Medical Council Of India vs J.Saai Prasanna & Ors. Etc. Etc

Medical Council of India ... Petitioner

Vs.

J.Saai Prasanna & Ors. etc. etc. ... Respondents

O R D E R

The Medical Council of India (`MCI' for short), the petitioner herein,

challenges the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 2.5.2008 in a

batch of writ petitions filed by students possessing medical qualifications

from a foreign University, directing (i) MCI to grant provisional registration

under Section 25(1) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (`Act' for

short) to all those students who have completed the screening test in

accordance with the provisions of section 13(4A) of the Act read with

Screening Tests Regulations, 2002 (`Screening Regulations' for short); and

(ii) MCI/State Medical Council, as the case may be, to grant permanent

registration under section 25(4) and section 15 of the Act on the production

2

of valid certificates in proof of completion of compulsory internship for one

year.

2. The private respondents are students who claim that they have

completed the MBBS course in International Medical and Technological

University (`IMT University' for short), a foreign University situated in

Tanzania. The said university was established in Tanzania, by Vignan

Education Foundation, an organization based in India. They fall under two

categories. The first category are those who underwent the first two terms

(Pre-clinical and Para clinical courses of 18 months each) between October

1998 and May 2002 at Katuri Medical College and Hospital, Guntur (which

was, at that point of time, an unrecognized medical college) and the last term

(the clinical course of 18 months) at Tanzania between June 2002 to

November 2003/January 2004. The second category of students are those

who underwent the entire course of study at Tanzania.

3. All these students, after successful completion of the course,

underwent the Screening Test conducted by the National Board of

Examinations as provided under the Screening Regulations. Some of the

students were declined provisional registration and therefore could not do

the internship in India and obtain permanent registration. Some of the

3

students were granted provisional registration, completed the internship, but

were declined permanent registration. Some students, after securing

provisional registration and completing the internship, were granted

permanent registration, but subsequently their registrations were cancelled.

They all approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for relief.

4. The said petitions were resisted by MCI primarily on the following

two grounds: (i) where an Indian student does any study in a medical college

in India, established without the permission from the Central Government

under Section 10A of the Act, is automatically disqualified from getting

recognition of his medical degree, even if such degree is granted by a

foreign University; and (ii) if a student's primary medical qualification is not

a recognized qualification for enrolment as a medical practitioner in the

country in which the Institution granting the medical qualification is

situated, he will not be entitled to participate in the screening test

examination.

5. The High Court, after exhaustive consideration, allowed the writ

petitions holding that the writ petitioners fulfilled the requirements of the

section 13(4A) of the Act and regulation (4) of the Screening Regulations,

4

that is, (i) they were citizens of India, (ii) they had obtained a medical

qualification outside India, granted by a medical institution (IMT

University) in Tanzania, (iii) the medical qualification granted by the said

medical institution in Tanzania is recognized for the purpose of enrolment as

a medical practitioner in Tanzania, (iv) the Indian Embassy in Tanzania has

confirmed that the medical qualification granted by IMT University,

Tanzania (which granted the medical qualifications to the writ petitioners)

was a recognized qualification for enrolment as a medical practitioner in

Tanzania; and (v) the writ petitioners appeared and qualified in the screening

test conducted by National Board of Examinations in India. As a

consequence, the High Court held that the foreign medical qualification of

the writ petitioners was deemed to be a recognized medical qualification for

the purpose of the Act and that subject to completion of the required

internship, they were entitled to be enrolled on the medical register

maintained by any State Medical Council or to have their names entered in

the Indian Medical Register.

6. Section 13(4A) of the Act and Regulation 4 of the Screening

Regulations referred to in the decision are extracted below:

5 "13. Recognition of medical qualification granted by certain

medical institutions whose qualifications are not included in the

First or Second Schedule -

xxx xxx xxx

4A. A person who is a citizen of India and obtains medical

qualification granted by any medical institution in any country

outside India recognized 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 Registers unless he qualifies the screening te4st 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."

Regulation 4 of the screening Regulations as it originally stood is extracted

below:

"4. Eligibility Criteria - No person shall be allowed to appear in

the screening test unless :

(i) he/she is a citizen of India either whose name and the

institution awarding it are included in the World

Directory of Medical Schools, published by the world

Health organization, or and possesses any primary

medical qualification, which is confirmed by the Indian

Embassy concerned to be a recognized qualification for

enrolment as medical practitioner in the country in which

the institution awarding the said qualification is situated;

(ii) He/she had obtained `Eligibility Certificate' from the

Medical Council of India as per the `Eligibility Requirement for

taking admissions in an undergraduate medical course in a

Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2001'. This

6

requirement shall not be necessary in respect of India citizens,

who have acquired the medical qualifications from foreign

medical institutions or have obtained admission in foreign

medical institution before 15th March, 2002."

7. The High Court by the impugned judgment elaborately considered the

various issues with reference to section 13(4A) of the Act and Regulation 4

of the Screening Regulations, and answered the questions of law as under:

(i) When the Parliament chose to treat all Indian citizens who obtained

medical qualification from abroad as one category, there is no scope to resort

to classifying those who underwent part of the course in Indian institutions

as a separate category.

(ii) Medical qualification granted by IMT University, Tanzania, is

recognized for enrolment as a medical practitioner in Tanzania and it is

neither specifically nor impliedly excluded from the purview of Section

13(4A) of the Act.

(ii) Once a Medical Graduate of a foreign university qualifies the

screening test, the primary medical qualification acquired by such person

from the medical institution abroad is deemed to be a recognized medical

qualification for the purposes of the Act. Such person cannot be denied grant

of permanent/provisional registration.

7

On a careful consideration of the facts and the legal position, we find no

error in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The special leave

petitions are therefore liable to be dismissed.

8. MCI contends that where student of a foreign University undergo a

part of his training in an Institution in India which has not obtained the

permission from the Central Government/MCI, as required under section

10A of the Act, such students are not eligible for registration as medical

practitioners in India. The requirements for recognition of a medical

qualification granted by a medical institution outside India are different from

requirements for recognition of medical qualification granted by Universities

or medical institutions in India. It is no doubt true that if a student in India,

does a course of study in medicine in a medial college in India which does

not have the permission of the Central Government under Section 10A of the

Act, the medical qualification granted to any student of that college will not

be a recognized medical qualification for the purposes of the Act and

consequently such student will not be entitled to be enrolled in the India

Medical Register or State Medical Register. But medical qualifications

granted by medical institutions outside India are dealt within a special

provision, that is Section 13(4A) of the Act. Necessarily, for examining the

8

validity of the medical qualification granted by a medical institution in any

country outside India, the norms and tests of the country where the medical

institution is situated, will have to be fulfilled for recognition of the degree

in that country and the norms that are prescribed by the Indian Medial

Council Act, 1956 in regard to Indian medical institutions will have no

relevance. So long as the medical institutions in a country outside India has

granted a medial qualification and that medical qualification is recognized

for enrolment as medical practitioner in that country, all that is required for

the purpose of enrolment in the medical register in India is qualifying in the

screening test in India. In the case of persons who obtained a medical

qualification in a medical institution outside India, the question as to where

the course of study was undergone is not relevant. The course of study could

be in that country or if the norms of the Medical Council of that country so

permitted, the course of study could be partly in that country and partly in

another country including India. Once that country recognizes a medical

qualification granted by the institution in that country for the purpose of

enrolment as a medical practitioner in that country, and such medical degree

holder passes the screening test in India, the Medical Council of India can

not refuse to recognize such degree on the ground that the student did a part

of his study in an Institution in India as a part of his medical study

9

programme for the foreign institution. As stated above, as far as the

provisions of the Act at the relevant point of time, all that was required for

an Indian citizen holding a medical qualification from a foreign country for

being enrolled in the medical register was that he should qualify in the

screening test in India. Therefore, the fact that such a medical graduate

underwent a part of the medical course of a foreign university, in an Indian

college which was not recognized in India, will not be relevant.

9. Learned counsel for the MCI submitted that unscrupulous operators in

India may commence and conduct courses in unauthorized institutions in

India and make the students take their examination in a foreign country to

secure a degree outside India and thereafter flood India with inadequately

and improperly educated Medical graduates, by appearing and passing in the

screening test. This apprehension is without any basis as the Screening

Regulations have now been amended by the Screening Test Regulations

(Amendment), 2010 whereby clause (3) has been added in Regulation 4 to

the following effect:

"(3) He/she has studied for the medical course at the same

institute located abroad for the entire duration of the course

from where he/she has obtained the degree."

10

10. The second contention of MCI is also untenable. It is true that if the

primary medical qualification of the candidate was not a recognized

qualification for enrolment as medical practitioner in the country in which

the institution awarding the said qualification is situated, such candidates

will not entitled to take part in the screening test examination in India. In

this case the High Commission of India in Tanzania has confirmed the

following: (i) that Tanzania Medical Council has recognized the curriculum

and medical degree of MBBS of International Medical & Technological,

University Dar es Salaam, Tanzania as equivalent to MD degree in

Tanzania; and (ii) that the medical degrees offered to the said International

Medical & Technological University, Tanzania are recognized by Medical

Council of Tanzania and the MBBS graduates of the said university are

eligible for registration as Medical practitioners by the Medical Council of

Tanzania under the provisions of the Medical Practitioners & Dentists Act,

Cap 152 of the Laws of Tanzania. Therefore, the question of such primary

degree not being recognized in India for the purpose of sitting in the

screening test examination does not arise.

11. In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment

of the High Court. We may, however, refer to an apprehension expressed by

11

the learned counsel for the MCI. He submitted that these petitioners have

completed the course in 2003-2004 and many had undergone the screening

test in 2005 and they have not been practicing thereafter and therefore their

knowledge is likely to be rusted. This court had put a query to the MCI on

12.8.2010 as to whether MCI will be willing to consider the case of such

students, for permanent registration on undergoing a special package of

internship. Learned counsel for MCI, on instructions, submitted that if this

Court upholds the judgment of the High Court, then the writ petitioners may

be required to undergo three separate papers of pre-clinical, para-clinical and

clinical medicine, each of 100 marks and thereafter again undergo a separate

internship. As the Screening Regulations provide for a single paper, and all

the writ petitioners have successfully completed the screening test, the

students need not be required to pass three special papers again. However, in

view of the long gap from the completion of the course, even those who

have completed their internship will have to undergo internship afresh for

one year to obtain permanent registration. On the other hand, those who

have not done the internship in pursuance of the provisional registration

shall be entitled to undergo the internship now and then seek permanent

registration. To ensure that the students undergo such internship after

provisional registration, the students concerned shall inform the MCI about

12

commencement and completion of internship.

12. It is stated that some students, that is respondents 1 and 2 in SLP (C)

No.23652/2008 and respondent No.3 in SLP (C) No.23653/2008, have

undergone the entire course in Tanzania and fall under the second category.

They have been granted provisional registration and completed their

internship. They are entitled to permanent registration. Learned counsel for

MCI fairly submitted that MCI does not challenge the order of the High

Court in regard to such students.

13. Subject to the requirement that the first category students should

undergo a fresh internship of one year in view of the long gap from the date

of the degree and internship, these special leave petitions are dismissed,

upholding the decision of the High Court.

14. All applications for impleadment by the similarly situated students

(that is persons having medical degree from IMT University who have done

the complete course at Tanzania) or part of the course in India and remaining

part in Tanzania are allowed. They will be entitled to similar reliefs as

granted above.

13

..................................J.

(R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; .................................J.

May 09, 2011. (A K Patnaik)