Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the Institute is required to prioritise stipend payments for Indian Junior Residents rather than foreign-national postgraduate trainees, noting that financial support must remain directed toward candidates trained through domestic pathways and supported by Indian taxpayers. The Court determined that those admitted under the “Foreign National” category form a separate group because their seats are designed to carry no financial obligation for the Institute. It therefore set aside the prior direction granting stipend parity and upheld the Prospectus provisions denying emoluments to this category, stating that domestic trainees constitute the cohort expected to contribute to the national healthcare system.

The appeals arose from a challenge to a judgment directing the appellant institution to pay emoluments to foreign-national postgraduate medical trainees. The respondents, foreign nationals admitted to postgraduate courses under the “Sponsored/Foreign National” category, had been enrolled pursuant to a prospectus containing clauses that denied emoluments to candidates in this category. They contended that although categorised alongside sponsored candidates, they were not sponsored by any government or employer and received no financial support. They asserted that they undertook the same entrance examination, fulfilled identical eligibility requirements, and performed the same clinical and academic duties as Indian Junior Residents.

Also Read: Supreme Court Strikes Down Tribunal Reforms Act, Directs Union Government To Establish National Tribunals Commission Within 4 Months

The appellant maintained that the seats for foreign nationals were created as “no-financial-liability” seats following administrative policy and inter-ministerial communications, and that the respondents accepted admission with full knowledge of the prospectus terms. The respondents argued that denial of stipend solely on nationality was arbitrary and violative of constitutional protections available to all persons, and that the nature of residency training did not establish an employer-employee relationship. The appellant disputed the applicability of equality principles and invoked estoppel based on the respondents’ acceptance of prospectus conditions.

The Court stated that the “essential controversy revolves around whether foreign-national medical trainees admitted under the ‘Foreign’ category form a separate and intelligibly distinct class” and “whether acceptance of prospectus conditions bars the Respondents from challenging the stipulation on constitutional grounds.” On the Article 14 enquiry, it recorded that “the seats in question were created pursuant to governmental communications under a ‘no-financial-liability’ condition” and that “the distinction therefore flows not merely from nationality, but from the financial architecture of such seats.” It observed that Article 14 “does not forbid reasonable classification” and that the intelligible differentia comprised “the source of funding and the category of seat.” The Court stated that these seats were “deliberately created as ‘no financial liability’ seats” and that admissions were made “through diplomatic channels and inter-ministerial communications.” It recorded that the classification was grounded in “an objective combination of features: nationality, a different mode of selection, and an express admission term that the Institute will assume no financial liability.”

The Court further stated that the nexus requirement was satisfied because “the very purpose of creating the ‘Sponsored/Foreign National’ category was to facilitate international academic cooperation” and to ensure that “AIIMS does not incur financial liability for trainees admitted under international cooperation arrangements.” It observed that “the Prospectus incorporated these objectives by clearly stating in advance that candidates admitted under this category shall not be entitled to emoluments.” Addressing the respondents’ claim of equal pay, it recorded that Article 14 “does not apply to persons belonging to distinct classes” and that mode of recruitment is “an important parameter and can be deemed to be a valid ground for classification.”

Regarding estoppel, the Court stated that although “estoppel cannot be used to validate a provision that is otherwise unconstitutional,” it applies where a policy is constitutionally valid. It recorded that the respondents “consciously participate[d] in the admission process with full knowledge of the governing rules” and that they were barred from “approbating and reprobating after taking advantage of the same.” It further stated that the respondents had furnished documents “expressly undertaking that all financial liabilities of their training would be borne by them.”

Also Read: Suppression Of Material Facts Bars Relief: Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Against Customs Penalty; Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs In Alleged Poppy-Seeds Concealment Case

On Article 16, the Court stated that the respondents’ relationship with the appellant was that of “educational institute-student, which cannot be termed as an employer-employee relationship,” and therefore the provision did not apply.

The Court stated that “the Impugned Judgment, in so far as it directs payment of emoluments to non-sponsored foreign nationals at par with Indian Junior Residents, cannot be sustained. Both the present Appeals are allowed. The direction contained in the Impugned Judgment awarding emoluments to foreign-national trainees admitted under the ‘Foreign National’ category is set aside. Clauses 2(c) and 2(f) of Section VIII of the Prospectus are upheld as constitutionally valid in their application to this category. Both the present Appeals, with all pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Anand Varma, Mr. Ayush Gupta, Mr. Polavarapur Sai Charan, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Senior Advocate; Mr. Nitin K. Gupta; Ms. Ayushi Arya; Ms. Pranjal Vyas; Mr. Vasuh Misra; Mr. T. Singhdev; Mr. Tanishq Srivastava; Ms. Yamini Singh; Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty; Mr. Sourabh Kumar; Mr. Vedant Sood, Advocates

Case Title: All India Institute of Medical Science v. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav & Ors.; All India Institute of Medical Science v. Dr. Ajay Kumar Yadav & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10233-DB
Case Number: LPA 787/2013
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetrapal; Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar