Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr Vanditaa Agrrawal vs Aiims on 13 January, 2026
1 O.A No. 4242/2024
Item 37 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 4242/2024 With M.A Nos. 3592/2025,
920/2025, 4027/2024, 1644/2025, 2186/2025, 2352/2025,
2336/2025 and M.A No. 2353/2025
Reserved on : 11.12.2025
Pronounced on : 13.01.2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
DR. VANDITAA AGRRAWAL
D/O SHRI GIRI RAJ AGRAWAL,
R/O 24, BAJAJ NAGAR ENCLAVE,
NEAR GANDHI NAGAR RAILWAY STATION,
JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302015 ....Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Nishit Aggarwal with Mr. Shrey Kapoor and Ms.
Kanishka Mittal)
Vs.
1. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
THROUGH REGISTRAR, ANSARI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110029
2. DR. BAHUBALI N. SHETTI
S/O NAGAPPA,
R/O KHAVATAKOPPA, TALUK ATHANI,
DELAGAVI, KARNATAKA - 591220 ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Shaju Francis with Ms. Jobina Jacob and Mr. Arya
Kulshreshtha for R-2, Mr. Aayush Gupta for Mr. Anand Varma for R-1)
Digitally signed by
MAYA BAHADUR
MAYA BAHADUR
SINGH TARAGI
SINGH TARAGI
2 O.A No. 4242/2024
Item 37 (C-3)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) Pass an Order or Direction cancelling appointment of Respondent No.2, as the same has been obtained by submitting a false EWS certificate; and
ii) Pass an Order or Direction stating that the Respondent No. 1 ought to fill the post of Senior Resident Ophthalmology Department as per the merit list and in accordance with the guidelines mentioned in the prospectus; and/or
iii) Pass an Order appointing the Applicant on the post of Senior Resident Ophthalmology against the available seat of the EWS category which has to be converted to a seat in the UR category in accordance with the prospectus as the Applicant is next in line to be considered for the seat as per the merit list; and/or
iv) Any other order/orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that pursuant to the prospectus issued by AIIMS dated 05.06.2024 for recruitment of Senior Resident/Senior Demonstrator in various departments including Ophthalmology the applicant applied and appeared in the examination conducted for the said post on 13.07.2024 along with other candidates. Vide 1st List of the Result Notice dated 20.08.2024 the applicant secured 7th rank in the merit list and the private respondent no.2 i.e. Dr. Bahubali N. Shetti secured 19th Rank who is alleged to have been selected being an EWS Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 3 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) candidate ignoring the merit of the applicant. The father of the applicant on 10.09.2024 made representations to the Director, Assistant Controller of Examinations as well as to the Registrar of the AIIMS alleging therein that the allotment of seats had been done on the basis of production of false EWS certificate by the respondent no.2. He further requested to undertake investigation and thorough verification of the documents before declaration of the final result. Aggrieved by no response from the respondent no. 1 (AIIMS) the father of the applicant sought information under RTI dated 14.09.2024 about the salary of Dr. Bahubali N. Shetti being received by him from respondent no. 1 (AIIMS) as also the Income Tax deduction therefrom for the financial year 2023-24. However, the respondent no.1 announced the 2nd list of the said result and the selected candidates were asked to collect their appointment letters on 23.09.2024. Subsequently the respondent no. 1 replied to the aforesaid RTI application made in respect of the applicant whereby Income Tax Return (Form-16) was produced which showed the total taxable income of the respondent no. 2 as Rs.13,59,032/- for the financial year 2023-24. The other RTI application was stated to have been transferred from Examination Section to the Academic Section of the AIIMS. Aggrieved, the applicant approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Writ Petition No. 14267/2024 seeking cancellation of the appointment of respondent no. 2 for producing false EWS certificate Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 4 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) for obtaining the post of Senior Resident. In the meantime, the respondent no. 1 replied to the application made by the father of the applicant in the grievance portal of the Govt. of India stating that they have send the EWS certificate of the respondent no. 2 to the issuing authority for verification of its authenticity. Pursuant to the same, the applicant's father again filed an RTI application by way of first Appeal No. AIIMS/A/E/24/00489 which is still pending disposal. However, the Writ Petition filed by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach this Tribunal. Hence the applicant is before this Tribunal.
3. The grounds on which the counsel for the applicant has based his arguments are as under :-
"1. The actions of the Respondent No.1 in extending EWS benefits to candidates who submitted false income certificates, does not only violate constitutional provisions, but also threaten the integrity of the reservation system. It was imperative for the Respondent No. 1 have to adhered to the constitutional mandate, by implementing stringent verification processes to ensure that EWS benefits were granted only to those who were genuinely eligible.
2. The appointments to the post of "Senior Resident Ophthalmology" awarded by the Respondent No.1 to the Respondent No.2 on the basis of false Economic Weaker Section (EWS) Certificates produced by him at the time of applying to the same is against the principles of appointments and de-hors the fair and transparent selection process.
3. As per an Office Memorandum of 31.01.2019, the DOPT prescribed the specific criteria for a candidate to be eligible to be considered for benefits under the EWS category. The specifications were that firstly, the candidate should not be covered under the existing scheme of reservations for the Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 5 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) SC/ST and the Socially and Economically Backward Classes, and that the gross annual income of the family of the candidate must be below Rs.8 lakhs. Secondly, the income to be taken into consideration was to include income from all sources, i.e., salary, agriculture, business, profession etc. and it ought to be the income for the Financial Year [FY] prior to the year of application. Thirdly, a candidate whose family owned or possessed any of the following assets were to be excluded from the category of EWS, irrespective of the family income: i) 5 acres of Agricultural Land and above; ii) Residential flat of 1000 sq. ft. and above; iii) Residential plot of 100 sq. yards and above in the notified municipalities; iv) Residential plot of 200 sq. yards and above in areas other than the notified municipalities. The memorandum stated as under:
*4.1 Persons who are not covered under the scheme of reservation for SCS, STs and OBCs and whose family has gross annual income below Rs 8.00 lakh (Rupees eight lakh only) are to be identified as EWSs for benefit of reservation Income shall also include income from all sources i.e. salary, agriculture, business, profession, etc. for the financial year prior to the year of application.
4.3 The term "Family" for this purpose will include the person who seeks benefit of reservation, his/her parents and siblings below the age of 18 years as also his/her spouse and children below the age of 18 years."
(emphasis supplied) The above-mentioned memorandum had also been adopted by the Respondent No.1 in its prospectus for the purpose of ascertaining the eligibility criteria for the candidates of EWS. Therefore, it is to be noted that in addition to the income of the candidate/benefitting person, i.e., the Respondent No. 2 in the present case, income of his parents, as well as his siblings would also be considered while calculating the "family" income for the purposes of determining whether the candidate would be considered to be extended EWS benefits.
4. Both individuals i.e., Applicant and the Respondent No. 2, are doctors from the 2021 batch, and had been working together in the "Junior Resident Ophthalmology"
Department at AIIMS. Throughout her tenure as Junior Residents, the Applicant has received a gross monthly salary of 1,17,900 (Rupees One Lakh Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Only). It was reasonable to conclude that Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 6 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) Respondents No. 2, being the batchmate of the Applicant, was also receiving the same salary from the Respondent No.
1.
5. The suspicion of the Applicant herein was corroborated when the Respondent No. 1 itself, in response to the RTI Application of the Applicant herein, produced a copy of the Income Tax Return (Form 16) of the Respondent No. 1 for F.Y. 2023-34 which categorically indicated that the total taxable income of the Respondent No. 1 for the said year was Rs. 13,59,032.00/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Fifty-Nine Thousand Thirty-Two Only). Therefore, it is indisputably evident that the EWS certificate produced by the Respondent No. 2 was entirely false and deceptive, and that the Respondent No. 2 by any measure, did not fall within the EWS bracket specified by the DoPT.
6. The Respondent No. 2 secured Rank 19, while another EWS candidate, one Dr. Vilani Bajukumar Ramesh Bhai secured Rank 2 in the merit list. Both candidates claimed to belong to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category, presenting EWS certificates that falsified their income as being less than 28 lakh annually. Despite being from the EWS category, Dr. Ramesh Bhai was awarded a seat under the Un-Reserved (UR) category due to his high ranking in the merit list. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 2, despite securing Rank 19, managed to secure a seat in supersession to the Applicant herein who secured rank 7, by submitting a false income certificate. Such a situation raises significant concerns regarding the authenticity of the EWS certificates submitted by both the candidates, including the Respondent No. 2, especially in light of the documents supplied by the Respondent No. 1 itself which further prove the income of the Respondent No. I to be higher than the EWS bracket.
7. The other candidates from the Economically Weaker Section (EWS), who secured ranks 25, 29, and 30, did not fill any preferences for available seats, as indicated by the notification no. 122 of 2024 dated 07.09.2024 as NR/NP (Did not Register/Did not fill any choice) was mentioned next to their respective ranks in the results. Consequently, these candidates effectively forfeited their opportunity to compete for the available positions. Therefore, according to the guidelines outlined in the prospectus issued by the Respondent No. 1, when EWS candidates do not participate in the choice-filling process, the seats designated for EWS are to be reassigned to the next eligible candidate from the Un-Reserved (UR) category. In the present case, that next Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 7 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) candidate was the Applicant, who had secured the rank 7 in the merit list. The failure of the EWS candidates to fill out their choices did not only impact their chances, but also created an opportunity for the next deserving candidate in the UR category to be considered for the available seat. Thus, the Applicant ought to have rightfully been awarded the seat.
8. As per the Office Memorandum No. 36039/1/2019- Estt(Res) dated 31.01.2019, issued by the DoPT, the annual income of the "Family" must be less than 18 lakh to qualify for EWS benefits. Notably, the definition of "family" as per this memorandum includes the individual seeking the benefit. In the present case, Respondent No. 2, who had applied for EWS benefits, evidently has earnings exceeding Rupees 13 lakh annually, a fact which also stands established by way of the ITR Form 16 supplied by the Respondent No. 1 itself. In view of the above, the appointments made by the Respondent No. 1 based on evidently false EWS certificates are liable to be cancelled in accordance with the conditions mentioned in the prospectus itself.
9. It is essential to ensure that the EWS provisions are implemented fairly and in accordance with established guidelines. If the EWS certificates are found to be fraudulent, it not only undermines the integrity of the appointment process but also unjustly affects candidates who are genuinely entitled to the benefits based on merit and economic criteria.
10. The actions of Respondent No. 1, in granting EWS benefits based on these dubious certificates not only contravene the principles of fair and equitable appointments but also unjustly deprive deserving candidates, such as the Applicant, of her rightful opportunities. The Applicant, who has secured a higher rank in the merit list, is particularly affected by this situation, for the use of fraudulent EWS certificates undermines the integrity of the admission process and obstructs the fair competition intended by the EWS provisions.
11. The present case, Respondent No. 1, failed to conduct any inquiry to verify the legitimacy of the EWS reservations claimed by Respondents No. 2. This lack of due diligence is particularly concerning given that the father of the Applicant submitted representations to various higher authorities within the Respondent No. 1, urging them to investigate the authenticity of the EWS claim.
Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 8 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3)
12. Lack of verification by Respondent No. 1, regarding the income claims made in the EWS certificates has led to an unfair allocation of seats. Had the Respondent No. 1 conducted a proper verification of the income, the seat would likely have been awarded to the Applicant, who was next in line based on merit. This oversight not only undermines the integrity of the selection process but also denies deserving candidates their rightful opportunities.
13. Absence of a thorough examination of EWS certificates raises questions about the commitment of the Respondent No. 1 to maintain the integrity of the reservation process, especially considering its status as a premier institution in the country. It is vital for an institution of this structure to uphold the principles of fairness and transparency when granting reservations under the EWS category.
14. This casual approach not only undermines the merit- based selection process but also potentially allows candidates who do not meet the necessary financial criteria to gain unfair advantages. The failure to act on the representations of the father of the Applicant signals a disregard for the concerns of stakeholders and may lead to significant repercussions for genuinely deserving candidates.
15. Time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court has highlighted the implications of misuse of the benefits of the reservations. It was said that the admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine candidates.
16. Applicant has no other equally efficacious remedy, save and except by way of the present Original Application and the reliefs prayed for in this Application, if granted, would be complete and effectual."
4. To strengthen his arguments, counsel for the applicant relied upon the ratio given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Asshima Goyal vs. Union of India - W.P. Civil No. 6931 of 2021 wherein while dealing with the issue of EWS Certificates, the Hon'ble High Court specifically observed that 'the authority is entitled to seek information Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 9 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) from credible sources before concluding, as to whether or not the concerned candidate has correctly claimed reservation under the EWS category'.
5. During arguments he handed across the Bar a copy of the Residency Scheme issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Affairs dated 05.06.1992 wherein it has been specifically mentioned in Part
(iv) of Para 3 as under :-
"(iv) The junior residents will be on contract service and will be required to enter into separate contracts for one year in the case of Housemanship and for two years or three years as the case may be in respect of post-graduate courses."
The counsel further produced a copy of the Affidavit sworn by the respondent no. 2 (Dr. Bahubali N. Shetty) wherein he declared that his annual income does not exceed Rs. 8 lakh. He also declared other conditions. For better understanding the same is reproduced below :- Digitally signed by
MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 10 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) A copy of the response dated 20.09.2024 sought under RTI has also been produced by the counsel for the applicant which contained Form 16 of the respondent no. 2 which clarified that the Gross Income as well as the taxable income of Dr. Bahubali N. Shetty (R-2) was Rs.13,09,032/- during the financial year 2023-24. He also produced a copy of the order passed by the Income Tax Office Ward-36(1) wherein it has been clarified that the stipend received during Post-
graduation is taxable as 'Salaries' under Section 15 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For more clarity, the said order is reproduced below :- Digitally signed by
MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 11 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3)
6. Per contra, the counsel of the respondent no. 1 (AIIMS) took a preliminary objection stating that the OA is barred by non-joinder of necessary party i.e., the Tehsildar, Belagavi who issued the EWS certificate dated 18.06.2024 to the respondent no. 2 Dr. Bahubali N. Shetty. Taking shelter of the DoPT OM dated 31.01.2019 the counsel stated that the AIIMS is liable only to verify the genuineness of the certificates produced by the candidates through the certificates issuing authority, in the instant case the Tehsildar, Belagavi and not to inquire upon the basis on which the said certificates have been obtained/issued. Hence the allegation made by the applicant against respondent no. 2 being liable for producing false EWS certificate is a matter to be resolved by both the applicant as well as the Tehsildar, Belagavi as he is the one who has issued the false EWS certificate as AIIMS has done their part by verifying the said certificate from the online portal of the Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka. Moreover, pursuant to the representation dated 10.09.2024 preferred by the father of the applicant the said certificate was again verified. The communication dated 28.09.2024 made in this regard to the Tehsildar, Belagavi so as to verify the category certificate of R-2 has not been responded yet. Also it is the duty of the Tehsildar to inform the respondent no. 1 about the genuineness of the said certificate. Hence, the Tehsildar, Belagavi is a proper and necessary party who has to substantiate the basis on which the same had been issued by Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 12 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) him. The counsel for the respondent no.1 though opposed the OA however, stated that in case the EWS certificate dated 18.06.2024 of the respondent no. 2 is found to be false or invalid by this Tribunal, then the appointment of the respondent no. 2 shall be terminated in accordance with Clause 11 of the Memorandum of AIIMS dated 23.09.2024 which is extracted below:-
"If any declaration given or information furnished by the appointee suppressed any material information, he/she will be liable to be proves to be false of if appointee is found to have wilfully besides other action appointing authority may deem necessary"
7. Respondent no. 2 Dr. Bahubali N. Shetty in his counter affidavit has vehemently opposed the averments of the applicant and denied that he has obtained a false EWS certificate for getting into the Senior Residency programme of the respondent no. 1 (AIIMS) rather he has got the same on his merit and experience which he earned during his three years of Junior Residency done under AIIMS. He alleged that the applicant is guilty of perjury, suppression very and suggestion falsii. The counsel for the respondent no. 2 though denied that he was paid salary of Rs.1,17,900 per month, admitted that the said amount was only a stipend/scholarship granted to him as well as to other candidates including the applicant while pursuing the said course. He added that the payment made to such students pursuing study and practical knowledge is not to be treated as income under Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 13 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) Section 10(16) of the Income Tax Act hence, the same is exempted from tax liability. For more clarity, Section 10(16) of the Income Tax Act is quoted below :-
"..10. Incomes not included in total income.
In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included-
(i) Agricultural income .........
(2) Scholarships granted to meet cost of education..."
Highlighting the Notification dated 03.02.2017 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, the counsel for the respondent no. 2 stated that the contention of the applicant is contrary to the said notification as according to the said notification the stipend paid to post graduation students by the Medical College shall be of the nature of scholarship and accordingly would be exempted from income tax.
8. To support his arguments he placed reliance upon the following decisions of different Courts :-
(i) Dr. Rahul Tugnait vs. ITO and Anr. of Hon'ble Delhi High Court;
(ii) Dr. JCN Joshipura vs. ACIT, Mumbai;
(iii) Dr. Chitang Janak Joshi vs. CIT, of Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai and
(iv) Junior Doctors Association & Anr. vs. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Others of Hon'ble High Court of Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 14 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) Madhya Pradesh vide W.P No. 1309/2007 dated 02.05.2008 wherein the Hon'ble Court vide paras 9, 10, 12 and 18 held as under :-
"9. Section 17 defines the expression "salary" for purposes of Sections 15 and 16 which deal with "Salary" as one of the head of income. Now, the Act does not define the expression "salary" conceptually but, merely proceeds to state what is included therein and what is excluded therefrom, therefore, it is necessary to examine whether stipend paid to PG students is a salary, perquisite or profits in lieu of salary.
10. Words 'stipend' and 'scholarship' have not been defined in the Act. According to Webster Dictionary word 'stipend' means Settled pay or compensation for services, whether paid daily, monthly, or annually, 'service' is defined to mean an act of serving; the occupation of a servant; the performance of labour for the benefit of another, or at another's command; attendance of an inferior, hired helper, slave, etc., on a superior, employer, master, or the like; also, spiritual obedience and love. One of the meaning ascribed to the word 'Scholarship' in the same dictionary is 'Maintenance for a scholar; a foundation for the support of a student. Thus it is clear that the word "stipend" and Scholarship' have two different connotations and can not be used as synonyms. Stipend is a compensation paid for service rendered for the benefit of other, whereas scholarship is paid for the maintenance of a scholar or student (emphasis is added). It is in this background we have to see whether amount paid to PG students is really a stipend or scholarship.
12. Next case down die line is from Madras High Court (1984) 147 ITR 4-Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu v. V.K. Balachandran. Facts there were in brief are as under. Assessee, a Professor of Mathematics in the Ramanujam Institute was given grant-in-aid of $. 10,000 and other fringe payments during the academic year 1970-71 by the Princeton Institute of Advanced studies, New Jersey. Assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(16) of the Act from payment of income tax in respect of grant-in-aid received by him. ITO turned down the plea of assessee but on appeal, the AAC upheld the contention of assessee that grant-in-aid was not a salary in absence of relationship of employee and employer between the assessee and the foreign Institute and the amount paid to the assessee was for doing the research work as a student of mathematics. It was observed by their Lordship as under:-
"In s. 10(16), scholarship is used in that sense of some thing in educational opportunity which is given free. The Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 15 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) basic postulate of a scholarship in c 1. (16) as earlier mentioned is that it is an income receipt. Nonetheless it is excluded from the total income by being brought under s.
10. The view of the income-tax statute of a scholarship therefore differs from the popular or dictionary, view of 'scholarship'. Whereas under the popular view, scholarship is education made available gratis, the sense in which the same expression is used in the I.T. Act is positive payment made to a scholar for pursuit of his education. If the scholarship is made free, it would not naturally come within the ambit of s. 10(16). In the sense of payment, made for studies, scholarship necessarily means some payment made to person to meet the cost of education, the payment being made to the person pursuing the education and incurring the cost thereof.
There are, two considerations which together, make up the concept of a. 'scholarship for meeting the cost of education' within the meaning of s. 10 (16). One is that tire scholarship is payment intended to be income receipt in the hands of scholar. The other one is that whatever is paid is intended to meet the cost of education, the question whether the quantum of payment is adequate, or is or is not in excess of requirement are all j beside the point. A scholarship may only meet the partial cost of education. Still it would be a scholarship within the meaning of s. 10(16). Again, a scholarship might, in a given case, prove to be more than enough for meeting the cost of education, and the scholar may make a saving out of it, or even spent the surplus otherwise. It is not the appropriation of the scholarship."
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the learned ITO (JDS)-1 Indore was erroneous in his approach when he advised Dean that TDS would be attracted in respect of stipend paid to PG Students. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the writ petition and quash the order dated 28.12.2006 read with letter dated 8.3.2000. We further direct that if any sum is/was deducted, as TDS from the Stipend, it shall. be refunded forthwith to such PG Student (whether decree or Diploma course).
19. In view of the foregoing discussion this petition is allowed and impugned order is hereby set aside. There shall be no orders as to costs.
Petition allowed."
Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 16 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) He handed across the Bar a copy of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in W.P(C) No. 5407/2015 and batch in Avijit Das & batch vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 27.05.2015 wherein vide para 18 the Hon'ble Court observed as under :-
"18. Reading of Rule 61 of the said Rules in the manner as stated above would also imply, that the Government circulars on which much reliance has been placed upon by learned counsel for the respondents, le, the circulars dated 30.3.2000 and 27.11.1980, is misconceived Inasmuch as, those circulars cannot override, the Statute, that is, Rule 61(2) of the said Rules."
Further, the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras 2 and 6 of its judgment in Gurbux Singh vs. Bhooralal in Civil Appeal No. 583/1961 dated 22.04.1964 relied upon by him are as under :-
"Procedure Code should succeed the defendant who raises the plea must make out; ( that the second suit was in respect of the same cause of action as that on which the previous suit was based; (2) that in respect of that cause of action the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief; (3) that being thus entitled to more than one relief the plaintiff, without leave obtained from the Court omitted to sue for the relief for which the second suit had been filed. From this analysis it would be seen that the defendant would have to establish primarily and to start with, the precise cause of action upon which the previous suit was filed, for unless there is identity between the cause of action on which the earlier suit was filed and that on which the claim in the latter suit is based there would be no scope for the application of the bar. No doubt, a relief which is sought in a plaint could ordinarily be traceable to a particular cause of action but this might, by no means, be the universal rule. As the plea is a technical bar it has to be established satisfactorily and cannot be presumed merely on basis of inferential reasoning. It is for this reason that we consider that a plea of a bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code can be established only if the defendant files in evidence the pleadings in the previous suit and thereby proves to the Court the identity of the cause of action in the two suits. It is common ground that the Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 17 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) pleadings in CS 28 of 1950 were not filed by the appellant in the present suit as evidence in support of his plea under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned trial Judge, however, without these pleadings being on the record inferred what the cause of action should have been from the reference to the previous suit contained in the plaint as a matter of deduction. At the stage of the appeal the learned District Judge noticed this lacuna in the appellant's case and pointed out, in our opinion, rightly that without the plaint in the previous suit being on the record, a plea of a bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code was not maintainable."
Also the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 2129/2016 dated 23.05.2017 - Govind Rawat vs. UOI & Ors., has been relied upon by him. Paras 9 to 12 of which are reproduced below :-
"9. From the entire Scheme and the nature of the course it can be safely concluded that admission to the Post Graduate Course is an academic exercise. The tenure employment as Resident Doctor is incidental to the course. If a candidate is unable to continue the course the employment automatically terminates. The course is a post graduate academic course for three vears and the employment is co-terminus with that. The nature of employment is also contractual and incidental to the primary purpose of study of PG course. It is not an employment as such for which the applicant was selected/appointed and thus any dispute relating to admission or otherwise to the academic course will not constitute a service dispute or a service matter as contemplated under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
.....................These regulations deal with admission to Post Graduate Courses. Regulation 9 clearly speaks of selection of students for post graduate medical course on the basis of their academic merit. Thus admission to the post graduate course is neither a recruitment nor appointment to any post. Since the doctors are required to perform clinical duties in the hospital, the contractual engagement as Junior Residents is in the nature of stipend for the services rendered by them in the hospitals Again the object is to enable them to learn clinical aspect of the medical studies and to gain experience in the practical fields of study.Digitally signed by
MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 18 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) .....................From the above scheme meant for Junior Residents it is apparent that engagement of Junior Residents is not against any post or vacancy, nor does it constitute a government service. Under such an arrangement, Junior Residents do not become government employees. They are fundamentally students and their engagement as Junior Residents is inherent and incidental to their admission to an academic course of study. Their engagement as Junior Residents is not intended to provide employment to the student and is merely an incidental purpose to enable the students to gain practical experience along with the academic studies. Such engagement cannot be termed as a "post" as defined under Section 3 (k) nor the engagement as a Junior Resident constitutes a "service" as defined under Section 3 (p) of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Such engagement also does not fall within the purview of "service matters" as defined under Section 3 (q), as the nature of duty of the student as Junior Resident do not relate to service as defined under the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. By seeking admission to the post graduate course which is purely an academic exercise and by this engagement as Junior Resident, the applicant does not become member of any service, nor holding a civil post either under Union or State Government.
12. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the controversy involved in the present Application does not fall within the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Original Application is without merit and is hereby dismissed. No costs"
He drew our attention to para 11 of his counter affidavit wherein he stated that after receiving notice in the instant OA he filed RTI seeking information as to how many candidates had been appointed under the EWS category for employment as Senior Resident. His RTI was replied by the respondent no.1 stating that 18 such appointments have been made under EWS category. He further sought more information about those 18 appointees which is still awaited. The counsel further highlighted that the applicant has suppressed a fact Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 19 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) about her present employment at Guru Nanak Eye Hospital, Delhi from this Tribunal which is contrary to the averment made by her in the verification and supporting affidavit which would render her guilty of perjury.
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions; examined the relevant documents on record and perused the judgments and decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court; High Court and the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal. We have noted the pay slips of Dr. Vanditaa Aggrawal issued by AIIMS for the months of May, June and July, 2024 which are reproduced below :- Digitally signed by
MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 20 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 21 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 22 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) These slips clearly show that she was paid a monthly gross salary of Rs.1,17,900/- with income tax deduction of Rs.10,787/- every month.
10. We have also noted Form No. 16 Part A and Part B of Dr. Bahubali N. Shetti - Respondent no. 2 which shows that the amount paid/credited to him was Rs.13,59,032/- and Net Tax payable for Assessment year 2024-25 was Rs,1,16,278/-. These are reproduced below :-
Digitally signed by
MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 23 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 24 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 25 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 26 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 27 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) We have further noted that if AIIMS was providing stipend/scholarship to their Junior Residents then there was no need for the Junior Residents to pay income tax every month.
Stipend/Scholarship does not have a 'quid pro quo' but salary has a 'quid pro quo'. Since the pay slips issued by AIIMS mentions the word "Gross Salary" hence it is clear that there was a quid pro quo -
that Junior Resident Doctors were pursuing their Post Graduate degree as well as discharging their medical role and responsibility/duties in the hospital.
11. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the annual income of Respondent no. 2 - Dr. Bahubali N. Shetti who as per AIIMS records - Form No. 16 Part A and Part B received a sum of Rs.13,59,032/- in "Assessment year 2024-2025 clearly has an income of more than Rs. Eight Lakhs and does not qualify to get a EWS reservation in direct recruitment in Civil Posts and services in Government of India as per DoPT's OM No. 36039/1/2019-Estt. (Res) dated 31.01.2019. It is disheartening and disconcerting to say the least that Dr. Shetti did not approach the office of Tehsildar Belagavi, Karnataka with a clear heart and clean hands and concealed the receipt of Rs.13,59,032/- - annual salary that he got from AIIMS for the assessment year 2024-25. We are also of the considered opinion that a monthly disbursement of an amount of more than Rs.1 Lakh to a Junior Resident Doctor by AIIMS can by no stretch of Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 28 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) imagination in India be considered a stipend or a scholarship. This is a handsome amount and AIIMS has been rightly showing it as 'Gross Salary' in their financial accounts. We have observed that UGC PhD Scholars who get a monthly stipend/scholarship get much less than Rs. One Lakh per month - which is used to meet their living expenses only and there is no 'quid pro quo.' Also the facts and circumstances in the instant OA are quite different and distinguishable from the facts and circumstances in the decision rendered in OA No. 2129/2016 dated 23.05.2017 - Govind Rawat's case (supra) by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal. Here the issue to be decided is the status of salary vis-à-vis scholarship/stipend being paid to a Junior Resident Doctor for the purposes of 'Income and Asset' Certificate under the EWS category and not whether a Junior Resident Doctor is a Government servant or not.
12. In the light of the above analysis and discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the balance of convenience in the instant OA clearly lies with the applicant - Dr. Vanditaa Agrrawal. The OA has merit; deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. We find that the EWS certificate of Respondent no. 2 Dr. Bahubali N. Shetti is false and fabricated and is therefore declared 'null and void'. We therefore direct respondent no. 1 - AIIMS to terminate the appointment of Respondent no. 2 as Senior Resident Ophthalmology as the same has been obtained by submitting a false EWS certificate. Digitally signed by
MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 29 O.A No. 4242/2024 Item 37 (C-3) We further direct Respondent no. 1 - AIIMS to offer the position of Senior Resident Ophthalmology to the next EWS category candidate in the waiting list; and if no such EWS candidate is available then convert this seat to the UR category in accordance with the prospectus and offer this seat to the applicant - Dr. Vanditaa Agrrawal as per the merit list. This exercise should be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The OA is disposed of in the above mentioned manner. All the Pending MAs are disposed of accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/
Digitally signed by
MAYA BAHADUR
MAYA BAHADUR
SINGH TARAGI
SINGH TARAGI