Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 1787
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
R.M. BORDE, SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
Dr. Sunil Kiran Noothi – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P. No. 8095 of 2016
Decided on : 20-12-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.R.F. Totala, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S.B. Deshpande, A.S.G.I.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the policy decision of not issuing NORI certificates to medical practitioners should not be applied to individuals who are research scholars and not medical practitioners.
Headnote:
NORI Certificate - Medical Practitioner - Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961, Section 13 - The court discussed the policy decision of not issuing NORI certificates to medical practitioners to stem brain drain and cope with the shortage of doctors in India. The petitioner, a research scholar with an M.B.B.S. degree, was denied the certificate despite not practicing medicine and having no intention to do so in the future. The court held that the policy decision should not be applied to the petitioner as he is a research scholar and not a medical practitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a research scholar with an M.B.B.S. degree, sought a 'No Obligation to Return to India' (NORI) certificate to join a research project in the U.S.A. The respondents rejected his claim based on the policy decision of not issuing NORI certificates to medical practitioners except those over 65 years of age.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, despite holding an M.B.B.S. degree, never practiced medicine and had no intention to do so in the future. It held that the policy decision of not issuing NORI certificates to medical practitioners should not be applied to the petitioner as he is a research scholar and not a medical practitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, a research scholar with an M.B.B.S. degree, was entitled to a NORI certificate despite the policy decision of not issuing NORI certificates to medical practitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's career track, which showed no practice of medicine and his inclination towards research work. It held that the policy decision should not be applied to the petitioner as he is a research scholar and not a medical practitioner.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's claim for a NORI certificate within three months, considering the fact that he is a research scholar and not a medical practitioner. The writ petition was partly allowed.
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.
Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Solicitor General of India (A.S.G.I.), heard finally.
2. The petitioner has assailed the communications dated 04.03.2016, 06.04.2016 and 23.05.2016, whereby his claim for grant of “No Obligation to Return to India” (“NORI”, for short) certificate came to be rejected by the respondents.
3. The petitioner obtained the degree of M.B.B.S. from Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangloor, Karnataka in July, 2002. He was selected for Ph.D. programme at Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai through a Nationwide Entrance Test. He worked as Postdoctoral Fellow at Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Ltd., Chennai from September, 2008 to September, 2009 and simultaneously worked on research publication and thesis. He worked as Analyst for Competitive Intelligence Reporting in Pharmaceutical Industry at Chennai and Gangavath from September, 2009 to January, 2011. He was conferred with the Doctorate of Philosophy (Ph.D.) for the research work leading to the thesis on “Non-sequence Specific Protein DNA Interaction : a Mechanistic Study” by the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, a National Centre of the Government of India for Nuclear Science and Mathematics, on 30.07.2010. He then applied to the Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA for further research training as Postdoctoral Fellow from January, 2011 to December, 2011 and on being selected, travelled to U.S.A. on J1 (Research Scholar) Visa. He wanted to do cancer research and therefore, moved to the Department of Cancer and Cell Biology, University of Cincinnati, Ohio from December, 2011 to August, 2013. In the meanwhile, he got an offer letter dated 20.08.2013 from the University of Kentucky, USA for the post of Postdoctoral Scholar in the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics. The petitioner accepted the said offer and has been working since then with the University of Kentucky. He is a Scientist as evidenced by his research publications. He was not involved with patient care or clinical practice. He never practised medicine nor is inclined to practise it in future. Considering his research abilities and credentials, he has been offered by the University of Kentucky an appointment under the State Department J1 Title of Research Scholar whereunder he would be working as a Postdoctoral Scholar at the University of Kentucky in the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics Markey Cancer Center.
4. According to the petitioner, the Research Scholar job that is being carried out by him in the U.S.A. is not available in India. He is already in the midst of his job and has invested huge time and money on the research projects. The ultimate aim of his research project is to find cures in blood cancer, which would benefit the entire world. He is already under a confidentiality and on IP protection agreement and as such, cannot undertake the said research work anywhere else.
5. The petitioner is in need of NORI Certificate so as to enable him to go to join his Research Project in the University of Kentucky, U.S.A., as required under the Rules of U.S.A. Therefore, he applied to the respondents for issuance of NORI Certificate. However, as per the impugned communications, his request has been turned down on the ground that as per the extant policy guidelines, NORI Certificate is not issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to anyone except in the cases where the age of the applicant is over 65 years on the date of submission of the application.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not at all a Medical Practitioner. He never practised medicine after obtaining the M.B.B.S. Degree. The petitioner is a Research Scholar. He intends to go with the research project taken up by the University of
