1. Rejection of application for registration of foreign medical qualifications as additional qualifications — Judicial review of order. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(AP) 1271
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J.
Dr. Pedamallu Babu Srinivas - Appellant
Vs.
Union of India and others - Respondent
WP No.22690 of 2024
Decided On : 02-03-2026
Important Points
The requirement for a foreign medical qualification to be "recognized for enrollment" for registration in India denotes that the qualification itself must be eligible for enrollment, and does not mandate that the practitioner be actually registered on the foreign country's specialist register.
Subject
Administrative Law - Professional Registration
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Notification dated 07.03.2008 - Registration of foreign post graduate medical qualifications - Interpretation of "recognized for enrollment" - Whether the requirement that medical qualifications be recognized for enrollment as medical practitioners in the concerned specialties in the foreign country implies a mandatory requirement for the practitioner to be registered in the Specialist Register of that country - It is held that the phrase means the qualification must be fit for enrollment; actual enrollment or appearance in a specialist register is not mandatory (Paras 25, 31, 34).
(B) Judicial Review - Expert Bodies - Decision on equivalence - While academic equivalence is generally within the domain of experts, such decisions must be rational, sensible, and within the legislative intent. A decision based on a misreading of the statute, non-application of mind, or mechanical process is subject to judicial review and can be set aside as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution (Paras 28, 29, 33).
(C) Delay and Laches - Condonation - Pursuit of a law degree to plead a case in person does not generally constitute a reasonable explanation for substantial delay, but delay may be condoned if the qualification involved is highly coveted and the professional services of the individual are deemed beneficial to society (Paras 17-22).
Facts of the case:
A medical practitioner applied for the registration of additional postgraduate medical qualifications acquired from a foreign country. The respondent authority rejected the application on the ground that the applicant's name did not appear on the specialist register of the medical council of that foreign country. The petitioner challenged this rejection, contending that the relevant Gazette notification requires the qualification to be recognized for enrollment, not that the practitioner must be actually enrolled.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was found to be cryptic and non-speaking, suffering from the vice of misreading the 2008 Notification. The authority failed to distinguish between a qualification being "recognized for enrollment" and the actual act of enrollment. The utility of the qualification and the potential benefit to society justified the condonation of the delay in filing the petition.
Issues: Whether the respondent authority erred in rejecting the registration of a foreign qualification solely because the applicant was not listed on the foreign country's specialist register, despite the qualification being recognized as eligible for enrollment.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory requirement under the Notification dated 07.03.2008 is that the qualification must be recognized as fit for enrollment in the concerned specialty; it does not mandate actual registration. The authority's mechanical verification of the specialist register without verifying the eligibility of the qualification via correspondence with the issuing body constitutes a failure of the quasi-judicial duty to act rationally and with proper application of mind.
Result: Writ petition allowed. Impugned order set aside. Respondents directed to communicate with the foreign medical council and institutions to verify if the qualification is recognized for enrollment within 8 weeks.
(B) Judicial Review - Expert Bodies - Decision on equivalence - While academic equivalence is generally within the domain of experts, such decisions must be rational, sensible, and within the legislative intent. A decision based on a misreading of the statute, non-application of mind, or mechanical process is subject to judicial review and can be set aside as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution (Paras 28, 29, 33).
(C) Delay and Laches - Condonation - Pursuit of a law degree to plead a case in person does not generally constitute a reasonable explanation for substantial delay, but delay may be condoned if the qualification involved is highly coveted and the professional services of the individual are deemed beneficial to society (Paras 17-22).
Facts of the case:
A medical practitioner applied for the registration of additional postgraduate medical qualifications acquired from a foreign country. The respondent authority rejected the application on the ground that the applicant's name did not appear on the specialist register of the medical council of that foreign country. The petitioner challenged this rejection, contending that the relevant Gazette notification requires the qualification to be recognized for enrollment, not that the practitioner must be actually enrolled.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was found to be cryptic and non-speaking, suffering from the vice of misreading the 2008 Notification. The authority failed to distinguish between a qualification being "recognized for enrollment" and the actual act of enrollment. The utility of the qualification and the potential benefit to society justified the condonation of the delay in filing the petition.
Issues: Whether the respondent authority erred in rejecting the registration of a foreign qualification solely because the applicant was not listed on the foreign country's specialist register, despite the qualification being recognized as eligible for enrollment.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory requirement under the Notification dated 07.03.2008 is that the qualification must be recognized as fit for enrollment in the concerned specialty; it does not mandate actual registration. The authority's mechanical verification of the specialist register without verifying the eligibility of the qualification via correspondence with the issuing body constitutes a failure of the quasi-judicial duty to act rationally and with proper application of mind.
Result: Writ petition allowed. Impugned order set aside. Respondents directed to communicate with the foreign medical council and institutions to verify if the qualification is recognized for enrollment within 8 weeks.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
- medical law
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Party-In-Person
For the Respondent: S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar (SC) and Alekhya Tadasina (Central Government Counsel)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Party-In-Person
For the Respondent: S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar (SC) and Alekhya Tadasina (Central Government Counsel)
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: name not in GMC specialist register irrelevant. Respondent: delay and laches; petitioner failed notification requirement. (Para 7 , 9 , 12 , 14 )
3. Impugned order misread notification — specialist register entry not mandatory; order was cryptic, non-speaking, and lacked application of mind. (Para 24 , 25 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 37 , 38 )
4. Notification requires qualification 'recognized for enrollment,' not actual enrollment in specialist register of GMC. (Para 25 , 31 , 34 )
5. Writ petition allowed. Impugned order set aside. Directions for fresh enquiry within 8 weeks in accordance with law. (Para 40 , 41 )
6. Does a medical qualification need to be enrolled in the GMC specialist register for recognition under the 2008 notification?
No. The notification requires only that the qualification be 'recognized for enrollment'; actual enrollment or presence in the specialist register is not mandatory. (Para 25 , 30 , 31 , 34 )
7. Can pursuing a law degree justify a 3.5-year delay in filing a writ petition?
No. The court rejected this explanation as unreasonable but took a lenient view due to the petitioner's qualification and potential public service. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 )
8. What is the proper test for the National Medical Commission when considering recognition of a foreign medical qualification?
The NMC must correspond with the relevant foreign authority to ascertain whether the qualification is 'recognized for enrollment', not merely check the specialist register. (Para 32 , 33 , 35 , 37 )
9. Is a quasi-judicial authority's decision subject to judicial review for non-application of mind?
Yes. A quasi-judicial authority must act rationally and within the statute; a decision showing misreading of the statute or non-application of mind is subject to judicial review. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 38 , 39 )
The Court made the following ORDER:
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J.
Heard Dr. Pedamallu Babu Srinivas, Party-in-Person (Writ Petitioner) and Sri S.Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
2. The Prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:
“For the reasons stated above, It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ. Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 and No.3 rejecting my application for additional qualifications registration of FRCS in General Surgery Degree (Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh) and FRCS in General Surgery Degree (Royal College of Surgeons of England) on the grounds that my name is not entered in the UK GMC Specialist register which is a totally unfair requirement to practice in Republic of India, where as other doctors with lower degree (MRCS) were registered (Dr.D.MuthuKumaran vs Government of Tamil Nadu and ORS, W.P.No.17882 of 2013) under the same IMC Act and 2008 notification without specialist register entry requirement and rejection of registration of my M.S Oncoplastic Breast Surgery degree, European board surgical qualification in Breast Surgery, European Board certification in Breast Surgical oncology degrees on grounds of not stated in IMC Act & not covered under 2008 notification, as arbitrary and contrary to the well established legal principles, apart from being violative of fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to register my FRCS in General Surgery Degree (Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh), FRCS in General Surgery Degree (Royal College of Surgeons of England), M.S Oncoplastic Breast Surgery degree, European board surgical qualification in Breast Surgery, European Board certification In Breast Surgical oncology degrees as Additional Qualifications, also allow new application for registration of my MRCS in General Surgery Degree (Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh) and refund any excess money paid towards registration fee in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. Although, the extract of the above 'prayer' would indicate that the Writ Petitioner has sought registration of all the qualifications/certificates mentioned in the prayer, during the course of the submissions, the Party-in- Person (Writ Petitioner) has confined his prayer only with respect to the one qualification i.e., FRCS General Surgery qualification acquired by him at the Royal College of Surgeons of England.
At the outset
4. The Writ Petitioner has relied on a Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Dr. D. Muthu Kumaran vs Government of Tamil Nadu and ORS. : (in W.P.No.17882 of 2013 dated 30.08.2019) in support of his contention. He would submit that the lower degree called the MRCS was recognized by the Official Respondents. This Court, after having perused the ratio in Dr.D.Muthu Kumaran's case, would hold that the intent of the Writ Petitioner herein to take support of the decision in Dr.D.Muthu Kumaran's case is misplaced inasmuch as the ratio in the said case would indicate clearly that MRCS acquired by Dr. D. Muthu Kumaran has not been recognized in India as post-graduate qualification. Finding of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras at Para-34 is as under :
“34. This Court is of the view that the MRCS degree from Royal College of Surgeon, Edinburgh, which the petitioner holds is not equivalent to a M.S. Degree given by an institute which is recognized by the Medical Council of India”
FACTS:
5. The facts as projected by the Writ Petitioner/Party-in-Person are that the Writ Petitioner has completed his MBBS Degree in Guntur Medical College in the year 1998; that the Writ Petitioner has completed Master of Surgery (MS-Ophthalmology) from R
