Emphasising that the concept of equality cannot be applied in a vacuum, and the financial implications, source of engagement, and the terms of appointment constitute valid bases for classification, the Delhi High Court ruled that the foreign-national medical trainees admitted under the “Foreign” category form a separate and intelligibly distinct class, justifying differential emoluments treatment.
The ruling came after finding 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. Further, the seats in question were deliberately created under a “no financial liability” condition, pursuant to communications between AIIMS, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, and the Ministry of External Affairs.
The Court pointed out that these seats are filled outside the open and general merit pool, and foreign nationals admitted under this category compete only among similarly placed foreign or sponsored applicants. Thus, the distinction flows not merely from nationality but from the financial architecture of such seats.
Applying the twin tests of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court explained that (i) the intelligible differentia in the present case are the source of funding and the category of seat, and (ii) the rational nexus lies in the object of ensuring that AIIMS does not incur financial liability for seats reserved for foreign nationals pursuant to sovereign arrangements. Thus, the differential treatment is permitted under Article 14 if it rests on a legitimate policy consideration and does not amount to hostile discrimination.
The Court went on to explain that the very purpose of creating the “Sponsored/Foreign National” category was to facilitate international academic cooperation, honour foreign-policy commitments, and provide a limited channel for foreign medical graduates to train in India without financial liability to AIIMS. Therefore, when the prospectus has clearly stated in advance that candidates admitted under this category “shall not be entitled to emoluments”, this advance disclosure is not incidental, but rather central to the design of the category.
In this backdrop, 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 Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Khsetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that 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.
As far as the plea of equal pay for equal work is concerned, the Bench pointed out that Article 14 protects equality within a similar class, and it does not apply to persons belonging to distinct classes. Since the mode of recruitment is an important parameter, it can be deemed to be a valid ground for classification.
Further, the Bench observed that the doctrine of consent and approbation/reprobation prevents the respondents from disputing conditions that were expressly disclosed and formed an integral part of the very admission benefit they accepted. Since the respondents had secured admission under the special “Foreign National” category with full knowledge of the Prospectus terms, they cannot now turn around to assail the very conditions that governed their admission.
The Bench therefore set aside the order passed by the Single Judge directing award of emoluments to foreign-national trainees admitted under the “Foreign National” category, and upheld the constitutionality of the AIIMS prospectus.
Briefly, the respondents comprising a group of foreign national doctors admitted to AIIMS in postgraduate courses under the category titled “Sponsored/Foreign National”, were admitted pursuant to the AIIMS Prospectus, which expressly stipulates that candidates admitted under the said category shall not be entitled to any emoluments from the Institute. The case of the respondents was that even though they underwent the same entrance examination and fulfilled identical eligibility requirements, they were not treated at par with the Indian students who were appointed as Junior Residents and are paid monthly emoluments by AIIMS.
When the matter reached the High Court, the respondents pleaded that the denial of stipend was based solely on nationality, notwithstanding performance of the same duties as the Indian counterparts. The Single Judge thereafter declared the AIIMS prospectus unconstitutional to the extent it denied stipend to non-sponsored foreign nationals, and directed the AIIMS (appellant) to pay emoluments at par with Indian Junior Residents, with arrears.
Appearances:
Advocates Anand Varma, Ayush Gupta, and Polavarapur Sai Charan, for the Appellant
Senior Advocate Anupam Srivastava, along with Advocates Nitin K. Gupta, Ayushi Arya, Pranjal Vyas, Vasuh Misra, T. Singhdev, Tanishq Srivastava, Yamini Singh, Abhijit Chakravarty, Sourabh Kumar, and Vedant Sood, for the Respondent
