The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) declaring the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) certificate of a doctor invalid and directing termination of his appointment as Senior Resident (Ophthalmology) at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed a writ petition filed by the Petitioner, who had challenged the CAT’s order dated 13 January 2026. The Tribunal had allowed an application filed by another candidate, holding that the remuneration received by the petitioner during the relevant financial year exceeded the income ceiling prescribed for EWS reservation and therefore rendered him ineligible for appointment under the EWS category.
AIIMS had issued a prospectus in June 2024 for recruitment to Senior Resident posts, including one seat reserved for the EWS category in the Department of Ophthalmology. The petitioner was selected against the EWS seat, while the applicant before the Tribunal, who had secured a higher rank in the overall merit list, could not obtain a seat in the unreserved category.
The dispute arose after it was alleged that the petitioner had received annual remuneration of over ₹13.5 lakh during the financial year 2023–24 while working as a Junior Resident, far exceeding the ₹8 lakh income ceiling prescribed under the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum governing EWS reservation. Information obtained under the RTI Act showed that the amount was subjected to tax deduction at source and reflected as “salary” in Form-16 issued by AIIMS.
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the amount was only a “stipend” or “scholarship” linked to postgraduate medical training and therefore not income, the High Court held that the substance of the payment, and not its nomenclature, was decisive. The Court noted that Junior Residents at AIIMS discharge regular clinical duties, receive fixed monthly remuneration, and are governed by service conditions including penalties for premature resignation features consistent with salaried engagement.
The Bench further held that exemptions under Section 10(16) of the Income Tax Act relating to scholarships were irrelevant for determining eligibility under the EWS reservation policy, which requires consideration of “gross annual income from all sources” as clarified by DoPT. The Court emphasised that tax treatment and EWS eligibility operate in distinct statutory fields.
On the validity of the EWS certificate, the Court ruled that the Tribunal was competent to assess eligibility for recruitment purposes, notwithstanding the interim stay granted by the district authority on cancellation of the certificate. It found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the Tribunal’s conclusion that the certificate was vitiated due to non-disclosure of income exceeding the prescribed threshold.
Consequently, the High Court upheld the directions to terminate the petitioner’s appointment and to offer the post to the next eligible EWS candidate, or in the absence thereof, to convert it to the unreserved category and offer it to the more meritorious candidate.
The writ petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Akshay Bhandari, Mr. Manu Jain, Ms Rupam Jha, Ms. Medhavi Bhatia, Mr. Adhishwar Suri, Mr. Bhrigu A. Pamidighantam, Mr. Vaibhav Gandhi, Mr. Kartikay Puneesh, Advs
For the Respondent: Mr. Anand Varma & Mr. Ayush Gupta Advs. for R-1. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, Mr. Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal & Ms. Deepti Rathi, Advs for R-2
