‘No power to change prospectus guidelines later’: Delhi High Court cancels AIIMS fellowship results for January 2026 session

Justice Jasmeet Singh said that no stretch of imagination could an online interview be considered a substitute for a physical laboratory assessment.

The order added that by no stretch of imagination can I say that an online interview/viva voce was not a deviation from what was stated in the prospectus, i.e., “departmental clinical /practical/lab-based assessment”.

“Upon reading the words’ departmental clinical /practical/lab-based assessment,’ any prudent/normal person would imagine that the assessment would be a physical assessment at a laboratory assessing the candidates’ departmental and clinical skills and knowledge,” the court noted.

Background

• The petitioner, Dr. Oishika Chakraborty, a qualified obstetrician and gynaecologist, challenged the selection process after being ranked second despite securing the highest marks in the stage-I written examination.
• According to the AIIMS prospectus, the selection involved two stages: a written test (60 marks) and a “departmental clinical/practical/lab-based assessment” (40 marks).
• While Dr. Chakraborty scored 52.667/60 in stage-I, the selected candidate) scored 46.667/60.
• However, in stage-II, the selected candidate was awarded 36/40, while the petitioner received 26/40, effectively overturning the merit established in the written test.

Petitioner’s stand

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Rakesh Gosain challenged the validity of the selection process under stage-II conducted by the AIIMS and the Assistant Controller (Examinations), AIIMS, for admission under the MFM Fellowship Programme.
• It is submitted that the AIIMS deviated from the prospectus, which is binding, and any deviation from the same was illegal.
• He further submitted that, as per the prospectus, under stage-II, “departmental clinical/practical/lab-based assessment” was to be carried out.
• He stated that in the email dated December 13, 2025, the petitioner received a Google Meet link for the interview for stage-II, being a CV-based interview, which is not the same as a “clinical/practical/lab-based assessment”.

AIIMS’s case

• Appearing for the AIIMS, advocate— submitted that the present petition is liable to be dismissed, and respondents are the sole judges of the merit of a candidate, and one of the respondent the candidate who has succeeded in the selection process.
• It is submitted that the process carried out under stage-II was consistent with the prospectus.

‘Courts should be reluctant to interfere in education, but…’

• The court must be slow and reluctant to interfere in education matters as a rule of prudence, but at the same time, the court retains its power of judicial scrutiny when any arbitrary decision is in question.
• The court is vested with the duty to protect fundamental and legal rights of the individuals, but at the same time at some instances.
• The courts are required to exercise judicial restraint not as a matter of abdication but as a rule of prudence, such as in cases involving policy matters or those requiring subject expertise.
• A perusal of the prospectuses shows that only the candidates who secured 50 per cent in the stage-I written test will go to stage-II assessment.
• The petitioner’s primary contention is that the prospectus says “departmental clinical/practical/lab-based assessment”, whereas what was conducted was a CV and PowerPoint presentation-based interview.

‘Practical exam can’t be online assessment’

• By mentioning the word “practical,” the prospectus rules out any possibility of an online assessment, especially an interview based on CV and PowerPoint presentation.
• The word “clinical/practical/lab” based assessment clearly shows that the said test has to be in a laboratory and is based upon candidates’ practical, departmental, and clinical knowledge.
• The stage-II Online Interview-based assessment is found foul of the prospectus, and despite the attempts of the counsel for the respondents, I do not agree with the actions of the AIIMS.

• The institution was very much within its rights to conduct stage-II assessment through CV and PowerPoint presentation through an online mode.
• The same should have been clearly mentioned in the prospectus.
• Having mentioned that the stage-II assessment would be a “departmental clinical /practical/lab-based assessment”, the institution could not have altered the evaluation criteria and evaluated the candidates on articles, case reports, book chapters, awards, etc.
• The same thing is clearly a deviation from the terms of the prospectus.