Junior Resident Doctor salary counts as income for EWS eligibility: Delhi High Court Rules in AIIMS recruitment

Introduction

In a significant judgment affecting medical professionals across India, the Delhi High Court has ruled that remuneration received during Junior Residency constitutes “income” for the purpose of determining eligibility under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category. The ruling led to the cancellation of a Senior Resident appointment at AIIMS after the court found that the petitioner’s income exceeded the prescribed EWS ceiling. 

This decision clarifies how stipends and salaries earned during medical training will be treated under reservation policies, particularly for EWS eligibility.

Background of the Case

The case arose from the appointment of a doctor to the post of Senior Resident in the Department of Ophthalmology at AIIMS under the EWS category. After the selection process, another candidate challenged the appointment, alleging that the selected candidate’s income exceeded the EWS limit and that the certificate submitted for EWS eligibility was invalid. 

The challenge was based on the remuneration received by the doctor during Junior Residency, which allegedly crossed the prescribed annual income ceiling for EWS eligibility.

Following a complaint and subsequent RTI application, documents including Form 16 and pay slips revealed that the petitioner had received ₹13,59,032 during the financial year 2023–24 while working as a Junior Resident at AIIMS. 

This amount was significantly higher than the EWS income limit of ₹8 lakh per annum.

Proceedings Before the Tribunal

The matter was first examined by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which held that the remuneration received during Junior Residency must be treated as income for the purpose of EWS eligibility.

The Tribunal declared the EWS certificate submitted by the petitioner invalid and directed AIIMS to terminate the appointment. It also ordered that the post be offered to the next eligible EWS candidate or converted to the unreserved category if no eligible EWS candidate was available. 

The petitioner subsequently challenged this order before the Delhi High Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that the amount received during Junior Residency was merely a stipend and not income in the conventional sense. According to the petitioner, Junior Residency is primarily an academic training period integral to postgraduate medical education and does not constitute formal employment. 

It was further contended that such stipends are akin to scholarships meant to support education and therefore should not be counted as income for EWS eligibility. The petitioner also relied on provisions of the Income Tax Act that exempt certain scholarships from taxation.

Additionally, it was argued that deduction of tax at source or issuance of Form 16 should not automatically convert a stipend into salary for EWS calculation purposes.

Respondents’ Arguments

AIIMS and the opposing candidate contended that the remuneration received by the petitioner was regular monthly pay for clinical duties performed during Junior Residency.

They emphasized that the payments were reflected as gross salary in pay slips and Form 16, were subject to tax deductions, and were paid in exchange for regular clinical work including patient care and night duties. 

The respondents also relied on the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines, which prescribe that EWS eligibility must be determined on the basis of gross annual income from all sources.

Court’s Analysis on EWS Income Criteria

The Delhi High Court examined the EWS policy framework and noted that the applicable Office Memorandum prescribes an income ceiling of ₹8 lakh per annum and requires consideration of gross annual income from all sources.

The Court further observed that a subsequent DoPT clarification aligned EWS income calculation with income considered under the Income Tax framework, leaving little scope for exclusion of any component reflected as income in the relevant financial year. 

Since the petitioner’s annual remuneration exceeded the prescribed ceiling, the court found that the income threshold for EWS eligibility had been breached.

Stipend versus Salary: Substance Over Nomenclature

A central issue before the court was whether Junior Residency payments could be treated as stipend rather than income.

The High Court held that nomenclature alone is not determinative. Instead, the nature and character of the payment must be assessed based on its substance. 

The court noted that Junior Resident doctors perform regular clinical duties, patient care responsibilities and night shifts. The remuneration is paid as compensation for these services, reflected as gross salary, and subjected to statutory tax deductions.

Therefore, the payment had the essential attributes of income arising from employment rather than a scholarship granted solely to support education.

Tax Exemption Argument Rejected

The court rejected the argument that stipend exemption under Section 10(16) of the Income Tax Act should apply to EWS calculations.

It clarified that the issue before the court was not taxability but eligibility under the EWS reservation policy. Even if certain receipts are exempt under tax law, they may still be considered while assessing economic status under reservation policies. 

Thus, tax exemption provisions could not be imported into the EWS eligibility framework.

Validity of EWS Certificate and Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

The petitioner also argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to question the EWS certificate.

The High Court rejected this contention and held that the Tribunal was competent to examine eligibility for appointment under EWS in the context of a service dispute. The existence of an interim stay on cancellation of the certificate by another authority did not prevent examination of eligibility for recruitment purposes. 

The court concluded that the petitioner had failed to disclose income exceeding the prescribed threshold while obtaining the EWS certificate.

Final Judgment and Consequences

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order, confirming that remuneration received during Junior Residency constitutes income for determining EWS eligibility.

The court affirmed termination of the petitioner’s Senior Resident appointment and directed that the post be offered to the next eligible candidate under EWS or converted to the unreserved category if necessary. 

The writ petition was dismissed, and the High Court found no illegality or perversity in the Tribunal’s decision.

Implications for Medical Professionals

This judgment has far-reaching implications for medical graduates and residents applying under the EWS category. It clarifies that income earned during Junior Residency will be counted as part of gross annual income for EWS eligibility.

Doctors receiving remuneration during training must carefully assess whether their earnings exceed the prescribed threshold before applying under EWS reservation. Institutions and candidates alike will now need to treat Junior Residency pay as income rather than a mere stipend when calculating economic eligibility.

Source: Delhi High Court Judgment dated 07 February 2026 in Dr. Bahubali N. Shetti vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Anr., W.P.(C) 1339/2026.