Supreme Court Refers Challenge Against AIIMS Decision To Cancel INI-CET Admission Rounds To Another Bench

The Counsel for the AIIMS submitted before the bench comprising Justice S K Kaul and Justice A S Oka that the reason why the open and on-spot rounds for INI-CET were cancelled, which resulted in 454 vacant seats to PG courses in Institutes of National Importance and subsequently the present petition, was because they had approached the top court apprising it of the various issues and the reasons behind the delay and had sought for extension of timeline of the counselling process beyond 31st August, however their plea was rejected and the court was not inclined to grant their prayer.

The counsel for the respondents further pointed out that the present plea by the petitioners seeking to fill the vacant seats arising from the July 2022 session, essentially seeks a review of that earlier order passed by a bench of this court.

At this point, the bench pointed out that it cannot pass any order contradictory to an earlier order passed by another bench of the court in the same matter and what it could at best do was to pass an order placing the matter before the same bench for reconsideration of its earlier order given the present facts and circumstances.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the factual situation in the present plea was completely different and that the court, while passing the earlier order rejecting the respondent's application for extension of timeline, was not apprised of various relevant facts in the matter. He also pointed out that the application seeking extension of timeline was contradictory to the counter affidavit that has been filed by the respondents in the present plea.

Earlier, Senior Advocate Gopal Shankarnarayan initiated his arguments by pointing out before the court that the respondents have constantly violated the guidelines passed by this Hon'ble Court in Ashis Ranjan vs. Union of India (2016). He said, "I am not at all in favour of the fact that the authorities continue to violate the Ashish Ranjan guidelines year after year and then suddenly wake up and ask for extension."

The bench then inquired - We feel seats should not go vacant. How do we get out of this

Counsel for Respondents replied by saying - We add the vacant seats to next year, my lords.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan interjected and said - How can you add seats to next year when your classrooms are empty this year

Displeased, the bench observed - …Your infrastructure remained unused this year because of the vacant seats and next year it gets overburdened because of this constant carry forwarding. How will this work? For the last two years the same thing has been going on.

The Bench also observed that despite guidelines being passed, "something or the other keeps cropping up periodically" and that "something had to be done about the issue".

Important to note that the present plea filed by the petitioners had claimed that that the impugned decision to cancel the open and on-spot rounds for INI-CET for the July 2022 session came as a complete surprise to the candidates who were expecting seats in premier medical colleges in the country through open and on-spot admission rounds of INI-CET exam. They had therefore filed the present petition seeking for filling up of the vacant seats that arose as a result of the impugned order.

In the last hearing, the Supreme Court had expressed displeasure and took a serious view of AIIMS decision to cancel INI-CET admission rounds and had observed that the respondents will have to fill the vacant seats. Mr. Sankaranarayanan had also submitted that it is time that the Court takes suo moto cognizance and lays down some guidelines for medical admissions in the country.

The court has now observed in its orders that the matter being of urgency, be placed before the Chief Justice for his orders.

The petitioners were represented by Advocate, Ms. Tanvi Dubey led by Senior Advocate, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan.

(Case Title: Sarthak Vats And Ors. v. AIIMS New Delhi And Ors. WP(C) No. 856/2022)