Remuneration During Junior Residency Counts as “Income” for EWS Eligibility
The Delhi High Court has upheld the cancellation of a senior resident doctor’s appointment in the Ophthalmology Department at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), ruling that he was not eligible under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota as his annual income exceeded the prescribed limit. The Court dismissed his petition and affirmed the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that the remuneration received by the doctor while serving as a Junior Resident constituted “income” for determining EWS eligibility. The Court observed that the Tribunal had neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor committed any illegality in declaring the petitioner’s EWS certificate invalid for recruitment purposes.
The Bench rejected the petitioner’s contention that the payments received during Junior Residency were merely a stipend and should not be treated as salary. It held that the Tribunal correctly examined the true nature of the payment and concluded that the amount qualified as income under the EWS policy.
The Court noted that the petitioner had received Rs 13,59,032 during the financial year 2023–24, as reflected in his Form-16 and salary slips obtained through an RTI application. This amount exceeded the Rs 8 lakh annual family income ceiling prescribed under the EWS policy, making him ineligible for reservation benefits.
The case arose from a plea challenging the CAT’s January 13, 2026 order, which had directed AIIMS to terminate the petitioner’s appointment as Senior Resident (Ophthalmology). The Tribunal also ordered that the EWS post be offered to the next eligible candidate, and if none was available, the seat be converted to the Unreserved category and offered according to the merit list.
The petitioner argued that Junior Residency is part of postgraduate medical training and academic in nature, and therefore the remuneration should be treated as a scholarship exempt under Section 10(16) of the Income Tax Act. He contended that tax deduction and issuance of Form-16 did not automatically classify the payment as salary.
AIIMS, however, maintained that the payments bore all characteristics of salary — including regular monthly disbursement, tax deduction at source, and issuance of salary slips. It argued that Junior Residents perform regular hospital duties under contractual appointments and that the nomenclature “stipend” does not alter the essential nature of the payment.
Agreeing with the Tribunal, the High Court held that the issue was not about taxability under income tax law but about eligibility under the EWS reservation framework. Since the petitioner’s income exceeded the prescribed ceiling, the Tribunal was justified in declaring him ineligible and directing consequential steps, including termination of his appointment and restoration of the selection process.
