W.P.(C)/13420/2022 of SUCHETA Vs ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004061

*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHIReserved on: 28[th]September, 2022Pronounced on: 06[th]October, 2022

+W.P.(C) 13420/2022 & CM APPL. 40750/2022 (interim relief)

SUCHETA

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr.SanthoshKrishnanandMs.Deepshikha Sansanwal, Advocates.versus

ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE ..... Respondent

Through:Mr.V.S.R.KrishnaandMr.V.Shashank Kumar, Advocates.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

J U M N T

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1.Petitioner, nurse employed as Nursing Tutor (Faculty Cadre) atCollege of Nursing of Respondent – All India Institute of Medical Sciences,New Delhi [hereinafter “AIIMS”] has impugned the Memorandum dated 12[th]September, 2022 whereby she has been denied admission to M.Sc.(Psychiatry Nursing) under the category of “In-service candidate”, on theground of ineligibility.

BRIEF FACTS

Admission in M.Sc. Nursing course for 2021 session

2.Petitioner is employed with AIIMS as Nurse since 2004. Shecompleted her B.Sc. (Hons.) Nursing course from AIIMS itself and enrolled

as Nurse with the Delhi Nursing Council and then as “Tutor in Nursing”with AIIMS.

3.She applied for admission to M.Sc. (Paediatric Nursing) course underthe “In-service” category for 2021 session, appeared in the entranceexamination and obtained Rank 201. When she was not allotted the seat andinstead, another candidate who obtained lower Rank of 232 was selected,she made representation to the Dean (Examination), AIIMS, vide letterdated 21[st]August, 2021.

4.Vide Memorandum dated 31[st]August, 2021, Petitioner was grantedprovisional admission to the aforesaid course, as an “In-service” candidate.[1]Subsequently,videMemorandumdated15[th]September,2021herprovisional admission was cancelled and she was informed that “In-service”reservation is only for “Nursing staff i.e. Nursing Officer. Hence, she is noteligible for In-service (Paediatric Nursing) seat being Nursing Tutor, as perexisting eligibility criteria”.

Admission in M.Sc. Nursing course for 2022 session

5.For the year 2022, Admission Notice was published on 29[th]April,2022, followed by the Prospectus on 09[th]May, 2022 [hereinafter “theProspectus”]. Admission in M.Sc. (Nursing), M.Sc. courses and M.

1 In W.P.(C) 9413/2021 – filed by Ramgopal Sharma against denial of admission/disqualification. In thesaid petition, AIIMS informed the Court (on 03[rd]September, 2021) that they have provisionally admittedanother candidate (Petitioner herein) in the second round of counselling and the Court, finding primafacie case in favour of Ramgopal Sharma, directed maintenance of status quo with regard to admission tothe Course in the “In-service” category. Vide final judgment dated 10[th]November, 2021 – the impugneddecision of AIIMS was set-aside and Ramgopal Sharma was directed to be admitted in the course againstthe seat reserved for “In-service” category.said petition, AIIMS informed the Court (on 03[rd]September, 2021) that they have provisionally admittedanother candidate (Petitioner herein) in the second round of counselling and the Court, finding primafacie case in favour of Ramgopal Sharma, directed maintenance of status quo with regard to admission tothe Course in the “In-service” category. Vide final judgment dated 10[th]November, 2021 – the impugneddecision of AIIMS was set-aside and Ramgopal Sharma was directed to be admitted in the course againstthe seat reserved for “In-service” category.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004061

Biotechnology. Under M.Sc. (Nursing) course, seven specialties are coveredwhich includes Psychiatry Nursing. In addition to the seats offered underdifferent categories, one seat in each specialty is reserved for AIIMS “In-service” candidates.

6.Petitioner, employed as Nursing Tutor (Faculty Cadre) applied forM.Sc. (Psychiatry Nursing) course [hereinafter “Course”] and for thispurpose, she was granted ‘No Objection Certificate’ on 20[th]May, 2022.She secured 91.843 marks and an overall Rank 225, amongst 1378 qualifiedcandidates. Thereafter, AIIMS issued Seat Allocation Slip on 08[th]September, 2022 notifying her that she was allotted the category of “AIIMSNew Delhi In-service” against the Course selected by her.

7.Shortly thereafter, AIIMS issued the impugned Memorandum dated12[th]September, 2022 [hereinafter “impugned notice”] whereby Petitionerwas intimated that her candidature cannot be considered against the seatunder “In-service” category, owing to her ineligibility. The said notice readsas under: -

“MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Admission to M.Sc. (Psychiatry Nursing) Course atthe AIIMS, New Delhi for Aug., 2022 Session.

With reference to result Notification NO. 156/2022 dated 8.9.2022Ms. Sucheta has been allotted M.Sc In-service (Psychiatry Nursing) seat.At the time of document verification it has been observed that she hasbeen working as Nursing Tutor (Faculty Cadre) and the seats are reservedfor In-service candidates only.

The matter has been examined by the Competent Authority,accordingly she has not been considered against the above seat.”

8.Aggrieved by the above decision, the instant petition has been filed.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIESOf Petitioner

9.Mr. Santhosh Krishnan, counsel for Petitioner, argues that theimpugned notice is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and thus, liable to be set-asidefor the following reasons: -

9.1.The term “In-service” is not defined in the Prospectus and it does notdisqualify “Nursing Tutors” working at AIIMS from availingreservation for “In-service” candidates and sans distinction betweenNursing Tutors and Nursing Staff, disqualification cannot be assumed.The term “In-service” must be given its natural and literal meaning.Petitioner’s application was processed as an “In-service” candidate tillissuance of the impugned notice on 12[th]September, 2022. AIIMScannot reasonably contend that till the final stage of admission i.e.,“document verification”, it is justified in disclosing the restrictivecondition as to eligibility.disqualify “Nursing Tutors” working at AIIMS from availingreservation for “In-service” candidates and sans distinction betweenNursing Tutors and Nursing Staff, disqualification cannot be assumed.The term “In-service” must be given its natural and literal meaning.Petitioner’s application was processed as an “In-service” candidate tillissuance of the impugned notice on 12[th]September, 2022. AIIMScannot reasonably contend that till the final stage of admission i.e.,“document verification”, it is justified in disclosing the restrictivecondition as to eligibility.

9.2.The rationale for classification must be evident from the records andalso judicially sustainable. The documents annexed along with thecounter-affidavit filed by AIIMS only seek to provide existence ofsuch classification which cannot, operate as valid justification.also judicially sustainable. The documents annexed along with thecounter-affidavit filed by AIIMS only seek to provide existence ofsuch classification which cannot, operate as valid justification.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004061

9.3.There is no statutory provision or subordinate legislation whichentails that the term “In-service” candidates would imply exclusion ofstaff working at College of Nursing of AIIMS. Even if there is anexecutive instruction issued to such effect, the same would be ultravires of the AIIMS Act, 1956 and AIIMS Regulations, 2019, whichdoes not provide for any distinction under “In-service” cadres (i.e.,Nursing Tutors and Nursing Staff), as claimed by AIIMS by virtue ofimpugned notice. The executive instruction cannot traverse beyondthe statute or subordinate legislation.entails that the term “In-service” candidates would imply exclusion ofstaff working at College of Nursing of AIIMS. Even if there is anexecutive instruction issued to such effect, the same would be ultravires of the AIIMS Act, 1956 and AIIMS Regulations, 2019, whichdoes not provide for any distinction under “In-service” cadres (i.e.,Nursing Tutors and Nursing Staff), as claimed by AIIMS by virtue ofimpugned notice. The executive instruction cannot traverse beyondthe statute or subordinate legislation.

9.4.No estoppel can lie against Petitioner from challenging post-factodisqualificationbyAIIMSnotwithstandingthefactthatsheparticipatedintheselectionprocess.[2]Petitioner’sprovisionaladmission last year (2021) was injuncted by this Court vide ordersdated 02[nd]September, 2021 and 03[rd]September, 2021 (in W.P.(C)9413/2021). Considering that the said writ was allowed in favour ofPetitioner therein (viz. Mr. Ramgopal Sharma), Petitioner could notpossibly challenge the Memorandum dated 15[th]September, 2021.disqualificationbyAIIMSnotwithstandingthefactthatsheparticipatedintheselectionprocess.[2]Petitioner’sprovisionaladmission last year (2021) was injuncted by this Court vide ordersdated 02[nd]September, 2021 and 03[rd]September, 2021 (in W.P.(C)9413/2021). Considering that the said writ was allowed in favour ofPetitioner therein (viz. Mr. Ramgopal Sharma), Petitioner could notpossibly challenge the Memorandum dated 15[th]September, 2021.

Of AIIMS

10.Per contra, Mr. V.S.R. Krishna and Mr. V. Shashank Kumar, counselfor AIIMS, make the following submissions: -for AIIMS, make the following submissions: -

10.1. There is distinction of cadres vis-à-vis Nursing Staff (i.e., NursingOfficers) and Nursing Tutors and pursuant to policy decision takenby AIIMS, benefit of reservation for “In-service” seats extends toOfficers) and Nursing Tutors and pursuant to policy decision takenby AIIMS, benefit of reservation for “In-service” seats extends to

2 Reliance is placed on Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2019) 20 SCC 17.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004061

Nursing Staff only. Petitioner, being Nursing Tutor is thus,ineligible for reservation under the “In-service” category. Theimpugned notice cannot be faulted with since she was aware of herdisqualification for obtaining reservation qua “In-service” seat since15[th]September, 2021 i.e., the date when the Memorandum was issuedby AIIMS withdrawing her admission. She is estopped from claimingthat she was unaware of her ineligibility since the same was disclosedin year 2021 and she, nevertheless, went on to participate incounselling as an “In-service” candidate in 2022. Thus, Petitioner,being aware of the rules of examination, cannot now approach thisCourt challenging the same.

10.2. Benefit of “In-service” reservation extended only to Nurse Staff/nursepersonnel, who were posted within the hospital and performingclinical duties so they can upgrade their knowledge for better patientcare and the benefit was not applicable to Nurse Tutors/faculty cadresince, they are primarily concerned with teaching academic courses.There is reasonable and intelligible differentia between the two cadresand in fact, even promotional hierarchies are different and grantingreservation to faculty cadre for M.Sc. (Nursing) course would requireconsideration and assessment by AIIMS of various administrativeexigencies. Reliance is placed on decision of the Apex Court inState of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan,[3]to contendthat the classification under the “In-service” category is based onreasonable and intelligible differentia since Nursing Staff at AIIMSpersonnel, who were posted within the hospital and performingclinical duties so they can upgrade their knowledge for better patientcare and the benefit was not applicable to Nurse Tutors/faculty cadresince, they are primarily concerned with teaching academic courses.There is reasonable and intelligible differentia between the two cadresand in fact, even promotional hierarchies are different and grantingreservation to faculty cadre for M.Sc. (Nursing) course would requireconsideration and assessment by AIIMS of various administrativeexigencies. Reliance is placed on decision of the Apex Court inState of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan,[3]to contendthat the classification under the “In-service” category is based onreasonable and intelligible differentia since Nursing Staff at AIIMS

3 (2016) 9 SCC 749.

are essentially in nature of “frontline workers” who are “involved inpatient care and treatment are being allowed to upgrade their skillsand render service towards patient care”.

10.3. Reservation for “Nursing Tutors” in M.Sc. (Nursing) course is underactive consideration. proposal for extending the benefit ofreservation under the “In-service” category to “Nursing Tutors” aswell, has been circulated by AIIMS, which is pending approval fromDeans’ Committee.active consideration. proposal for extending the benefit ofreservation under the “In-service” category to “Nursing Tutors” aswell, has been circulated by AIIMS, which is pending approval fromDeans’ Committee.

10.4. In response to AIIMS’ communication addressed to the Principal ofthe College of Nursing, AIIMS whereby they proposed “reservationof 10 seats for the M.Sc. Nursing course […] for Nursing Staff” – thePrincipal of College of Nursing vide response dated 03[rd]November,2015, suggested that one seat may be reserved for “Tutors working inCollege of Nursing, AIIMS”. This communication signifies that therehas always been an understanding and clear distinction of cadres atAIIMS; Nursing Staff and Nursing Tutors are separate. Subsequently,when the proposal qua reservation was placed before the AcademicCommittee, in the meeting dated 16[th]June, 2016 – it was decided andthat seats be reserved “for Nursing Staff at AIIMS”. Therefore,admission of the Petitioner in the Course was rightly rejected videimpugned notice. It is evident from the documents annexed with thecounter-affidavit that AIIMS, after due deliberation and consideration,granted reservation only to Nursing Staff and not Nursing Tutors andnot defining “In-service” in the Prospectus is not fatal to their case.the College of Nursing, AIIMS whereby they proposed “reservationof 10 seats for the M.Sc. Nursing course […] for Nursing Staff” – thePrincipal of College of Nursing vide response dated 03[rd]November,2015, suggested that one seat may be reserved for “Tutors working inCollege of Nursing, AIIMS”. This communication signifies that therehas always been an understanding and clear distinction of cadres atAIIMS; Nursing Staff and Nursing Tutors are separate. Subsequently,when the proposal qua reservation was placed before the AcademicCommittee, in the meeting dated 16[th]June, 2016 – it was decided andthat seats be reserved “for Nursing Staff at AIIMS”. Therefore,admission of the Petitioner in the Course was rightly rejected videimpugned notice. It is evident from the documents annexed with thecounter-affidavit that AIIMS, after due deliberation and consideration,granted reservation only to Nursing Staff and not Nursing Tutors andnot defining “In-service” in the Prospectus is not fatal to their case.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004061

To buttress this contention, reliance is placed on Karnati Ravi & Anr.v. Commissioner, Survey Settlements and Land Records & Ors.[4]

10.5. It is well-settled that courts have limited powers of judicial review inmatters relating to an administrative/policy decision taken in exerciseof its discretionary powers. Courts cannot interfere with suchdecisions on the ground of exploring better/fairer alternative.[5]matters relating to an administrative/policy decision taken in exerciseof its discretionary powers. Courts cannot interfere with suchdecisions on the ground of exploring better/fairer alternative.[5]

ANALYSIS

11.AIIMS has denied the benefit of reservation under the category of“In-service” candidate to the Petitioner who is concededly working as aNurse in the Faculty cadre at College of Nursing of AIIMS. Thedisqualification stems from impugned notice, extracted above and in thatlight, following questions arise for consideration: (a) Whether Petitioner isan “In-service” candidate for the purpose of admission to M.Sc. (PsychiatryNursing) course in terms of the Prospectus; (b) Whether there is any rationalbasis for classification between Nursing Staff and Tutors, in relation to “In-service” seats; and (c) Whether Petitioner is estopped from challenging theimpugned notice.

12.It is undisputed that Petitioner enrolled at AIIMS and received herB.Sc. (Nursing) degree from the said institute and since 2004, she has beenemployed as “Tutor in Nursing” at AIIMS.[6]Desirous of pursing highereducation, she registered for AIIMS M.Sc. entrance examinations – 2022

4 (2018) 12 SCC 635.

5 Reliance is placed on Directorate of Film Festivals & Ors. v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors., (2007) 4SCC 737.SCC 737.

6 Vide appointment letter dated 17th April, 2004.

and thereafter sat for the entrance examination. She was allotted seat under“AIIMS New Delhi In-Service” category on 08[th]September, 2022 vide SeatAllocation Slip, which was issued to Petitioner and reads as under: -

13.It is thus evident that until 08[th]September, 2022, AIIMS consideredthe Petitioner as “AIIMS New Delhi In-Service” candidate. No distinctionwas carved out until issuance of the impugned notice on 12[th]September,2022 vis-à-vis Petitioner wherein AIIMS narrowed the zone of considerationby creating sub-category, within the “In-service” category, resulting increation of sub-class/genus which finds no mention in the Prospectus. Inthat light, it is apposite to extract the relevant portion contained in theProspectus, which deals with availability of seats and reservation qua suchseats for “AIIMS In-service Candidate” under M.Sc. (Nursing) course: -

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004061

14.As can be seen from the above, the second bullet at the footerprovides for reservation for “AIIMS, New Delhi Candidate (in-service) forM.Sc. (Nursing)”. The Prospectus, on the basis whereof Petitioner as well asthe other candidates appeared in the entrance examination, clearly uses the”words “AIIMS, New Delhi Candidate (in-service). In absence of any othercondition stipulated, the category of “In-service” has to be given it’s natural

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004061

and common textual meaning. If the intent of AIIMS was to limitreservation under “In-service” category only for Nursing Staff or NursingOfficers, they ought to have mentioned the same in the Prospectus so thatprospective candidates were aware of the eligibility/qualifying criterion.After selection process has commenced, the ground rules cannot be alteredmidway.[7]The Court finds merit in Petitioner’s contention that AIIMS, videimpugned notice, belatedly inserted qualifying criteria qua reserved seatsunder “In-service” category, without any rationale, thereby diminishing thesanctity of the Prospectus. The Prospectus contains information quaadmission and is binding on all candidates as well as on the executivemachinery that issued the same containing the criterion for selection andadmission, which is not open for whimsical alteration. It is well-settled thatthe prospectus/brochure is not merely declaratory in nature is required tobe followed in its letter and spirit and should not be transgressed. Aspirantsof M.Sc. (Nursing) course, who fall within the reservation criteria as per theProspectus, cannot be ousted, by introducing amendments to the Prospectusvide impugned notice (as in the present case), corrigendum.[8]If it isconstrued that the Prospectus is silent regarding classification, even thendisqualification cannot be assumed, implied, or read, against the Petitioner.

15.AIIMS seeks to justify distinction between “In-service” Nursing Staffand Tutors by relying on following documents placed on record along withthe counter-affidavit: -

7 See: Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University & Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 555. Relevant paragraphNo. 24.

8 See: Varun Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 1133.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004061

(i)The communication issued by Principal of College of Nursing, AIIMSon 03[rd]November, 2015, in response to the proposal of AIIMS quareservation. The above noted communication only mentions that thePrincipal, College of Nursing, has no objection qua reservationtowards Nursing Tutors, however, no distinction is mentioned insofaron 03[rd]November, 2015, in response to the proposal of AIIMS quareservation. The above noted communication only mentions that thePrincipal, College of Nursing, has no objection qua reservationtowards Nursing Tutors, however, no distinction is mentioned insofar

as “In-service” seats are concerned.

(ii)Minutes of 114[th]Academic Committee Meeting held on 16[th]June,2016 provides that the proposal of reservation of seven seat for M.Sc.Nursing course is only qua “Nursing Staff” and not “Nursing Tutors”.Relevant portion of the minutes reads as under: -2016 provides that the proposal of reservation of seven seat for M.Sc.Nursing course is only qua “Nursing Staff” and not “Nursing Tutors”.Relevant portion of the minutes reads as under: -

“Item No. 14Proposal for reservation of 07 seats for M.Sc. Nursing coursein the College of Nursing, AIIMS, New Delhi for NursingStaff at AIIMSin the College of Nursing, AIIMS, New Delhi for NursingStaff at AIIMS

Proposal for reservation of 07 seats for M.Sc. Nursingcourses in the College of Nursing was discussed. Thecommittee members were informed that these seats areover and above the number of already sanctioned seats inMSc Nursing courses at AIIMS and will be available forIn Service Candidates only.

Chairman desired to know about the reservation status inM.Sc. Nursing Courses at AIIMS. He was informed thatpoint based reservation roster system is followed atAIIMS New Delhi and the same is applicable in M. Sc.Courses as well. The proposal was approved.”

[Bold in original]

Reliance has also been placed on Minutes of Meeting with therepresentatives of Nurses Union, AIIMS held on 14[th]July, 2017which provides that – “as per decision in the meeting with regard tohigher studies, it was informed that 7 seats in M.Sc. nursing will be

created to exclusively AIIMS nurses staff”. Both these documents donot contain an express disqualification and/or condition that “NursingStaff” excludes “Nursing Tutors” or should be read as such. Item No.14, extracted above, provides that the seats available for reservationare for “In Service Candidates only”.

(iii)E-mail communication dated 21[st]August, 2021 addressed to AIIMSDean, Academic Section, etc. from the Principal of College ofNursing (reproduced below) and Office Note dated 09[th]September,2021 [Annexure R-8 of counter-affidavit]: -

The above documents do not support AIIMS’ case that there wasalways clarity regarding the ambit of “In-service” seats for M.Sc.Nursing course. On perusal of the above e-mail communication, it is

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004061

evident that among AIIMS authorities, there appears to be someambiguity regarding the scope of “In-service” category. Additionally,both E-mail as well as the Note reproduced above were both issued inrelation to admission of the Petitioner for academic session 2021.

(iv)Note of Deans’ Committee, AIIMS [Re: ‘Attrition of M.Sc. Nursingstudents Increase in In-service seats’] and Office Memorandum dated04[th]August, 2022 issued by Academic Section, AIIMS. The abovedocuments reveal that the proposal of reservation of two seats under“In-service” category for Nursing Tutors (in relation to Paediatric andOncology specialities) is pending approval of the Deans’ Committee.These documents cannot be construed to hold that Petitioner isineligible to seek reservation under the “In-service” category, merelybecause proposal for the same is floated and pending approval. Thatapart, the proposal floated does not pertains to the speciality thatPetitioner seeks to pursue i.e., M.Sc. (Psychiatry Nursing) course.

16.In nutshell, the afore-noted documents do not disclose any rationaleor scientific basis for such classification and neither any justification hasbeen provided therein for disqualifying the Petitioner.

17.AIIMS has also tried to justify the classification/differentiationbetween Nursing Staff and Tutors for additional reasons disclosed in thecounter-affidavit, which find no mention in the above documents. They haveargued that duties, functions, promotional hierarchy, recruitment rules, pay,cadre, etc. of Nursing Staff and Tutor vary. However, this classification is

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004061

ex-facie arbitrary and discriminatory. The above criteria have no relevanceto the issue at hand as the Court is only concerned with eligibility criteria forpursuing higher qualifications and not promotional avenues. The onlyrequirement as per the Prospectus, as noted above, in order to claim benefitof reservation is for prospective candidate to be “In-service”. For thispurpose, distinction between the two cadres is an unreasonable classificationand is therefore, not sustainable. The plea of administrative exigency is avague term deployed only to deflect the challenge. The upgradation of skillsof “Nursing Staff” performing clinical duties is no doubt essential, but thensuch augmentation of skill set for “Nursing Tutors” is equally important asthey ultimately teach other Nursing Staff, who are involved in active patientcare. In order to improve and enhance medical facilities, distinction forreservation being confined only to clinical Nursing Staff, would therefore,not meet the objective, which is sought to be projected in the arguments andfinds no mention in the documents annexed with counter-affidavit.

18.AIIMS has also laid emphasis on the principle of minimal judicialinterference in such matters. Indeed, the same is well-settled proposition.However, approach of the decision-maker, in this case AIIMS, is notimmune from scrutiny, and is liable to be tested on the anvil ofarbitrariness.[9]The Court is bound to ensure that the admission processremains just and reasonable from the perspective of candidates as well.

19.On the ground of estoppel, the Court finds that in light of facts notedabove, Petitioner cannot be precluded from challenging the impugned notice

9 See: Sanchit Bansal and Anr. v. Joint Admission Board and Ors., (2012) 1 SCC 157.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004061

on the ground that she participated in counselling as an “In-service”candidate. By participation in the selection process, she only accepted theprescribed procedure and not the illegality of the same. Merely because shehas participated in the selection process for 2022, would therefore, not betantamount to curtailing her rights vis-à-vis challenging the impugned noticeissued by AIIMS subsequently. There cannot also be any estoppel againstthe Petitioner qua enforcement of fundamental right including Article 14 ofthe Constitution of India, 1950. (See: Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State ofBihar and Ors.)[10]. AIIMS has relied on the decision of the Apex Court inKarnati Ravi (supra), however, the same does not come to their aid sincethe selection process therein was within the knowledge of prospectivecandidates. In the present case, the Prospectus is silent in relation to theclassification between “In-service” Nursing Staff and Tutors. In case AIIMSintended to insert an eligibility within the “In-service” cadre, it was requiredto do so in the Prospectus itself and not by way of the impugned notice.[11]

20.AIIMS has also argued that Petitioner is estopped from instituting thepresent petition because she was aware that she was not an “In-service”candidate; considerable reliance in this regard has been placed on theMemorandum dated 15[th]September, 2021. According to them, sincePetitioner did not challenge the same last year, she cannot challenge it forthe present year. In the opinion of the Court, this is again misconceivedplea. Petitioner has explained that challenging the Memorandum pertaining

10 (2019) 20 SCC 17.

11 Mr. Krishnan argues that any such disqualification would, in fact, be ultra vires the powers of AIIMS inthe context of the AIIMS Act and Regulations. This Court, having found that AIIMS has not incorporatedsuch disqualification in the Prospectus for the present year, it is not considered necessary to enter into thiscontroversy.the context of the AIIMS Act and Regulations. This Court, having found that AIIMS has not incorporatedsuch disqualification in the Prospectus for the present year, it is not considered necessary to enter into thiscontroversy.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004061

to last year admission (2021) would not have served any practical purpose asPetitioner’s provisional admission for the said year had already beeninjuncted vide order dated 02[nd]September, 2022 and 03[rd]September, 2022in W.P.(C) 9413/2021 [titled as Ramgopal Sharma & Anr. v. AIIMS].Finally, when Petitioner therein (viz. Mr. Ramgopal Sharma) succeeded inthe said writ, Petitioner had no valid reason to assail the Memorandum dated15[th]September, 2021 as such relief would have been infructuous.Petitioner therefore has continuing cause of action and failure to challengeto the admission process of last year, would not be relevant or binding forthe present year. The cause of action for the present year rejection isindependent and does not dis-entitle Petitioner to maintain the presentpetition.

Directions

21.In view of the foregoing, instant petition is allowed, and the impugnednotice dated 12[th]September, 2022 is set-aside. Petitioner is eligible to beconsidered for M.Sc. (Psychiatry Nursing) course in “In-service category” inacademic session 2022. AIIMS is directed to process Petitioner’s applicationand consider her for admission as envisaged by Respondent’s ResultNotification No. 156/2022 [Annexure P-26], as per above directions. Theabove directions be complied forthwith, considering the fact that classes forthe Course have commenced.

22.Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the afore-saidterms, along with pending application.

OCTOBER 6, 2022/d.negi

SANJEEV NARULA, J