Delhi High Court - Orders
Amala Sebas Varsha Solomon Kennedy vs Medical Council Of India & Anr on 28 September, 2020
Author: Jayant Nath
Bench: Jayant Nath
$~A-21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7068/2020 and CM No. 24064/2020
AMALA SEBAS VARSHA SOLOMON KENNEDY..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Viraj Kadam, Adv.
versus
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.T.Singhdev, Mr.Tarun Verma and
Ms. Sumangla Swami, Advs. for MCI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
ORDER
% 28.09.2020 This hearing is conducted through video-conferencing.
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to impugn communication dated 25.08.2020. It is stated that originally NEET exams for 2020 were to be held on 03.05.2020. However, on account of the lockdown, the said exams were postponed.
2. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the communication/order passed on 25.08.2020 whereby all students who wish to take admission in foreign medical universities this year, will have to qualify NEET exam this year or next year i.e. in 2021. The grievance of the petitioner is that this has far reaching effect and that if for any reason, a student is unable to appear in the NEET exam or could not qualify it, his/her entire academic year, career, financial expense stands prejudiced and detrimental.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that firstly, there has been a statutory change and Medical Council of India now stands replaced and the new respondent is National Medical Commission. It has also been pointed out that by notification dated 01.03.2018, the Screening Test Regulations (Amendment) 2018 were notified and it was made mandatory to clear NEET exam prior to taking admission in medical courses abroad for Indian citizens. It has also been pointed out that the aforesaid notification dated 01.03.2018 was upheld by the Division Bench in WP(C) 8091/2018 titled as "Shahul Hameed K.S. And Ors. Vs. Medical Council of India and Anr." dated 27.09.2018. It is pleaded that the present notification which is impugned in the present writ petition is only a facility awarded to the students who wish to study abroad on account of the delay in conducting the NEET exam which has now been held on 13.09.2020. An option has been given to such students to appear in NEET exam next year.
4. In the aforesaid context, reference may be had to the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Shahul Hameed K.S. And Ors. Vs. Medical Council of India and Anr.(supra) where the court held as follows:-
"28. This court is of the opinion that the MCI's amended regulations, mandating that those desirous of studying abroad, had to appear and qualify in NEET has direct nexus with the quality of professionals who - or many of who would - wish to practise the medical profession and seek enrolment in the State register, for that purpose. It is now essential that every candidate wishing to secure admission to any medical college in India, has to appear and clear the NEET. Though at the first blush, those wishing to study abroad are a separate class, nevertheless, after the amendment of 2001 (to the IMC Act) and introduction of Section 13 (4B) every Indian citizen wishing to study abroad has to secure an eligibility certificate from the Central Government. Now, that provision is not under challenge; even an attack to it is of no avail, given the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjeev Gupta (supra). Therefore, it is now no longer open to challenge the authority of the MCI to insist that an eligibility certificate is a precondition for admission abroad. Such being the case, the MCI's amendment of the eligibility regulations to require every candidate (wishing such a certificate) to also qualify in the NEET as a precondition to apply for eligibility certificate cannot be faulted. Such a requirement is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. As held in Principal, Patna College, Patna and Ors. v. Kalyan Srinivas Raman AIR 1966 SC 707; State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana and Anr., (1979) 1 SCC 572; Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (1998) 6 SCC 131 and Dr. Preethi Srivastava v. State of M.P. (1999) 7 SCC 120, the primary decision of an academic regulatory authority, if made within bounds of statute with the object of achieving academic or professional excellence, cannot in the absence of palpable or manifest arbitrariness, be interfered with by courts in judicial review. Consequently, the challenge on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness fails."
5. In view of the aforesaid legal decision, it is manifest that clearing of NEET exam is a mandatory requirement which has been upheld by this court for students who wish to pursue a course in medical degree abroad. The impugned notification is only a concession granted to students on account of the delay in conducting the NEET exam this year. In my opinion, the plea raised by the petitioner is entirely misplaced.
6. There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
JAYANT NATH, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2020 rb