The court upheld that only recognized foreign qualifications can lead to registration, emphasizing compliance with MCI standards and screening tests.

1. The petitioner, a native of Trivandrum, did his schooling at the United Arab Emirates and thereafter joined for MBBS course at the OVIDIUS University Constantania, Romania. Midway into the course, petitioner shifted his studies to the Gulf Medical College in Ajman, UAE in the year 1999, and acquired his MBBS degree in the year 2004. The petitioner completed his one year internship on 16.1.2005 and moved to the United States of America to do research in the field of medicine and acquired American citizenship and is an Overseas Citizen of India Card holder.

2. The petitioner had, in the meanwhile, secured admission to Postgraduate course in M.S (Orthopaedics) at the JSS University, Mysore on the strength of Exhibit P3 temporary registration granted by the MCI. The petitioner did his M.S successfully and being desirous of practising medicine in India, applied for permanent registration with the MCI. By Exhibit P5, the petitioner's application was rejected for want of Screening Test Pass Certificate of the National Board of Examinations and he was directed to obtain the requisite certificates and thereafter apply in proper form. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared and passed the Screening Test and applied for provisional registration again. Alleging delay in consideration of the application, petitioner approached this Court in W.P(C).No.22553 of 2019. That writ petition was disposed of under Exhibit P9 judgment directing the respondents to take a final decision on the application preferred by the petitioner within three weeks. In terms of the direction, 1st respondent considered the application and rejected it. The decision was communicated under Exhibit P10. Hence, this writ petition.

3. The challenge to Exhibit P10 is primarily on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in Medical Council of India v. Indian Doctors from Russia Welfare Association and others [(2002) 3 SCC 696 : (AIR 2002 SC 1565)], upheld the right to registration of similarly placed doctors. Reliance is also placed on Exhibit P11 judgment of this Court in W.P(C).No.8500 of 2008 .

4. The Travancore - Cochin Medical Council (1st respondent), which is delegated with the power to consider and decide applications for registration submitted by Foreign Medical Graduates, raises stiff opposition against the prayer for grant of provisional registration on the premise that the reasons for rejection of petitioners application stated in Exhibit P10 are well - founded and do not warrant interference in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

5. The contention of the 1st respondent Council is supported by the Medical Council of India (3rd respondent).

6. Heard Sri.P.Chandrasekharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. N. Reghuraj, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. Titus Mani learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the issue has been answered in the petitioners favor in Indian Doctors from Russia Welfare Association case (supra). The dispute in that case arose when the Medical Council of India refused to grant registration to Indian citizens who had acquired medical degrees from countries which were part of USSR earlier. Disintegration of the USSR forced many medical students to continue their studies in medical colleges situated elsewhere.