Seats at premier institute like AIIMS not for sale: Delhi HC
The court dismissed a woman’s plea that sought recovery of Rs 30 lakh, which she claimed to have paid to a man for securing her daughter’s admission at AIIMS.
3 min read
"Children who get admission over there study for over 18-20 hours a day. If, by paying money, you get the seat, what will happen to our nation?” asked Justice Jasmeet Singh. (PTI Photo) The Delhi High Court Wednesday dismissed a woman’s plea against an order rejecting her suit for recovery of Rs 30 lakh, which she claimed to have paid to a man for securing her daughter’s admission at AIIMS. It observed that while the woman may be gullible, seats at a premier institute like AIIMS are not for sale.
Observing that the facts “painted an abysmal picture”, a single-judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh orally said, “How do you do this? What is the message we are sending in society? Is the person aware that AIIMS is the number one institute in India for MBBS? Children who get admission over there study for over 18-20 hours a day. If, by paying money, you get the seat, what will happen to our nation?”
The woman had approached the HC against an August 23, 2022, order of the Additional District Judge (ADJ)-01, East Karkardooma, who had rejected the woman’s suit on the ground that “recovery of consideration of the amount paid for an unlawful object” cannot come to her rescue. The ADJ had observed that the agreement between the woman and the man she paid the money to was void ab initio (void from the beginning) and recovery of consideration in an agreement which is void is barred under the Contract Act.
Upholding the ADJ’s order, Justice Singh said in the present case, the woman was “guilty of perpetuating an illegality”. Noting that AIIMS is a premier institute of medicine in the country, the HC observed, “Seats in MBBS at AIIMS are not for sale. The appellant may be gullible but this court cannot come to the assistance of a person who has participated in the illegality”.
Perusing through provisions of the Contract Act, Justice Singh said the consideration in the present case i.e. securing a seat at AIIMS is an “unlawful object forbidden by law and immoral as well as opposed to public policy”. The court rejected the woman’s plea finding no infirmity in the ADJ’s order.
The woman’s counsel had argued that the man who allegedly lured her into giving the money to secure a seat for her daughter claimed to have “contacts” with the health minister and officials at AIIMS.
You May Like
Photos
