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

2026 Supreme(Telangana) 71

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, JJ.
Medical Council of India, New Delhi & Another - Appellants
Versus
Mr. Jangam Mallesh & Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No.1637 of 2017
Decided On : 23-01-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : GORANTLA SRI RANGA PUJITHA
For the Respondent: DEVULAPALLI BRAHMAM

Minimum age requirement of 17 years for medical course eligibility is mandatory and rooted in statutory regulations, reflecting expert policy rather than judicial discretion.

Headnote:(A) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Sections 13(4A) and 13(4B) - Eligibility certificate for medical courses - The court addressed the requirement for a candidate to be at least 17 years of age by 31st December of the admission year, affirming the weight of statutory regulations over individual claims for exemption. (Paras 13, 17, 48)

(B) Administrative Law - Judicial review standards - The court reaffirmed that the prescription of age by the Medical Council is based on expertise and should not be questioned by the judiciary absent clear absurdity. (Paras 41, 42)

Facts of the case:
The appellant Medical Council of India denied eligibility certification to a candidate based on age, despite prior exceptions made during the candidate’s schooling. Respondent challenged the rejection based on previous court rulings favoring candidates with similar age exemptions. (Paras 3, 5, 6)

Findings of Court:
The eligibility certificate was ultimately denied as the daughter of the respondent did not meet the statutory age requirement as of December 31, 2016. (Paras 46, 48)

Issues: The main issues involved the appropriate application of statutory age requirements for medical course eligibility and previous court decisions on similar matters. (Para 28)

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the age requirement of 17 years is binding and stems from rational policy considerations by the Medical Council, not subject to judicial artificiality given the absence of extreme circumstances. (Paras 41, 42)

Result: Writ Appeal allowed; the order of the Single Judge is set aside.

Table of Content
1. challenge to age criteria for mbbs (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. previous court decisions relevant to age rule (Para 6 , 7)
3. legal framework for eligibility certificates (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 , 18)
4. age limit justification for admission (Para 19 , 20)
5. implications of ongoing medical study without eligibility (Para 31 , 32 , 34)
6. judicial restraint on policy matters (Para 37 , 41 , 45)
7. court's order to set aside previous ruling (Para 49)

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mrs. Gorantla Sri Ranga Pujitha, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. Devulapalli Brahmam, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 23.08.2017 in W.P. No.11819 of 2017 passed by learned Single Judge, the appellants preferred the present Intra-Court Appeal under Clause -15 of the Letters Patent.

3. Respondent No.1 has filed the aforesaid writ petition to declare the action of appellant No.1 herein - respondent No.2 therein in rejecting to issue eligibility certificate to his daughter - Ms. Janga Shirisha for Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) Course vide proceedings dated 26.12.2016, as illegal, and for a consequential direction to the appellants herein to issue eligibility certificate to his daughter for MBBS Degree for the purpose of attending Screening Test conducted by respondent No.3 herein.

4. Respondent No.1 herein contended that his daughter - Ms.Janga Shirisha was born on 04.03.2000. She attended her SSC final examinations in the month of March, 2014, though the minimum age required to complete 10th Class was fifteen (15) years. Concerned authorities have permitted his daughter to attend SSC Examination though her age was less. On completion of her SCC, she joined Intermediate Course in Bi.P.C., and completed the said Course in March, 2016. Though she was less than required age for appearing Intermediate examinations, the authorities accorded permission for her to write Intermediate examination as well.

5. It is further contended that on completion of Intermediate examination, she took admission in MBBS Course at General Medicine Faculty of Astana Medical University (Kazakhstan) for the academic year 2016-17 Batch. She joined in the said Course and completed her first year course in the said University. She has submitted a representation on 13.10.2016 to the appellants seeking permission to join medical course on relaxing her age in terms of Section - 13 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (For short ‘Act, 1956’). She has also enclosed exemptions granted by the State Government permitting her to appear SSC and Intermediate Examinations though she is less than required age along with the said representation. On 26.12.2016, after her joining into medical course, the appellants herein issued impugned letter rejecting the request made by her for issuance of eligibility certificate on the ground that she was less than 17 years.

6. Challenging the said proceedings, respondent No.1 filed the aforesaid writ petition contending that in similar circumstances vide order dated 22.08.2016 in W.P. No.36316 of 2015 this Court and a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Ankit Chaturvedi v. Union of India, 2014 LawSuit (All) 814, though students were less than the required age of 17 years, directed the Medical Council of India (MCI) - appellant No.1 herein to issue eligibility certificate.

7. The appellants herein filed counter contending that the judgment in W.P. No.36316 of 2015 does not apply to the facts of the present case and the MCI Regulations are statutory in nature. The daughter of respondent No.1 herein is not eligible for issuance of eligibility certificate. Thus, the appellants sought to dismiss the said writ petition.

8. Vide impugned order dated 23.08.2017, learned Single Judge placing reliance on the order in W.P. No.36316 of 2015 directed MCI to issue eligibility certificate t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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