The judgment establishes the principle of academic autonomy in setting eligibility criteria for PG course admission, emphasizing the inapplicability of promissory estoppel to academic pursuits and the purpose of the FMGE for foreign medical graduates.

JUDGMENT :

ASHA MENON, J.

1. This intra-court appeal has been preferred by three appellants who are medical graduates, being aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2019, whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed their writ petition [W.P.(C) 6367/2019], with the following prayers: -

“(a) set aside/quash the impugned clause 2(c) (vi) of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, PG course prospectus, July 2019 session and impugned reply dt. 20.05.2019, being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

(b) Direct Respondent no. 1 to treat the Indian MBBS Graduates and the Petitioners equal for all intents and purposes for ascertaining their eligibility i.e. as per the marks obtained in MBBS degree, for PG course admissions for July 2019 session and for all sessions in future;

(c) Pass any such other and such further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. The appellants/petitioners who are medical graduates had obtained their MBBS degrees from Foreign Universities between the years 2011 and 2018. As required by the respondent No.3/Medical Council of India (for short ‘MCI’), they passed a Screening Test (FMGE) conducted by the respondent No.4/National Board of Examinations (NBE) for the purposes of registration with MCI. They were thus eligible for medical practice in India. Their grievance is that in their PG Course prospectus for the July, 2019 session, the respondents No.1 & 2/All India Institute of Medical Sciences (in short ‘AIIMS’) had prescribed that only those persons who had obtained 55% marks in the FMGE, were eligible to apply for the PG Course.

3. According to the appellants/petitioners, the respondent no.3/MCI had required the foreign medical students to appear in the FMGE and obtain 50% minimum marks to practice medicine in India and the sudden variation in the eligibility criteria for the post-graduate admission by the respondents No.1 & 2/AIIMS had disentitled them from appearing for the same and this decision being discriminatory in nature, was liable to be set aside. It was also their case that till January, 2019, the prospectus had not made any differentiation between the Indian medical students and foreign medical students and all of them were required to obtain 55% marks in their MBBS degree to sit for the competitive exam. With the change in the eligibility criteria, the foreign medical students were now required to additionally obtain more than 50% marks in the FMGE, i.e. 55% marks, which acted to their disadvantage.

4. By the impugned judgment dated 21.08.2019, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the court cannot enter into the domain of academic expertise, set up its own measure of merit and impose it on the universities and other institutions. It was also held that there was no doctrine of promissory estoppel in relation to academic pursuits and since the eligibility criteria of 55% marks in the FMGE were prescribed only for admission to the AIIMS, it was open to the appellants/petitioners to seek admission to post-graduate courses in educational institutions other than the AIIMS.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has challenged this conclusion of the learned Single Judge by submitting that till January, 2019 when the prospectus for PG admission to AIIMS in July, 2019 was issued, the respondents No.1 & 2/AIIMS had treated foreign medical graduates at par with Indian MBBS graduates inasmuch as both were required to secure 55% marks only in the MBBS degree exam but this year, foreign medical students were required to obtain a minimum of 55% marks in the FMGE which was an onerous condition more so when the respondent No.3/MCI has prescribed 50% in the same exam to qualify as a medical practitioner.

6. It was also urged that the change in the eligibility criteria could not be made with retrospective effect. Thus, the criteria prescribed by the respondents No.1 & 2/AIIMS was liable to be struck down. Learn