INI-CET – Delhi High Court Seeks AIIMS Reply Over PG Seat Allocation Dispute
INI-CET – The Delhi High Court has asked the All India Institute of Medical Sciences to respond to a petition questioning the allocation of postgraduate medical seats under the INI-CET counselling process. The case concerns the distribution of seats for the MD Ophthalmology programme and an alleged reduction in seats shown under the unreserved category.
Petition Raises Concern Over Seat Matrix
Justice Jasmeet Singh issued notice to AIIMS after hearing a plea filed by the father of an INI-CET candidate. The petition claims that the final seat matrix released for the July 2026 session did not match the seat availability later displayed during the mock round of counselling.
According to the plea, AIIMS had published the final seat matrix for MD Ophthalmology in May, showing 13 seats in total. Of these, five seats were listed in the unreserved category. The candidate’s father said his daughter relied on the published information while taking part in the counselling process.
Candidate Secured Rank 146 in INI-CET
The petitioner stated that his daughter secured an overall rank of 146 in the INI-CET July 2026 examination. Based on the final seat position notified by AIIMS, she participated in the counselling process expecting that five unreserved seats would be available for MD Ophthalmology.
However, the petition alleged that the mock round allocation later showed only two open unreserved seats. It also listed one seat each under Institutional Preference and Persons with Benchmark Disability categories.
The plea argued that the change in the effective number of available seats was not adequately explained to candidates participating in the counselling process.
Plea Calls for Greater Transparency
The petition said that once a final seat matrix is formally published, authorities should not alter the actual availability of seats through a process that is not clearly disclosed. It argued that candidates may be adversely affected if the seat allocation method is not transparent.
The petitioner further claimed that students who made counselling decisions based on the final seat matrix could lose out despite seats being reflected in the official notification. The plea said this could affect candidates, including the petitioner’s daughter, who participated in the process relying on the stated seat position.
AIIMS Directed to File Its Response
In an order passed on July 3, Justice Singh directed AIIMS to submit its response to the allegations raised in the petition. The court has listed the matter for further hearing in August.
The case is expected to examine whether the seat availability shown in the final matrix was correctly reflected during the mock allocation stage and whether candidates were provided sufficient clarity about category-wise distribution.
Delhi Court Acquits Former DTC Driver
In a separate court matter, a Delhi court has acquitted a former Delhi Transport Corporation bus driver who had been convicted in connection with a 2011 road accident that resulted in the death of a woman.
Additional Sessions Judge Dhirendra Rana allowed an appeal filed by Shyam Sunder against his earlier conviction by a magistrate court. The driver had been found guilty under Sections 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to causing death by negligence and rash or negligent driving.
Witness Testimony Found Unreliable
The magistrate court had sentenced Sunder to 18 months of imprisonment in May last year. However, the sessions court set aside the conviction after finding that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not inspire confidence.
The court noted concerns regarding the reliability of witness statements and referred to the “improbable conduct” attributed to witnesses in the case. The acquittal brings an end to proceedings arising from the accident case registered more than a decade ago.