Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • For the Appellant: M. Nagaraju, Advocate.
  • For the Respondent: R1, S. Niranja Reddy, R3, M. Ravindranath Reddy, Advocates, R2, A. Rajashekar Reddy, Asst Solicitor General.
Judges
  • G. Rohini, J.
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • For the Appellant: M. Nagaraju, Advocate.
  • For the Respondent: R1, S. Niranja Reddy, R3, M. Ravindranath Reddy, Advocates, R2, A. Rajashekar Reddy, Asst Solicitor General.
Judges
  • G. Rohini, J.
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Three writ petitions were heard together. The petitioners completed parts of their MBBS training through the International Medical and Technological University (IMTU), Tanzania. Their pre-clinical courses were conducted at Guntur in Andhra Pradesh and the remaining clinical training and final examinations were completed in Tanzania, after which degrees were awarded by IMTU. The petitioners passed the Screening Test conducted under the Screening Test Regulations, 2002.

The petitioners applied to the Medical Council of India (MCI) for provisional registration under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. By letters dated 27-4-2006 the MCI informed the petitioners they were not eligible for registration because they had studied part of their medical course in India (at Guntur) before completing it from IMTU in Tanzania. The petitioners challenged this refusal by filing these writ petitions.

The MCI relied upon an Executive Committee decision of 10-2-2006 that refused registration to students who had undergone part of their training in an institution in India without permission under Section 10-A of the Act. In its counter-affidavit the MCI stated that IMTU's activities at Guntur had not been granted permission under Section 10-A and that IMTU is not included in any of the Schedules to the Act.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Medical Council of India could refuse provisional registration to the petitioners on the ground that they had undergone part of their medical training in India (at Guntur) without the Central Government's permission under Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
  2. Whether persons who obtain a foreign medical qualification after the date specified by the Central Government and who pass the Screening Test under Section 13(4A) are entitled to have that foreign qualification deemed a recognized medical qualification for the purposes of enrolment, even if the foreign institution is not included in any Schedule to the Act.
  3. Whether the earlier orders of this Court in W.P. Nos. 25123 of 1999 and 25564 of 1998 (and the Division Bench decision dismissing related appeals) preclude the MCI from asserting that the Guntur activities of IMTU required permission under Section 10-A for the petitioners' registration.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

  • The pre-clinical courses conducted by IMTU at Guntur cannot be construed as establishing a medical college or opening a new course of study that would attract Section 10-A; therefore, prior permission of the Central Government under Section 10-A was not required for the Guntur activities.
  • The petitioners relied upon this Court's earlier order dated 14-7-2000 in W.P. Nos. 25123 of 1999 and 25564 of 1998 (and the subsequent Division Bench decision) which held that the foundation/pre-clinical courses at Guntur did not constitute establishing a medical college and were not governed by the local Acts; that precedent, the petitioners argued, binds the respondents in their cases.
  • The petitioners pointed out they had passed the Screening Test under the Screening Test Regulations, 2002, and thus, under Section 13(4A) of the Act, their foreign medical qualifications should be deemed recognized for the purposes of enrolment.

Respondent (Medical Council of India) Arguments

  • The MCI explained that IMTU's activities at Guntur were not granted permission under Section 10-A of the Act and therefore training conducted there cannot be recognized; the petitioners who underwent pre-clinical and para-clinical courses at Guntur for four years did so at an institution that lacked Section 10-A permission.
  • The MCI relied on the Executive Committee decision of 10-2-2006 refusing registration to students who had undergone part of their training in an institution in India without permission under Section 10-A.
  • The MCI contended that IMTU, Tanzania is not included in any Schedule to the Act and invoked the provisos to Sub-section (4) of Section 13 (as amended) to argue that primary medical qualifications granted by foreign institutions after the amendment could not be recognized; consequently, even after passing the Screening Test, recognition for enrolment should not follow.
  • The MCI also stated there is no provision under the Act or Screening Test Regulations to permit recognition for candidates who had partly undertaken training in an Indian institution and partly abroad, where the Indian part was not authorized under Section 10-A.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
W.P. Nos. 25123 of 1999 and 25564 of 1998 (Order dated 14-7-2000) The Single Judge held that IMTU's foundation (pre-clinical) courses at Guntur could not be construed as establishing a medical college in Andhra Pradesh and were not governed by the A.P. Education Act, 1982 or the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; mere conducting of transit/foundation courses in Andhra Pradesh was not the establishment of a college. The Court treated that earlier order as binding between the parties and held that, on that ground, the respondents cannot re-agitate whether the Guntur activities required permission under Section 10-A; consequently, denial of registration on that ground was not sustainable for the petitioners.
W.A. Nos. 1402 and 1451 of 2000 (Division Bench; appeals arising from above writ petitions) The Division Bench dismissed the appeals, upholding the Single Judge's conclusion that the State authorities could not interfere with IMTU's conduct of classes at Guntur; certain observations were deleted but the core conclusion stood. The Court relied on the Division Bench's dismissal to confirm that the order which exempted IMTU's Guntur activities from being treated as establishment of a medical college had become final and bound the respondents in the present petitions.
Medical Council of India v. Indian Doctors from Russia Welfare Associations (Supreme Court decision) Decision concerned candidates returning from medical institutions of the erstwhile USSR who lacked 50% marks in Higher Secondary Examination and had not taken Biology prior to admission; used as precedent in MCI's submissions. The Court found that this Supreme Court decision was not relevant to the present facts and did not assist the MCI because the present petitioners met the entry and eligibility requirements and had passed the Screening Test.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded through the following analytical steps, based strictly on the materials and arguments placed before it:

  1. Statutory framework: The Court reviewed the recognition provisions in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, especially Sections 11–13 and the amendments introduced by Act 34 of 2001. It identified Sub-section (4A) of Section 13 as directly relevant: citizens who obtain foreign medical qualifications after the date specified by the Central Government must qualify in the Screening Test in India, and upon doing so, their foreign qualification "shall be deemed to be the recognized medical qualification" for that person.
  2. Applicability of cut-off date and schedules: The Court noted that the Central Government notified 15-3-2002 as the cutoff date for Sub-sections (3), (4A) and (4B). It analyzed the relationship between the provisos to Sub-section (4) (which restrict post-amendment inclusions in Part II of the Third Schedule) and Sub-sections (4A) and (4B). The Court concluded that the prohibitions in the provisos to Sub-section (4) relate to qualifications granted before the cutoff date and do not operate to deny recognition under Sub-section (4A) for candidates who obtain foreign qualifications after the cutoff date and pass the Screening Test.
  3. Effect of passing the Screening Test: The Court emphasized that Sub-section (4A) expressly provides that once a candidate qualifies the Screening Test, the foreign medical qualification "shall be deemed to be the recognized medical qualification" for that person. The Court held the distinction urged by the MCI—between recognition under schedules and recognition under Sub-section (4A)—was unfounded.
  4. Binding precedent on Guntur activities: The Court examined the earlier decision in W.P. Nos. 25123/1999 and 25564/1998 and the Division Bench outcome in W.A. Nos. 1402 and 1451 of 2000. The earlier orders declared that the foundation/pre-clinical courses at Guntur were not the establishment of a medical college and were not governed by local Acts. The Court found that that final decision binds the parties and prevents the MCI from re-litigating whether the Guntur activities required Section 10-A permission for the petitioners' cases.
  5. Assessment of MCI's objections: The Court noted that the only ground remaining in the impugned orders was that the Guntur activities lacked Section 10-A permission. Other eligibility conditions were undisputed: the petitioners satisfied age and other entry criteria, passed the Screening Test, and there was no challenge to authenticity verification from the High Commission of India at Tanzania. The Court also observed some similarly situated candidates had been granted registration by the MCI after verification from the High Commission, and this fact was not disputed.
  6. Conclusion from the foregoing: Since the petitioners passed the Screening Test and the earlier court order precluded treating the Guntur pre-clinical courses as an establishment requiring Section 10-A permission (for the parties in question), the Court held that denial of registration on the Section 10-A ground was not tenable. Consequently, the foreign qualifications awarded by IMTU shall be deemed recognized for these petitioners under Section 13(4A).
  7. Limitation stated by the Court: The Court expressly limited the effect of its order to the petitioners who obtained degrees from IMTU, and clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the larger issue of whether a foreign institution may generally conduct part of a course in India without Section 10-A permission. The order was confined to the petitioners and to the prior final findings.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The impugned orders of the Medical Council of India refusing registration on the ground that the petitioners had undergone part of their training at Guntur without Section 10-A permission were set aside. The writ petitions were allowed and the respondents were directed to grant provisional registration to the petitioners within two weeks from receipt of the order in accordance with law. No costs were imposed.

Implications:

  • Direct effect on the parties: The petitioners, having passed the Screening Test and in light of the earlier final court determination about IMTU's Guntur pre-clinical courses, are entitled to provisional registration; respondents must grant provisional registration within two weeks.
  • Scope of the ruling: The Court explicitly limited its order to the petitioners who received degrees from IMTU, Tanzania, and stated it did not express any opinion on the broader legal question whether a foreign institution may conduct part of a course in India without Section 10-A permission. Thus, the decision does not purport to establish a general precedent on that larger issue beyond the parties and circumstances before the Court.
  • Precedential statement: The judgment applies the statutory scheme of Section 13(4A) (recognition after passing the Screening Test) to the petitioners and gives effect to the earlier final orders about IMTU's Guntur activities; it does not create a broad rule beyond these facts.

This summary contains only information expressly present in the provided opinion and does not add or infer factual or legal materials beyond that opinion.

Show full summary ...

    J. Saai Prasanna v. The Medical Council Of India & Ors.

    1. The petitioners in these three writ petitions are similarly situated and are aggrieved by the action of the Medical Council of India in not granting Provisional Registration Certificate to the petitioners under Section 25 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Hence, they are heard together and decided by this common order.

    2. The facts which are not in dispute are as under:

    The petitioners in W.P. No. 19238 and 19239 of 2006 passed Higher Secondary School Examination with Science group at Chennai. The petitioner in W.P. No. 24645 of 2006 passed Intermediate conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P., Hyderabad with Bi.P.C. (Biology, Physics and Chemistry) Group. Thereafter, they joined the MBBS Course in International Medical and Technological University (for short, 'IMTU'), Tanzania, established by the Vignan Educational Foundation, Bangalore by entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Tanzania. Though IMTU functions at Tanzania, the Pre-Clinical Courses are being conducted at Guntur in Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners herein completed the Pre-Clinical Courses at Guntur and thereafter the rest of the MBBS Course was completed at Tanzania. They appeared and succeeded in the final year MBBS Examinations held in Tanzania. Accordingly, they were awarded degrees by IMTU.

    3. Thereafter, the petitioners appeared for the Screening Test conducted by the National Board of Examinations, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, for Indian National with Foreign Medical Qualification, under the provisions of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 made by the Medical Council of India. All of them were declared passed. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners made applications before the 1st respondent - Medical Council of India (MCI) seeking provisional registration as per the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 so as to enable them to practice medicine in India. The Medical Council of India, by separate letters dated 27-4-2006 informed the petitioners that they are not eligible for grant of registration since they had studied part of their medical course in India before completing the course from IMTU in Tanzania. Aggrieved by the said action, these three writ petitions are filed.

    4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent - Medical Council of India in detail and perused the material on record.

    5. At the outset, it may be noted that the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') contains various provisions for the purpose of recognizing medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in foreign countries. Section 11 of the Act deals with recognition of medical qualifications granted by Universities or Medical Institutions in India which are included in the First Schedule to the Act. Section 12 of the Act provides for recognition of medical qualifications granted by Medical Institutions outside India with which there is a scheme of reciprocity which are included in the Second Schedule. The list of medical qualifications included in both the First and Second Schedules shall be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act. That apart, medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in India which are not included in the first schedule and which are included in Part-I of the Third Schedule shall also be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act as provided under Section 13(1) of the Act. Part-II of the Third Schedule contains the medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India prior to the date specified by the State Government and as per Sub-section (3) of Section 13 the same shall also be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act. However, the persons possessing such qualification will not be entitled to enrollment unless the conditions specified under Sub-section (3) are satisfied.

    6. Sub-section (4A) of Section 13 of the Act which is relevant for the purpose of the present case, specifically deals with the citizens of India who obtain medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any country outside India recognised for enrollment as medical practitioner in that country after the date specified by the Central Government under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. It is provided that such persons for the purpose of enrolling himself on any medical register maintained by the Medical Council has to qualify himself in the Screening Test in India prescribed for such purpose.

    7. Section 13 of the Act as amended by Act 34 of 2001, to the extent it is relevant for the present case may be extracted hereunder:

    13. Recognition of medical qualifications granted by certain medical institutions whose qualifications are not included in the First or Second Schedule:- (1) The medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in India which are not included in the First Schedule and which are included in Part I of the Third Schedule shall also be recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of this Act.

    (2) The medical qualifications granted to a citizen of India-

    (a) before the 15th of August, 1947, by medical institutions in the territories now forming part of Pakistan, and

    (b) before the 1st day of April, 1937, by medical institutions in the territories now forming part of Burma, which are included in Part I of the Third Schedule shall also be recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of this Act.

    (3) The medical qualifications granted by medial institutions outside India before such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify which are included in Part II of the Third Schedule shall also be recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of this Act, but no person possessing any such qualification shall be entitled to enrolment on any State Medical Register unless he is a citizen of India and has undergone such practical training after obtaining that qualification as may be required by the rules or regulations in force in the country granting the qualification, or if he has not undergone any practical training in that country he has undergone such practical training as may be prescribed.

    (4) The Central Government, after consulting the Council, may by notification in the Official Gazette, amend Part II of the Third Schedule so as to include therein any qualification granted by a medical institution outside India which is not included in the Second Schedule. Provided that after the commencement of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2001, no such amendment shall be made in Part II of the Third Schedule to include any primary medical qualification granted by any medical institution outside India:

    Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply to inclusion in Part II of the Third Schedule any primary medical qualification granted by any medical institution outside India to any person whose name is entered in the Indian Medical Register.

    Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-section, "primary medical qualification" means any minimum qualification sufficient for enrolment on any State Medical Register or for entering the name in the Indian Medical Register.

    (4A) A person who is a citizen of India and obtains medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any country outside India recognised for enrolment as medical practitioner in that country after such date as may be specified by the Central Government under Sub-section (3), shall not be entitled to be enrolled on any Medical Register maintained by a State Medical Council or to have his name entered in the Indian Medical Register unless he qualifies the Screening Test in India prescribed for such purpose and such foreign medical qualification after such person qualifies the said Screening Test shall be deemed to be the recognized medical qualification for the purposes of this Act for that person.

    (4B) A person who is a citizen of India shall not, after such date as may be specified by the Central Government under Sub-section (3), be eligible to get admission to obtain medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any foreign country without obtaining an eligibility certificate issued to him by the Council and in case any such person obtains such qualification without obtaining such eligibility certificate, he shall not be eligible to appear in the Screening Test referred to in Sub-section (4A):

    Provided that an Indian citizen who has acquired the medical qualification from foreign medical institution or has obtained admission in foreign medical institution before the commencement of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2001 shall not be required to obtain eligibility certificate under this sub-section but, if he is qualified for admission to any medical course for recognized medical qualification in any medical institution in India, he shall be required to qualify only the Screening Test prescribed for enrolment on any State Medical Register or for entering his name in the Indian Medical Register.

    (4C)...

    (5)...

    8. It is not in dispute that in accordance with Sub-section (3) of Section 13 as amended by Act 34 of 2001, the Central Government has notified the date as 15th March, 2002 for the purpose of Sub-sections (3), (4A) and (4B) of Section 13 of the Act. That apart, the Medical Council of India in exercise of powers conferred by Section 33 of the Act, made two sets of regulations viz., Eligibility Requirement for taking admission in an Undergraduate Medical Course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations 2002 and Screening Test Regulations 2002. The said Regulations were notified in the Official Gazette on 18-2-2002.

    9. The petitioners in these two writ petitions though joined the medical course in the foreign institution i.e. IMTU in the year 1998, much prior to the Amendment Act 34 of 2001, they obtained the medical qualifications granted by IMTU after the date specified by the Central Government under Section 13(3) of the Act i.e., 15-3-2002. It is not in dispute that the medical qualifications granted by the said foreign institution i.e., IMTU are not included in any of the schedules to the Act. However, admittedly the medical qualifications granted by IMTU has been recognised by Government of Tanzania for enrollment as medical practitioner in that country. Hence, the cases of the petitioners are governed by Sub-section (4A) of Section 13 of the Act.

    10. Accordingly, the petitioners after obtaining the medical degree from IMTU appeared for the Screening Test conducted under the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 by the 3rd respondent and were declared passed. In spite of the same, the Medical Council of India refused to enroll the petitioners in the Indian Medical Register on the ground that the petitioners had studied part of their medical course in India before completing the same from IMTUa foreign institution.

    11. A perusal of the impugned proceedings of the Medical Council of India shows that the Executive Committee of the Medical Council of India in its meeting held on 10-2-2006 decided not to grant registration to the students who have undergone part of their training in an institution in India without obtaining the permission from the Central Government-Medical Council of India, as required under Section 10-A of the Act.

    12. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Medical Council of India, it is explained that as per the records of the Medical Council of India, the Central Government has not granted any permission under Section 10A of the Act to any medical college which is being run by the IMTU at Guntur. Hence, the petitioners who underwent pre-clinical and para-clinical courses at Guntur for a period of four years, which was not granted permission under Section 10A of the Act cannot be recognised under law. It is pleaded that the petitioners had actually undergone the clinical courses at IMTU, Tanzania for a very short period from April, 2002 to November, 2003. Though the fact that the petitioners had appeared for the Screening Test conducted in terms of the Screening Test Regulations 2002 and were declared passed has not been disputed, it is contended that the medical course studied by the petitioners partly at IMTU, Guntur and partly at IMTU, Tanzania is not in consonance with the statutory provisions and Regulation by the Medical Council of India. It is also contended that there is no provision either under the Act or under the Screening Test Regulations or any other Statutory Regulations of the Medical Council of India to grant permission for those candidates who had partly undertaken the course in a medical institution in India and partly in a medical institution abroad. It is contended that IMTU, Tanzania is not amongst the medical institutions recognized by the Medical Council of India and it is only not an institution included in any of the schedules to the Act. It was also not granted any permission under Section 10A by the Government of India to impart medicine course at Guntur. Hence, the Executive Committee of the Medical Council of India had rightly decided not to grant registration to any candidate, who has undergone part of the training in a medical institution in India, which does not have the requisite permission under Section 10A of the Act. Accordingly, in terms of the decision of the Executive Committee of the Medical Council of India, the petitioners were intimated that they are not eligible for grant of registration.

    13. Section 10-A of the Act may be extracted hereunder:

    10A. Permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force,-

    (a) no person shall establish a medical college; or

    (b) no medical college shall-

    (i) open a new or higher course of study or training (including a postgraduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognised medical qualification; or

    (ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a postgraduate course of study or training), except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of this section.

    14. A bare perusal of Section 10-A of the Act makes it clear that no medical college can be established or no new or higher course of study or training which would enable a student to qualify himself for the award of any recognized medical qualification can be opened without obtaining the previous permission of the Central Government.

    15. In the light of the above mandatory provision, the learned Counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India contended that since admittedly training course being conducted by MTU at Guntur has not been accorded permission by the Central Government under Section 10-A of the Act, the petitioners who underwent a part of training at Guntur are not qualified for registration.

    16. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon the order of this Court dated 14-7-2000 in W.P. Nos. 25123 of 1999 and 25564 of 1998 submitted that the Pre-Clinical Courses being conducted by IMTU at Guntur cannot be construed as opening a medical college or a new course of study attracting Section 10-A of the Act and therefore the permission of the Central Government is not required.

    17. It is to be noted that the said writ petitions i.e., W.P. Nos. 25123/1999 and 25564/1998 were filed earlier by M/s. Vignan Educational Foundation and IMTU together aggrieved by the action of the Government of A.P. and the Medical Council of India in interfering with their activity of conducting foundation training and orientation at Guntur in MBBS and MCA Courses. It was pleaded in the said writ petitions that IMTU established by Vignan Educational Foundation, Bangalore at Tanzania is not at all connected with the Universities established in India and the provisions of either The A.P. Education Act, 1982 or The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 are not applicable to the courses offered by IMTU. It was also pleaded that no institution as such was established at Guntur but the students who are admitted in MBBS Course in IMTU are offered two years foundation course at Guntur for the sake of convenience. The relief sought by the petitioners therein was opposed by the State Government as well as the Medical Council of India contending inter alia that prior permission of the Central Government under Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is mandatory for establishing medical institutions in India. Having referred to all the statutory provisions and having heard both the parties in detail, the said writ petitions were disposed of by order dated 14-7-2000 holding that no medical college can be held to be established in Andhra Pradesh by IMTU and neither the A.P. Education Act, 1982 nor the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 are applicable to MTU. It was also held that mere conducting of the transit courses in Andhra Pradesh cannot be construed as establishing a college. It was thus concluded that IMTU is not subjected to the jurisdiction of the local Acts and therefore the respondents cannot interfere with the functioning of courses at Guntur.

    18. Questioning the said order, the State Government preferred appeals being W.A. Nos. 1402 and 1451 of 2000. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeals upholding the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that either the Government or the Health University cannot interfere in the conduct of classes by IMTU in Andhra Pradesh. However, certain observations made by the learned Single Judge that IMTU has to be treated like any other University recognised by the Government and it has to be given due status of recognised University of Tanzania Government were deleted.

    19. In the light of the said order in W.P. Nos. 25123/1999 and 25564/1998 the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that it is not open to the Medical Council of India to contend that the institution at Guntur, wherein the petitioners had undergone part of training, requires permission under Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

    20. Having gone through the order dated 14-7-2000 in W.P. Nos. 25123 of 1999 and 25564 of 1998 as well as the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 1402 and 1451 of 2000, I find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In the above decision, it was declared by this Court that the foundation course (Pre-Clinical Courses) being conducted by IMTU at Guntur cannot be construed as establishing or opening an institution and the same is not governed by local laws. Since the said order is binding between the parties, the respondents cannot reagitate the said question at this stage and on that ground grant of registration to the petitioners cannot be rejected.

    21. However, it is made clear that this Court shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the larger issue whether the foreign institution is entitled to conduct a part of course of study or training in India without obtaining the permission of the Central Government as required under Section 10-A of the Act. The order in the present writ petitions which is passed in the light of a finding already recorded in W.P. Nos. 25123 of 1999 and 25564 of 1998, which has become final, shall be confined only to the petitioners herein who obtained medical degrees from IMTU, Tanzania.

    22. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent - Medical Council of India while relying upon the provisos to Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act as amended by Act No. 34 of 2001, with effect from 3-9-2001, further contended that it is not permissible to recognize any primary medical qualification granted by a foreign institution after the commencement of Amendment Act. According to the learned Counsel, since admittedly IMTU is not included in any of the Schedules to the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners had passed the Screening Test, the qualification granted by MTU cannot be recognised for the purpose of enrollment in India.

    23. On a combined reading of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 13 of the Act, it is clear that the prohibition contained in the provisos to Sub-section (4) shall be referable only to the medical qualifications granted by foreign institutions before the cutoff date i.e., 15-3-2002. Sub-section (4-A) and Sub-section (4-B) deal with the candidates who obtain medical qualification granted by a foreign institution after the cutoff date. It is apparent that under Sub-section (4-A) and Sub-section (4-B) there is no reference to any of the Schedules to the Act, but what is required is that such candidate shall be qualified in the Screening Test in India to enable them to get themselves registered with the MCI. As a matter of fact, under Sub-section (4A) of Section 13 of the Act, it is expressly provided that once the candidate qualifies the Screening Test, the foreign medical qualification obtained by him shall be deemed to be the recognised medical qualification for the purposes of the Act for that person. Hence, the distinction sought to be drawn by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent is unfounded and cannot be accepted.

    24. Even the decision of the Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. Indian Doctors from Russia Welfare Associations , cited by the learned Counsel for the Medical Council of India is not relevant for the purpose of the present case. In the said decision, the apex Court was dealing with the candidates who returned from the medial institutions from the erstwhile States of Union of Soviet Socialist Republic seeking registration who did not possess 50% marks in Higher Secondary Examination and who did not have Biology as one of the subjects prior to the admission to the medical institution.

    25. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that all the petitioners had satisfied the conditions stipulated by the Regulations of the Medical Council of India with regard to the age and other eligibility criteria for admission into MBBS Course in India. There is no allegation by the respondents that the petitioners are ineligible for registration on any other ground whatsoever. Except the fact that the college at Guntur being run by IMTU is not granted permission under Section 10-A of the Act, no other objection has been raised for registration.

    26. As expressed above, the college at Guntur does not require permission under Section 10-A of the Act and consequently the fact that the petitioners underwent a part of MBBS Course at Guntur is not a valid ground to deny registration under the Medical Council of India Act provided they passed Screening Test prescribed under Section 13(4A) of the Act.

    27. As a matter of fact, some of the candidates who are similarly situated and had obtained MBBS decree along with the petitioners were granted registration by the Medical Council of India after authenticity verification from High Commission of India at Tanzania. The said fact has not been disputed by the respondents. It is also not disputed that the petitioners were successful in the Screening Test. Nothing has been placed before this Court to show that there is any objection with regard to authenticity verification from High Commission of India at Tanzania. In the circumstances, the objection raised by the 1st respondent in the impugned orders cannot be accepted. Since the petitioners are qualified in the Screening Test, the Medical degrees awarded by IMTU shall be deemed to be the recognized medical qualification and consequently they are entitled for registration.

    28. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant provisional registration to the petitioners within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law. No costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    J. Saai Prasanna v. The Medical Council Of India & Ors.
    (Dec 5, 2006)