AIIMS Obligated To Prioritize Stipendiary Payments For Domestic Students Over Foreign Students: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) is under obligation to prioritize stipendiary payments for the domestic students who are beneficiaries of Indian taxpayer funds and expected to contribute to the national healthcare system.

The Court held thus in Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) filed against the Judgment of the Single Judge by which AIIMS was directed to pay emoluments to foreign-national postgraduate students at par with Indian Junior Residents, except those candidates who were admittedly under ‘sponsored’ seats.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “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.”

The Bench said that such a differential treatment is both objectively justified and intrinsically tied to the category’s purpose.

Advocate Anand Varma represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Anupam Srivastava represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Respondents were a group of foreign national doctors admitted to AIIMS in postgraduate courses including MD/MS/MDS/CTVS under the category titled “Sponsored/Foreign National”. Their admissions were made pursuant to the AIIMS Prospectus which, inter alia, contained Clauses 2(c) and 2(f) in Section VIII, expressly stipulating that candidates admitted under the said category shall not be entitled to any emoluments from the Institute.

The Respondents underwent the same entrance examination, fulfilled identical eligibility requirements, and performed identical clinical, academic and on-call responsibilities as Indian Junior Residents. However, they were not competing with general candidates. Indian students appointed as Junior Residents were paid monthly emoluments by AIIMS, whereas “Sponsored/Foreign National” candidates were not.

Issues for Consideration

The following issues arose for consideration before the Court –

i. Whether foreign-national medical trainees admitted under the ‘Foreign’ category form a separate and intelligibly distinct class, justifying differential emoluments treatment?

ii. Whether acceptance of prospectus conditions bars the Respondents from challenging the stipulation on constitutional grounds (estoppel)?

iii. Whether Article 16 of the Constitution of India applies to the present case by virtue of employer employee relationship between the parties?

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, reiterated, “… it is settled law that Article 14 of the COI does not forbid reasonable classification, provided two conditions are satisfied: (a) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia, and (b) the differentia must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.”

The Court noted that Article 14 of the Constitution permits differential treatment where it rests on a legitimate policy consideration and does not amount to hostile discrimination.

“A classification satisfies the first limb of the Article 14 test only if there is an intelligible differentia that objectively distinguishes the excluded group from others. The differentia must be real, not fanciful, and must be capable of objective identification. The perusal of record reflects that the Prospectus of AIIMS creates a distinct category titled “Sponsored/Foreign National”, admissions to which are managed through diplomatic channels and inter-ministerial communications”, it observed.

The Court said that the term “foreign nationals” is not a purely nominal distinction and it denotes an objective combination of features: (a) nationality, (b) a different mode of selection; i.e. through diplomatic or ministerial channel rather than open domestic competition, and (c) an express admission term that the Institute will assume no financial liability in respect of these seats.

“Therefore, these factors cumulatively constitute an intelligible differentia, and the objective of ensuring that the State exchequer does not bear financial liability for foreign trainees is both legitimate and constitutionally permissible”, it added.

The Court held that the classification between Indian residents admitted through domestic competition and foreign nationals admitted through a special, diplomatically-governed, low-competition window bears a direct and logical connection to the policy that AIIMS should not incur financial liability for trainees admitted under international cooperation arrangements.

“The nexus is therefore, clear, proximate and constitutionally sufficient: the State’s aim of promoting international academic engagement while safeguarding public funds is directly advanced by maintaining a “no financial-liability” category for foreign and sponsored candidates”, it further noted.

The Court enunciated that Article 14 of the Constitution protects equality within similar class, and does not apply to persons belonging to distinct classes and the mode of recruitment is an important parameter and can be deemed to be a valid ground for classification.

“In a situation where the underlying policy itself withstands constitutional scrutiny, estoppel operates to bar the Respondents‟ claim. … Having thereafter 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 doctrine of election squarely applies: 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”, it remarked.

The Court elucidated that the Constitution does not allow a person to accept the benefits of a special category and later challenge only the parts they dislike.

“With respect to Issue No.3, this Court is of the considered view that the Appellant’s submission with regard to Article 16 of the COI, and thereby non-application upon the Respondents‟ who are non citizens of India, is rightly refuted in view of the fact that the relationship between the Appellant and the Respondents is of an educational institute-student, which cannot be termed as an Employer Employee relationship”, it also said.

Conclusion

The Court, therefore, held and concluded as follows –

• The classification “Foreign National” candidates satisfies both limbs of the Article 14 of the COI twin test when examined individually, and is therefore constitutionally sustainable.

• The Prospectus‟ stipulation of “no emoluments” for this special category, is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.

• The Respondents, having voluntarily opted for and taken the benefit of this special admission route with full knowledge of its terms, are estopped from now seeking parity of stipend.

• 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.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeals and set aside the impugned Judgment.

Cause Title- All India Institute of Medical Science v. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10233-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Anand Varma, Ayush Gupta, and Polavarapur Sai Charan.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Anupam Srivastava, Advocates Nitin K. Gupta, Ayushi Arya, Pranjal Vyas, Vasuh Misra, T. Singhdev, Tanishq Srivastava, Yamini Singh, Abhijit Chakravarty, Sourabh Kumar, and Vedant Sood.

Click here to read/download the Judgment