Delhi High Court - Orders
Dr.Pankhuri Agarwal vs Union Of India on 15 March, 2021
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3287/2021
DR.PANKHURI AGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with
Mr.Shriram Tiwary, Advocate for
UOI.
Mr. T. Singhdev, Ms. Mischelle
B.Das & Ms. Sumangla Swami,
Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 15.03.2021 The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).
1. Issue notice. Ms. Monika Arora, learned CGSC, accepts notice for respondent no. 1. Mr. T. Singhdev, learned counsel, accepts notice for respondent no. 2-National Medical Council of India ["NMCI"].
2. The petitioner seeks a direction to recognize her degree of M.Sc. in Clinical Dermatology from the University of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom, as an additional qualification under Section 26 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ["the 1956 Act"]. Mr. Singhdev, who appears on advance notice on behalf of respondent no. 2-NMCI, points out that the 1956 Act has since been repealed and replaced by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 ["2019 Act"]. He states that the relevant section of the 2019 Act would be Section 33(3). Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:18.03.2021 14:43:07 W.P.(C) 3287/2021 Page 1 of 2 learned counsel for the petitioner, will consider whether any amendment to the prayer clause is required.
3. Be that as it may, it is undisputed that the relevant regulations remain unchanged, and the regulations made under the 1956 Act have been continued by virtue of Section 61 of the 2019 Act. Ms. Dwivedi submits that the petitioner had made a comprehensive representation dated 12.02.2020 to the respondent, pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 20.01.2020 in W.P.(C) 736/2020. That representation has been rejected by the impugned order dated 14.12.2020. According to Ms. Dwivedi, the contentions raised in the representation have not been answered. She refers particularly to the contention in paragraph (B) of the representation (at page 77 of the writ petition) to the effect that another doctor who has obtained an M.Sc. in Nuclear Medicine from the United Kingdom has been recognized as possessing an additional qualification.
4. It prima facie appears that this contention has not been dealt with in the impugned order dated 14.12.2020. Mr. Singhdev however submits that, in similar circumstances, this Court has rejected petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution in a batch of matters by judgment dated 23.07.2019 in W.P.(C) 6479/2016 and connected matters [Dr. Ojasvi Sharma & Ors vs. Union of India & Anr.]. Mr. Singhdev is directed to file an affidavit dealing with the aforesaid contentions, and place a copy of the said judgment on record. The affidavit be filed within four weeks.
5. List on 24.05.2021.
PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 15, 2021/'pv'/s Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:18.03.2021 14:43:07 W.P.(C) 3287/2021 Page 2 of 2