and sponsored candidates had been created as ‘no-financial liability seats’. They had further contended that the respondents had been duly informed of the conditions of admission through the prospectus, and having accepted the same, the respondents were estopped from demanding parity with Indian citizens for stipend after they have availed the benefit of a distinct and less competitive category.
The Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment had partly allowed the writ petitions before it, declaring Clauses 2(c) and (f) unconstitutional to the extent that they denied stipend to non-sponsored foreign nationals.
The appellant preferred the instant Letters Patent Appeal challenging the impugned order. The Court considered the following issues:
-
Whether foreign-national medical trainees admitted under the ‘Foreign’ category form a separate and intelligibly distinct class, justifying differential emoluments treatment.
-
Whether acceptance of prospectus conditions bars the respondents from challenging the stipulation on constitutional grounds.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court passed the following observations:
i. Whether foreign-national medical trainees admitted under the ‘Foreign’ category form a separate and intelligibly distinct class, justifying differential emoluments treatment.
With regards to the first issue, the Court noted that the ‘Foreign’ category seats had been created pursuant to governmental communication under a ‘no-financial-liability’ condition. The distinction flows not merely from nationality but from the architecture of such seats.
Reiterating the principles under Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court noted that the twin test of intelligible differentia and rational nexus stood satisfied. According to the Court, the creation of a distinct category of ‘Sponsored/Foreign National’ seats for admission which were managed through diplomatic channels and inter-ministerial communications and were filled outside the open and general merit pool, constituted an intelligible differentia. The term ‘foreign nationals’ did not merely denote nationality but also included a different mode of selection i.e. through diplomatic or ministerial channel rather than open domestic competition and an express admission term that the institute would assume no financial liability in respect of such seats.
On the question rational nexus to the object sough to be achieved, the Court noted that the purpose of creating ‘Sponsored/Foreign National’ category was to facilitate international academic cooperation, honour foreign-policy commitments, and provide a limited channel for foreign medical graduates to train in India without financial liability to AIIMS. These objectives have been incorporated in the prospectus which clearly states that candidates admitted under this category ‘would not be entitled to emoluments’. It makes logical sense that AIIMS should not incur financial liability for trainees admitted under international cooperation agreements.
The Court further stated that,
“As a publicly funded institution, AIIMS is obligated to prioritise stipendiary payments for domestic students who are beneficiaries of Indian taxpayer funds and expected to contribute to the national healthcare system. Extending such benefits to foreign/sponsored students who neither contribute to the domestic tax base nor form part of the national service pipeline would defeat the very fiscal rationale underlying their separate categorisation.”
In light of the same, the Court opined that the nexus is clear, proximate and constitutionally sufficient. Thus, the Court held that the clause specifying differential emolument treatments to candidates admitted under the ‘Sponsored/Foreign National’ category was justified and constitutionally sustainable.
ii. Whether acceptance of prospectus conditions bars the respondents from challenging the stipulation on constitutional grounds.
The Court noted that the prospectus clearly stipulated that no emoluments would be payable to the candidates applying under the ‘Foreign National’ category. Thereafter, having accepted admission, completed enrolment formalities, and availed the distinct procedural and competitive advantages of a category characterised by reduced competition and a non-stipendiary framework, the respondents cannot subsequently seek to reprobate the very conditions they had consciously approbated.
The Court opined that the doctrine of election would apply i.e., a candidate who knowingly accepts the rules of a special admission channel, acts upon them, and derives benefit therefrom, is barred from challenging those terms at a later stage.
Thus, the Court held that since the policy itself is valid and the respondents had full notice of the rules, they are estopped from challenging them later.
Therefore, the Court noted that the classification of ‘Foreign National’ candidates satisfies both limbs of the twin test under Article 14 of the Constitution and is constitutionally sound. Since the respondents had voluntarily opted for and taken benefit of the special admission route with full knowledge of its terms, there were estopped from seeking parity of stipend.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the instant appeals.
[All India Institute of Medical Science v. Dr. Sanjay Lumar Yadav, L.P.A. No. 787 of 2013, decided on 21-11-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Anil Kshetarpal
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Anand Varma, Ayush Gupta, Polavarapur Sai Charan, Advocates
For the Respondent: Anupam Srivastava, Senior Advocate, Nitin K. Gupta, Ayushi Arya, Pranjal Vyas, Vasuh Misra, Singhdev, Tanishq Srivastava, Yamini Singh, Abhijit Chakravarty, Sourabh Kumar, Vedant Sood, Advocates