Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 1665
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Satish K. Agnihotri, M. Venugopal, JJ.
Sneha Manimurugan - Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Medical Council of India and Others - Respondents
W.A. No. 321 of 2016
Decided On : 12-04-2016
For the Appellant : P. Saravanan
For the Respondents: V.P. Raman, P.S. Siva Shanmuga Sundaram, G. Hari Hara Arun Soma Sankar, E. Manoharan, for M/s. A. Jenasenan
Headnote:
Graduate Medical Education, 1997 - Equivalency Certificate - Single Judge while passing impugned order on W.P. had observed that Respondent/Medical Council of India by a Communication - Even on merits as rightly pointed out by counsel for third respondent even though petitioner has produced an equivalency certificate it was only concerned with five subjects completed by her in Singapore Cambridge GCE NRI Level examination and not biology - Further as per Clause 4(2)(a) of regulations on Graduate Medical Education amended up to February when course or curriculum completed by petitioner is not in prescribed pattern of education she has to undergo a one year pre-professional training before admission to medical course – Held, It is to be noted that legitimate or reasonable expectation may arise either from an express promise given on behalf of a public authority or from existence of a regular practise which claimant can reasonably expect to continue - If there is a change in policy or in public interest position is altered by a rule or legislation then no question of Legitimate Expectation would arise - Also that no Legitimate Expectation can be cemented on unfounded impression - Suffice it for this Court to point out that question of Legitimate Expectation is to be decided not from claimant/litigants perceptions but in larger public interest - No wonder whether expectation and claim made by a litigant/party is legitimate or reasonable or genuine one revolves of a given case - Appeal dismissed.
M. Venugopal, J.
The Appellant/Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Appeal as against the order dated 18.02.2016 in W.P. No. 30328 of 2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge.
2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order on 18.02.2016 in W.P. No. 30328 of 2015, had observed that the 1st Respondent/Medical Council of India, by a Communication in Ref. No. MCI-34(41)/2015-Med./146560 dated 29.10.2015 [for the letter in Ref. No. AC(l)/28843/2014-1 dated 07.08.2015 of the Registrar of the 3rd Respondent/University], had, inter alia, stated as follows:
"... The Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 requires two years of regular and continuous study of PCB/Bio-technology taken together and English with the stipulated percentage of marks. The criteria relating to two years of regular and continuous study is not fulfilled.
Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to pursue MBBS course based upon studying/passing Biology as additional subject from NIOS in April, 2014 and thereafter again with PCB and English in October, 2014."
3. Added further, the Learned Single Judge, in the order of the Writ Petition, at paragraph 9, had opined as under:
"9. Even on merits, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the third respondent, even though the petitioner has produced an equivalency certificate, it was only concerned with the five subjects completed by her in Singapore Cambridge GCE NRI Level examination and not biology. Further, as per Clause 4(2)(a) of the regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 amended upto February 2012 when the course or curriculum completed by the petitioner is not in the prescribed 10+2 pattern of education, she has to undergo a one year pre-professional training before admission to the medical course. In the absence of such a pre-professional training prescribed under Clause 4(2) of the regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, the petitioner is not entitled for issuance of a direction, as prayed for in this writ petition. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, I do not see any reason to issue a Mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner."
and resultantly, dismissed the Writ Petition without costs.
4. Challenging the correctness, legality and validity of the order dated 18.02.2016 in W.P. No. 30328 of 2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner has filed the present Writ Appeal primarily contending that the Learned Single Judge, after accepting the Equivalency Certificate of five subjects completed by the Appellant/Petitioner in Signapore, came to a conclusion that the Appellant had not completed Biology as per the prescribed 10+2 pattern because of the fact that she had completed Biology in the National Institute of Open Schooling (hereinafter referred as 'NIOS').
5. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Learned Single Judge took into consideration only the CBSE equivalent course completed by the Appellant in Singapore and had not given any value to the examinations passed by her in 'NIOS' in India.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant forcefully contends that 'NIOS' is an autonomous organisation set up by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India conducts its Education Programmes through Distance Education Mode. It is further represented that the Government of India based on its resolution dated 14.09.1990 had issued a circular dated 11.12.2012 vesting 'NIOS' with authority to conduct and certify examinations for the Secondary levels.
7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant projects a plea that the Association of Indian Universities through its Notification dated 25.07.1991 had intimated the Registrars of All Indian Universities its decision to grant equivalence to 'NIOS' courses with those of other examinations of recognised Boards for purposes of admission to higher courses of study at Indian Universities.
8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that the 1s
