Registration of medical diplomas cannot be denied based on prior administrative inaction affecting students' rights.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has sought for quashing of Ext.P7 communication dated 18.07.2016, issued by the first respondent and also a direction to consider Ext.P5 application filed by him for registering his Post Graduate Diploma in Orthopedics.

2. Petitioner had completed his MBBS degree from Calicut Medical College, during the period 2002-2007. Subsequently, he completed his Post Graduate Diploma in Orthopedics from Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal University, during the period 2012-14 and applied by Ext.P5 to the first respondent for registration of his Diploma. The application was made relying upon an interim order of the High Court of Karnataka in W.P(C) No.9074- 9075/2016 dated 22.02.2016. However, by Ext.P7 communication, the first respondent intimated the petitioner that registration will be issued only after receipt of the final judgment in that writ petition. Since the petitioner’s Post Graduate Diploma in Orthopedics was not being registered by the first respondent, he approached this Court seeking the reliefs mentioned earlier.

3. I have heard Sri.S.R. Dayananda Prabhu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Vivek Menon, the learned standing counsel for the first respondent as well as Sri.K.S Prenjith Kumar, the learned standing counsel for additional respondents 2 and 3.

4. The issue before the High Court of Karnataka was regarding the validity of the Post Graduate Diploma in Orthopedics conferred by the Manipal University for the academic year 2011-12. The petitioner in that writ petition was the Manipal University itself, which had challenged the proceedings of the Medical Council of India directing the said university to stop admissions to D-Ortho course for the academic year 2011-12. The Court while dealing with the issue of students who were admitted by the Manipal University in the years 2012-13, 2013-14, made the following observations and directions.

“6. In view of the above, what is now required to be dealt with is the future of the students admitted for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14, despite the Order dated 03.12.2010 (Ann-E). It is seen that after the Petitioner has made the admissions for both the years it has sent letters dated 18.09.2012 (Ann-H to the WP) and 19.09.2013 (Ann-J to the WP), informing about the admissions made, and therefore the Respondent No.1 was aware of the said admissions and since it took no steps to stop the said admissions, the fact that no objections were raised for the year 2012-13, even belatedly, nor were the admissions for the year 2013-14 objected to, the Respondent No.1 cannot now object to the said admissions, as innocent students shall become the victims of the admissions made by the Petitioner and the inaction of the respondent No.1.

7. Hence, it is imperative for this court to intervene, in favour of the students, who although not parties to this Petition, have been suffering for all these years despite having completed the course. In view of the above, it is held the Order dated 03.12.2010 (Ann-E to the WP) of the Respondent no.1 stopping admissions from 2011-12 onwards, shall not be applicable to the students who were admitted in the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 and the Diploma Orthopedics course (D’Ortho) of the said students shall stand recognized in terms of Section 11 of the I.M.C. Act.”

5. On a reading of the above judgment, it is evident that the learned Single Judge had passed an order in respect of all students who were admitted during the period 2012-13 and 2013-14 at the Manipal University and declared that the directions to stop admissions from 2011-12 onwards shall not be applicable to the students who were admitted in the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 and also that the Post Graduate Diploma in Orthopedics (D-Ortho), shall s