SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Ker) 359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly, JJ.
The Travancore Cochin Council of Modern Medicine Represented By Its Registrar – Petitioner
Versus
Leeba Mary Eapen And Ors. – Respondents
WA.No.1667 OF 2020
Decided On : 16-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: N. Raghuraj, Adv.
For the Respondent: Shri.Titus Mani Vettom, Sc, Sri. John Joseph(Roy), Sri.Titus Mani, Sc

Headnote:

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Eligibility Certificate - Provisions of the Act, 1956 - The court allowed the writ petition following the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court at Ext.P7 in W.A. No. 1981 of 2012 dated 29.08.2014, by setting aside Ext. P11 order passed by the appellant —Travancore Cochin Council of Modern Medicine declining the provisional registration to the writ petitioner/first respondent in the appeal disabling her to practice medicine in terms of the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioner, a citizen of India, obtained an eligibility certificate from the Medical Council of India to study medicine abroad. She completed her academic studies and passed the screening test conducted by the National Board of Examinations. However, the appellant Council declined her application for provisional registration, citing that she obtained her qualification through off-campus education and did not undergo regular studies.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the writ petitioner satisfied the conditions of the Act, 1956 and the Regulations of 2002, entitling her to provisional/permanent registration. The court held that the appellant's decision not to grant registration was unconstitutional and interfered with the petitioner's fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.

Issues: The main issue was the refusal of the appellant Council to grant provisional registration to the writ petitioner, citing her off-campus education and failure to undergo regular studies.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ petitioner, having satisfied the conditions of the Act, 1956 and the Regulations of 2002, was entitled to provisional/permanent registration. The court also found that the appellant's decision not to grant registration was unconstitutional and interfered with the petitioner's fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the judgment of the learned single Judge and allowing the writ petition, setting aside the appellant's decision to decline provisional registration to the writ petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

The captioned writ appeal is filed by the first respondent in W.P.(C) No. 2344 of 2020 challenging the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 30.10.2020, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition following the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court at Ext.P7 in W.A. No. 1981 of 2012 dated 29.08.2014, by setting aside Ext. P11 order passed by the appellant —Travancore Cochin Council of Modern Medicine declining the provisional registration to the writ petitioner/first respondent in the appeal disabling her to practice medicine in terms of the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'Act, 1956).

2. Material facts for the disposal of the appeal discernible from the writ petition are as follows:

    The writ petitioner is a citizen of India whose parents were working abroad and pursuant to which she had her school education in Abu Dhabi in a school affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, India. After qualifying for admission in Universities or Medical Institutions, the writ petitioner applied to the Medical Council of India—the second respondent for eligibility certificate on 03.11.2003, and the second respondent issued the eligibility certificate dated 24.11.2003 certifying that the petitioner is eligible for applying for admission in a Graduate Medical Course leading to 'Primary Medical Qualification' in terms of the eligibility requirement for taking admission in an undergraduate Medical course as per the Foreign Medical Institutions Regulations, 2002 framed under Section 13(4B) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ('Act, 1956' for short), evident from Ext. P2. In fact, the eligibility certificate is an essential requirement for conducting studies in medicine abroad. The writ petitioner secured admission in International University of Health Sciences for Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery, St. Christopher and Nevis, St. Kitts, West Indies. The writ petitioner completed her academic studies and has come out successful in the year 2010, pursuant to which the international University of Health Sciences had awarded Ext. P3 degree certificate on 14.07.2010 and with the hopeful intention of continuing her higher studies in Medicine submitted her certificates or attestation to the University.

3. The contention of the writ petitioner is that the University had forwarded the certificates of the students who decided for higher studies to the High Commission of India Georgetown (Guyana) for attestation. The High Commission of India, in turn, forwarded those certificates to the Dean of Academic Affairs, Indian University of Health Sciences stating that St. Kitts and Nevis and India are members of the Apostille Convention of October, 1961 and as such, the documents are acceptable in India without being attested by the said Mission, evident from Ext. P4 communication dated 24-09-2012. The University, in turn, had informed the writ petitioner as per Ext. P5 letter dated 24.10.2012 that no further attestation is required for the degree for use in any country that is a signatory to the Hague convention of 1955, which includes India. The University has also issued Ext. P6 No Objection Certificate to the writ petitioner dated 01.11.2012 in the matter of obtaining further postgraduate education.

4. It was also the case of the writ petitioner that some of the students of the same batch of the petitioner and earlier batch numbering twenty have faced some difficulties in appearing for screening test, and for provisional registration, as well as permanent registration in the State of Kerala with the appellant, also due to the objections from the Medical Council of India, had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 23676 of 2011. The said writ petition was allowed which was taken in appeal by the Medical Council of India and the said appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P7 judgment confirming the judgment of the learned single Judge. Anyhow, the writ

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top