IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vijay Kumar Shukla and Duppala Venkata Ramana, JJ.
Chinmay Chincholikar (Shri) v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Public Health and Family Welfare Department & Others
Writ Petitions No. 6218 of 2023, 8412 of 2023 and 24694 of 2024 (Indore); Decided on 20.2.2025
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Medical Council Act, 1956 -- First Schedule -- writ of mandamus -- maintainability of petition -- petitioner seeking direction to respondents to include course of Post Graduate Diploma (Orthopaedics) issued by College of Physicians and Surgeons, Mumbai in First Schedule of Medical Council Act, which was deleted by Central Government vide notification dated 22.1.2018 -- held -- decision to notify or include a particular course in list of recognized courses is based on recommendation of Medical Council of India (now "National Medical Commission") which is an expert body for the said purpose -- once the said course itself has been deleted from First Schedule of Act, Court, under Art. 226 of Constitution, cannot direct respondents to recognize said course and to include it in list of recognized courses under M. P. Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987 -- petitioner is claiming registration of Diploma in Orthopaedics by M. P. Medical Council along with allied reliefs and thus, he is praying for recognition of said course -- relief sought amounts to legislation therefore no direction can be issued for including course of Post Graduate Diploma in Orthopaedics in list of recognized courses under M. P. Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987. AIR 1971 SC 2399, (1982) 1 SCC 271, (1989) 4 SCC 187, AIR 1992 SC 1546, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 323 and Suresh Seth (2005) 13 SCC 287 followed. Writ Appeal No. 255 of 2017 and 2022 (2) MHLJ 751 relied on. 2013 MHLJ Online 147 referred to. AIR 2001 Guj. 234 discussed. [Paras 7 to 9 & 13
(2) Court -- scope of powers -- Court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe legislation -- it has no power to legislate -- Court cannot add word to a statute or read word into it which is not there -- modifying or altering scheme for applying it to those who are not entitled under the scheme, will not also come under principle of affirmative action adopted by Courts. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 323 followed. [Para 12
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1956 çFke vuqlwph ijekns'k fjV ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; gksuk && ;kph us d‚yst v‚Q fQftf'k;Ul~ ,aM ltZu] eqacbZ }kjk tkjh fd, tkus okys LukrdksÙkj fMIyksek ¼vfLFkfoKku½ dk ikB~;Øe vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e dh çFke vuqlwph esa lfEefyr fd, tkus dk funZs'k çR;FkhZx.k dks fn, tkus dh bZIlk dh gS] ftls dsaæh; ljdkj us vf/klwpuk fnukad 22-1-2018 }kjk foyksfir dj fn;k Fkk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fdlh fof'k"V ikB~;Øe dks ekU;rk çkIr ikB~;Øeksa dh lwph esa vf/klwfpr ;k lfEefyr djus dk fofu'p; Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn~ ¼vc jk"Vªh; vk;qfoZKku vk;ksx½ dh flQkfj'k ij vk/kkfjr gksrk gS] tks mä ç;kstu ds fy, fo'ks"kK fudk; gS mä ikB~;Øe gh vf/kfu;e dh çFke vuqlwph ls foyksfir dj fn, tkus ij U;k;ky; }kjk] lafo/kku ds vuq- 226 ds v/khu] çR;FkhZx.k dks mä ikB~;Øe dks ekU;rk nsus vkSj mls e-ç- vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1987 ds v/khu ekU;rkçkIr ikB~;Øeksa dh lwph esa lfEefyr djus dk funs'k ugha fn;k tk ldrk && ;kph vU; lac) vuqrks"kksa ds lkFk e-ç- vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn~ }kjk vfLFkfoKku esa fMIyksek ds iathdj.k dk nkok dj jgk gS vkSj bl çdkj] og mä ikB~;Øe dh ekU;rk dh çkFkZuk dj jgk gS vfHk"V vuqrks"k fo/kku cukus dh dksfV esa vkrk gS vr% vfLFkfoKku esa LukrdksÙkj fMIyksek ds ikB~;Øe dks e-ç- vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn~ vfèkfu;e] 1987 ds v/khu ekU;rkçkIr ikB~;Øeksa dh lwph esa lfEefyr fd, tkus dk funZs'k tkjh ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ,vkbvkj 1971 ,llh 2399] ¼1982½1 ,llhlh 271] ¼1989½ 4 ,llhlh 187] ,vkbvkj 1992 ,llh 1546] 1992 lIyh- ¼1½ ,llhlh 323 rFkk ¼2005½13 ,llhlh 287 vuqlfjrA fjV vihy Ø- 255 lu~ 2017 rFkk 2022 ¼2½ ,e,p,yts 751 voyafcrA 2013 ,e,p,yts v‚uykbu 147 fufnZ"VA ,vkbvkj 2001 xqt- 234 foosfprA ¼iSjk 7 ls 9 ,oa 13
¼2½ U;k;ky; && 'kfä dh O;kfIr && U;k;ky; fo/kku dk iquysZ[ku] jíkscny ;k iqufoZjpuk ugha dj ldrk mls fo/kku cukus dh dksbZ 'kfä ugha && U;k;ky; dkuwu esa og 'kCn tksM+ ;k iढ+ ugha ldrk tks mlesa ugha && ;kstuk dks mu yksxksa dks ykxw djus ds fy, tks ;kstuk ds v/khu gdnkj ugha] mikarfjr ;k ifjofrZr djuk Hkh U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vaxh—r ldkjkRed dkjokbZ ds fl)kar ds varxZr ugha vk,xkA 1992 lIyh- ¼1½ ,llhlh 323 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 12
ORDER
Shukla, J.-- Regard being held to the similitude of reliefs and facts, all the petitions are being disposed off by the common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the case are noted from WP No.6218/2023.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2014 the petitioner completed MBBS and was registered in Madhya Pradesh Medical Council i.e. respondent No.4 in the year 2015. On 6.6.2018 he was selected for the post of Medical Officer (second class), pursuant to an exam conducted by the MPPSC, by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 vide its notification dated 20.7.2020 offered admissions in two year Post graduate Diploma courses in various disciplines in district/civil hospitals of the State after obtaining affiliation from the College of Physicians and Surgeons (“C.P.S”) of Mumbai. Applications were invited by the respondents for admission to a total of 98 P.G Diploma seats for the academic session 2020-2022. The respondents issued guidelines for the same. The seats for diploma in orthopaedics were provided and it was stated that in order to grant recognition to PG diploma in the subject of orthopaedics by respondent No.1, an amendment in the Act will be made separately. On 7.9.2020 respondent No.3 allotted seats for admission to diploma through counselling and sponsorship was issued to regular medical officers for 24 months from the date of their joining. On 3.9.2020 revised results of counselling were issued by the respondents showing petitioner qualified in the admission process. During the years 2020-2022, vide departmental orders passed by the respondents, petitioner served at different places of posting i.e primary health center, Dawana, District Barwani, District Hospital Ratlam; Head Office, Directorate of Health Services, Bhopal; and, at District Hospital Ujjain. Thereafter, the course of the petitioner was completed after 24 months on 10.9.2022. On 28.2.2023, petitioner applied for registration for P.G. qualification. During year 2021-2022 petitioner alongwith others submitted various representations to respondents for notifying and including P.G Diploma in Orthopaedics as a post graduate course and requested for making an amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Parishad, 1987, however, till date neither any satisfactory reply has been given nor any action for the said recognition been taken. Thereafter, the respondent has not taken any steps for releasing the said undisputed and admitted amount.
4. The present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs :
(i) To call for the record of impugned inaction of the respondents.
(ii) To issue a -writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to Notify and include the course of P.G. Diploma in Orthopaedics in the list of recognized courses under the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council Act, 1987 with effect from 10.9.2022, the date of completion of the said course by the petitioner.
(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper in view of aforesaid submissions.
5. Thus, from relief “II” it is clear that the petitioner is seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to notify and include the course of P.G Diploma in Orthopaedics in the list of recognized courses under the Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Parishad, 1987, 1987 w.e.f 10.9.2022 i.e. the date of completion of the said course by the petitioner.
6. The respondent Nos.4&5/National Medical Commission (NMC) has submitted that the course of Post Graduate Diploma (orthopaedics) issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Mumbai was deleted from Ist Schedule of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 by the Central Government vide notification dated 22.1.2018 and the said notification has not been challenged. Therefore, the relief sought in the petition cannot be granted.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The question that arises for consideration is that whether
Court directs consideration of PG course change request on merits subject to vacancy and fee.
Degrees from unrecognized institutions cannot be utilized for employment; recognition must come from appropriate regulatory bodies.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of prior recognition of diploma courses under the Indian Medical Council Act, the impact of subsequent de-recognition, and the ....
Qualifications acquired via special courses do not equate to a regular MD degree for clinical practice as per MCI regulations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.