Qualifications acquired via special courses do not equate to a regular MD degree for clinical practice as per MCI regulations.

ORDER :

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 1^st respondent in Reference No.TNMC/T/534/2021, dated 25.02.2022, cancelling the registration of the petitioner in respect of her MD (Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation) Degree and its decision to surrender her MD (PMR) registration certificate immediately.

2. The petitioner is a qualified MBBS Doctor. She acquired PG Diploma in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (DPMR) in the year 2005. The petitioner got selected to the Government Service through TNPSC in the year 2005 and joined service as Assistant Professor in the year 2006 in Madras Medical College. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to Dharmapuri and then to Salem Medical College. In the year 2017, she was promoted as Associate Professor and now working as as Associate Professor in Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem.

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that PG Decree (MD) in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation course was started only in the year 2014 and the first batch was passed out in the year 2017. Prior to the year 2017, the Speciality Course for the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation was only the PG Diploma Course (D.P.M.R). Initially, the course was three years and by virtue of amendment in the year 1992, the duration of the course was reduced to two years.

4. In the year 2010, it was proposed to start PG Course (MD) in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation but the same was not started due to lack of qualified faculty. As per the MCI regulation, the minimum qualification for teaching faculty is PG Degree in the same speciality and discipline. In the year 2011, the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as 'MCI' for brevity) granted one time relaxation for faculty members to engage themselves in teaching the student studying MD (PMR). As per the letter of MCI in Ref. No.MCI-12(1)(EC)/2010-Med.Misc./61610, dated 03.02.2011, the following was clarified as qualification for teaching faculty engaged in taking classes for PG students pursuing MD (PMR).

“(1) PG Diploma in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation with 3 years Diploma after spending one additional year in MCI recognized institute in the same discipline shall be considered equivalent to MD for the teaching purposes only. and

(2) Person who has 2 years diploma after spending two additional years in MCI recognized institution in the same discipline shall be considered equivalent to MD for the teaching purposes only.”

5. Thereafter, as one time measure, the 2^nd respondent/University conducted a MD Course for qualified persons having PG Diploma in PMR. The syllabus for special MD course was the same as the one for the regular PG Course. In the year 2011, the special exam was conducted for the candidates holding three years PG Diploma in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation after spending one additional year in MCI recognised institute in the same discipline. It is stated that 26 candidates out of 29 candidates, who sat for the examination came out successful. In the year 2012, special exam was conducted for persons holding 2 years PG Diploma in PMR after spending two years in the MCI recognised institution in the same discipline. It is further stated that 7 candidates out of 9 persons participated in the examination came out successful. The petitioner participated in the examination conducted in the year 2012 and passed all the exams. Hence, the petitioner was issued with Decree Certificate by the 2^nd respondent/University. The petitioner registered her additional qualification MD (Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation) before the 1^st respondent and Additional Qualification Registration Certificate was also issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner started using suffix MD (PMR) with her name from the year 2012. In the year 2017, as per the G.O.Ms.No.891, dated 19.04.2017, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor. The said order was challenged by the 5^th respondent her