The Delhi High Court recently directed AIIMS Bhubaneswar to admit a candidate who secured seats in both NEET-PG and the Institute of National Importance Combined Entrance Test (INICET) counselling, observing that a meritorious student cannot be denied admission merely because his original documents remained in the custody of another medical college.Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that rules and regulations are “handmaids of justice” and cannot stand in the way of granting substantive relief to a candidate who has secured admission through a fair, transparent and merit-based process.“A meritorious candidate cannot be made to suffer owing to systemic and administrative deficiencies operating within the admission framework. The rigidity of procedural requirements cannot be permitted to defeat substantive justice, particularly where the eligibility and bona fides of the candidate are otherwise undisputed,” the May 29 order read. Justice Jasmeet Singh said the petitioner cant’ be faulted for circumstances arising out of an administrative vacuum.The high court was hearing a petition filed by Abhishek Singh seeking admission to the MD (Pharmacology) course at the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Bhubaneswar, allotted to him in the open round of the INICET, January 2026 session.Also Read | 9-year-old drowned in uncovered pit: Delhi High Court raises compensation to Rs 30.78 lakh‘Can’t be penalised for no fault of his’The Delhi High Court held that the denial of admission to the petitioner solely on account of non-production of documents, which remained withheld by another institute, would amount to penalising him for no fault attributable to him.The court found that the petitioner is a meritorious student who has, through substantial academic effort, hard work and merit-based competition, secured a seat in AIIMS.The court clarified that the petitioner cannot be faulted for the circumstances arising out of an administrative vacuum and procedural inflexibility on the part of the other institute and other authorities concerned.The court added that the prospectus cannot be read rigidly to debar a meritorious candidate, especially when the larger purpose of the condition prescribed has been fulfilled.The high court allowed the petition and directed the other institute to release the documents in its possession within a week.The court further directed AIIMS Bhubaneswar to accept the documents from the petitioner and if found in order, grant admission to the petitioner in MD (Pharmacology) course.Also Read | Professor clicked unknown link, lost Rs 2.6 lakh: Delhi High Court relieves SBI of liability‘Bona fide student seeking admission’The court noted that immediately upon securing admission with AIIMS Bhubaneswar, the petitioner took a prompt step to leave the other institute.It was noted that this reflects the bona fide intention on behalf of the petitioner to secure his original documents.However, the court noted that, despite his efforts, the documents remained in the custody of the other institute, which made it impossible for the petitioner to produce the originals before AIIMS Bhubaneswar within the timeline stipulated.The court held that this inability cannot be construed as negligence or a lack of intent on the part of the petitioner; rather, it is a systemic failure on the part of the authorities concerned.The court noted that the AIIMS prospectus stated that it was entrusted with the task of conducting the examination of INICET, wherein the petitioner secured a seat.It was also noted that AIIMS has also been given the authority to initiate any legal or disciplinary actions in case the documents submitted by the candidates were forged or fabricated.Qualified but admission deniedIt was placed on record that the petitioner is a qualified medical professional who has passed MBBS. Subsequently, he participated in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test – Postgraduate (NEET-PG) 2025 and the INICET January 2026 examination for pursuing postgraduate medical education.The INICET exam is conducted by AIIMS Delhi, a body established under AIIMS Act, 1956. It was added that AIIMS Bhubaneswar is an institute where the petitioner was allotted a seat through the NEET-PG counselling process.It was claimed that the petitioner secured a rank in the NEET PG 2025 and INICET January 2026 session. The petitioner was allotted a seat in the third round of counselling of NEET PG 2025 in Rani Durgavati Medical College in the MD (Physiology) course on March 6. While the result for INICET open round was awaited, the petitioner provisionally took admission in Rani Durgavati Medical College on February 7 and completed the admission formalities by depositing his original documents and certificates.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Court slams probe into Delhi bride’s death, says grieving father not ‘trained investigator’Later, the result for INICET open round counselling conducted by AIIMS, New Delhi, was declared on February 21 wherein the petitioner secured a seat in MD (Pharmacology) course in AIIMS Bhubaneswar. However, his admission was denied on account of the petitioner’s failure to deposit his original documents.The petitioner submitted his resignation by an email dated February 21 to the Rani Durgavati Medical College to facilitate his move to AIIMS, Bhubaneswar and also physically visited the college wherein he was informed that no provision for “resignation” existed and therefore it could not be accepted.The petitioner physically reported to AIIMS, Bhubaneswar on February 26 before the deadline of February 28, seeking provisional admission on the basis of an undertaking. However, since the original academic documents were not returned to the petitioner by Rani Durgavati Medical College, AIIMS Bhubaneswar refused the admission in the absence of original documents.Consequently, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Later, this court, by an order dated March 12, granted interim protection to the petitioner regarding his seat with AIIMS Bhubaneswar.Story continues below this adArbitrary, unconscionableRepresenting the petitioner, advocate Sumeet Kapoor argued that his client appeared for two admission processes, INICET and NEET PG.He added that after securing allotment in both the counselling processes, the petitioner was put in a position where he had no option to exit one admission process in order to join the other.He also stated that the forfeiture of Rs 3 lakh, furnished as security deposit, was arbitrary and unconscionable as the same was taken to deter the candidate from casually abandoning the confirmed seat.It was further added that the petitioner never abandoned the seat; rather, he immediately wrote representations and resigned.Story continues below this ad‘Acted as per prospectus’Appearing for AIIMS, advocate Anand Varma, along with others, argued that the prayer seeking refund of the security deposit of Rs 3 lakh is merely ancillary to the principal relief of admission at the AIIMS Bhubaneswar and that the said amount has been forfeited in terms of the notification dated February 21.He pointed out that AIIMS Bhubaneswar has acted in terms of the prospectus. It was added that one part of the prospectus clearly notes that physical verification with reference to the original documents will be done at the time of reporting and candidature shall be subject to verification. Further, it was mentioned that the other part of the prospectus reiterates the same.