Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1966
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
Indian Association of Clinical Cardiologists - Appellant
Versus
Union of India And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11819 of 2016
Decided On : 17-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Kapil Sibal, Adv., Raju Ramachandaran, Adv., Amit Kumar, Adv., Shaurya Sahay, Adv., Chetan Joshi, Adv., Avijit Mani Tripathi, Adv., Kumar Abhishek, Adv., Rekha Bakshi, Adv., Hamsini Shankar, Adv., Anil Dabas, Adv., Praveen Kumar, Adv., Vikas Singh, Adv., T. Singhdev, Adv., Amandeep Kaur, Adv., Puja Sarkar, Adv., Manpreet Kaur, Adv., Michelle Biakthansangi Das, Adv., Tarun Verma, Adv., Arunima Pal, Adv., Saurabh Chauhan, Adv., Varun Jain, Adv., Bimlesh K. Singh, Adv., Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv., Ankit Dwivedi, Adv.
Headnote:
MEDICAL QUALIFICATION - RECOGNITION - PGDCC COURSE - IGNOU - SECTION 10A(1)(B)(I) OF THE IMC ACT - APPLICABILITY - SECTION 11(2) OF THE IMC ACT - RECOGNITION OF MEDICAL QUALIFICATION - IGNOU NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN PRIOR PERMISSION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE IMC ACT - IGNOU ENTITLED TO APPLY FOR RECOGNITION OF THE PGDCC QUALIFICATION UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE IMC ACT - APPLICATION TO BE CONSIDERED AFRESH BY THE RESPONDENTS.
Fact of the Case:
IGNOU commenced the PGDCC course in 2006, to develop a cadre of non-interventional cardiologists, and involved a "two-year fulltime rigourous training in top cardiac hospitals in the country". In order to be eligible to apply for the PGDCC course, a candidate was required to have an MBBS degree. IGNOU averred that the PGDCC course is "modeled on pattern similar to DNB (Cardiology) Course which is recognised by the respondents under the IMC Act,1956 without any permission thereof under Section 10A of the said Act". IGNOU sought issuance of a writ of mandamus, to the respondents, to recognise the PGDCC qualification, awarded by the IGNOU, as a "recognised medical qualification", by including the said qualification in the First Schedule to the IMC Act.
Finding of the Court:
The IGNOU was not required, at the time of commencement of the course, to obtain prior permission of the Central Government under Section 10A, as such prior permission was required only where a new or higher course of study or training/postgraduate course of study or training, which the medical college desired to start and which enabled the student, thereof, to qualify himself for the award of any recognised medical qualification. As, at the time of commencing of the PGDCC course by the IGNOU, the PGDCC qualification was not a "recognised medical qualification", Section 10A(1)(b)(i) was not applicable.
Issues: Whether the IGNOU was required to obtain prior permission of the Central Government under Section 10A of the IMC Act, before commencing the PGDCC course?
Ratio Decidendi: Section 10A(1)(b)(i) of the IMC Act applies only where the new, or higher course of study or training, results in the awarding of a "recognised medical qualification". In such cases, the medical college is, prior to opening the new or higher course of study, required to obtain the permission of the Central Government. A fortiori, where the medical qualification is not a "recognised medical qualification" - such as the PGDCC - it would seem to appear that Section 10A(1)(b)(i) does not apply at all.
Final Decision: The decision of the respondents, not to consider the application, of the IGNOU, for recognition of the PGDCC qualification, awarded by it, on the ground that, before commencing the PGDCC course, the IGNOU had not obtained prior permission of the Central Government, under Section 10A of the IMC Act, therefore, cannot sustain statutory scrutiny and is, accordingly, quashed. The respondents, i.e. the Central Government and the IGNOU - are directed to consider, afresh, the application, of the IGNOU, for grant of recognition to the PGDCC qualification, awarded by it, under Section 11(2) of the IMC Act.
JUDGMENT :
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. Espousing the cause of holders of the Postgraduate Diploma in Clinical Cardiology (PGDCC) qualification, awarded by the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), this writ petition seeks, effectively, issuance of a mandamus to amend the Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act,1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the IMC Act"), by entering, therein, the PGDCC as a "recognised medical qualification".
Facts
2. The Indian Medical Degrees Act,1916 (hereinafter referred to as "the Indian Medical Degrees Act"), which, preambularly, was "an Act to regulate the grant of titles implying qualification in western medical science and the assumption and use by unqualified persons of such title", received the assent of the Governor-General on 16th March,1916. Section 3, thereof, reads as under:
"3. Right to confer degrees, etc.-The right of conferring, granting or issuing in the States degrees, diplomas, licenses, certificates or other documents stating or implying that the holder, grantee or recipient thereof is qualified to practice western medical science, shall be exerciseable only by the authority specified in the Schedule and by such other authority as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions and restrictions as it thinks fit to impose/authorise in this behalf."
3. The Indian Medical Degrees Act, the writ petition impresses, continues to remain on the statute book, unblemished, till date.
4. The erstwhile Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as "MCI") was reconstituted by the Indian Medical Council Act,1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the IMC Act"), which was enacted on 30th December,1956. The preamble to the said Act declared it to be "an Act to provide for the reconstitution of the Medical Council of India, and the maintenance of the Medical Register for India and for matters connected therewith".
5. By an amendment, brought into effect from 27th August,1992, Section 10A(1) was inserted in the IMC Act, which reads thus:
"10A. Permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study etc. -
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, -
(a) no person shall establish a medical college; or
(b) no medical college shall -
(i) open a new or higher course of study or training (including a postgraduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognised medical qualification; or
(ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training), except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of this section.
Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this section, "person" includes any University or a trust but does not include the Central Government.
Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section "admission capacity", in relation to any course of study or training (including post-graduate course of study or training) in a medical college, means the maximum number of students that may be fixed by the Council from time to time for being admitted to such course or training."
6. Section 11 of the IMC Act - which, in a way, constitutes the "core" provision, for the purposes of the present controversy - reads thus:
"11. Recognition of medical qualification granted by Universities or medical institutions in India.-
(1) The medical qualifications granted by any University or medical Institution in India which are included in the First Schedule shall be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Any University or medical institution in India which grants a medical qualification not included in the First Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognised, and the Central Government, after consulting the Council, may, by notification in the Official
