Back
High Court of Delhi
BADAR DURREZ AHMED & VIBHU BAKHRU, JJ.
Rohit Naresh Agarwal & Others
Versus
Union of India & Others
W.P.(C) Nos. 1655, 2042, 1660, 2038, 2041, 2043, 2045, 1661, 2746, 2838, 1981, 2025, 2040, 2044, 1688, 2895, 1657, 2026, 2039, 4240, 4241, 4478, 4780, 5356, 5727, 5728 of 2013 & CM Nos. 5172, 5178, 5354, 10915, 5445, 10817, 9877, 9878, 10345, 10879 of 2013
Decided On : 27-09-2013
Screening Test Regulations (Amendment), 2010 - Clause 4(3) - Impugned Regulation - Challenge - MCI - Power to make regulations - Screening Test - Eligibility Criteria - Retrospective effect - Validity.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged clause 4(3) of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 as introduced by the Screening Test Regulations (Amendment), 2010, issued and notified on 16.04.2010 by the Medical Council of India. The petitioner had applied for an eligibility certificate for undertaking an undergraduate medical course outside India and was issued an eligibility certificate stating that he was eligible to apply for admission in a foreign medical institution. The petitioner completed the medical course from Osh State University (Kyrgyz Republic) and returned to India and applied for the FMGE Screening Test. The petitioner was issued an admit card to appear for the screening test, however, the result of the petitioner was withheld as the petitioner was ineligible for taking the said examination on account of his not having completed the entire undergraduate medical course from one university. The petitioner had migrated to Osh State University from Smolensk for completion of his last two years undergraduate medical course and, thus, in terms of the impugned regulation, the petitioner was ineligible to take the Screening Test held in terms of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned regulation is ultravires the Act and is liable to be set aside. The impugned regulation would also be arbitrary and unreasonable to the extent that it seeks to deprive the students who have already been granted an eligibility certificate from appearing in the screening test.
Issues: Whether the impugned regulation is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 13(4A) and (4B) of the Act and whether MCI has exceeded its powers as conferred under Section 33 of the Act. Whether the impugned regulation is arbitrary and unreasonable and, thus, unconstitutional.
Ratio Decidendi: The purpose of the Screening Test is limited to test the professional knowledge of graduates who have obtained their primary medical qualification from outside India. The power granted to the MCI with respect to the Screening Test has to be limited to make regulations in respect of the modalities for conducting the screening test. The power to make regulations with regard to issuance of an eligibility certificate is not only consistent with the scheme of the Act as can be understood from Section 13 (4A) and 13(4B) but would also be in conformity with the principle of reasonableness and fairness enshrined in the Constitution of India. The impugned regulation has a retrospective effect in as much as that it would adversely affect those students who on the basis of the eligibility certificate have proceeded overseas and have completed their medical course and obtained their primary medical qualification or are in the process of doing so. The impugned regulation is inconsistent with the scheme of the Act as well as in excess of the powers as conferred under Section 33 of the Act and is liable to be struck down.
Final Decision: Clause (3) of regulation 4 of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 is quashed and the writ petitions are allowed.
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
1. These are writ petitions filed by the petitioners challenging clause 4(3) of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 as introduced by “the Screening Test Regulations (Amendment), 2010, issued and notified on 16.04.2010 by the Medical Council of India. As all the writ petitions involve a similar challenge to clause 4(3) of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred as the 'impugned regulation'), the same have been taken up together. In order to consider the controversy involved in the present writ petitions, the relevant facts stated in W.P.(C) 1655/2013 are being referred herein.
2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 1655/2013 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) cleared his Higher Secondary Certificate Examination on 05.06.2006 from the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune. Thereafter, the petitioner was admitted in Smolensk State Medical University, Smolensk, Russia, in the first year of a six year medical course equivalent to the MBBS Course in India. The petitioner successfully completed the first four years of the course from the said University during the academic years 2006-07 to 2009-2010. Thereafter, on account of certain reasons, which are described as compelling situations, the petitioner left Smolensk State Medical University and took a transfer to Osh State University in Kyrgyz Republic during the academic year 2010-11. The petitioner, thereafter, completed the balance two years of the course from the Osh State University and graduated from the said University in June 2012 with a degree of Doctor of Medicine in General Medicine. The petitioner has produced a Diploma awarding the qualification of “Doctor of Medicine (MD) in the Profession of ‘General Medicine’”. A Certificate dated 13.06.2012 has also been issued by Osh State University certifying the petitioner to have completed the six years course and further certifying that the petitioner has been awarded the qualification of Doctor of Medicine in the profession of “General Medicine”. A no objection certificate has also been issued by the said University stating their no objection to the petitioner carrying on further study and research work or performing any activity according to the Diploma awarded to him.
3. It is relevant to note that the petitioner had applied for an eligibility certificate for undertaking an undergraduate medical course outside India and in terms of “the Eligibility Requirement for taking Admission in an undergraduate medical course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2002,” (hereinafter referred to as the “Eligibility Regulations”), an eligibility certificate was issued to the petitioner stating that he was eligible to apply for admission in a foreign medical institution. The relevant extract of the said certificate is quoted below:-
“(In terms of “the Eligibility Requirement for taking Admission in an Undergraduate Medical Course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2002,” framed under section 13(4B) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956)
This is to certify that as per the particulars/documents and the declaration submitted by candidate Mr./Ms. AGARWAL ROHIT NARESH S/o/D/o. NARESH NATHURAM AGARWAL he/she is eligible to apply for admission in a foreign medical institution for pursuing/graduate medical course leading to “Primary Medical Qualification” (as per Eligibility Requirement for taking Admission in Undergraduate Medical Course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2002) equivalent to MBBS in India in Medical institution abroad (as per Screening Test Regulations, 2002). This certificate is subject to the following conditions (i) his/her fulfilling the eligibility criteria (as per MCI Regulation on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 & Screening Test Regulations, 2002)
(ii) fulfilling other conditions prescribed by such foreign medical institute and the university with which such institution is affiliated (iii) his/her posses
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
