Tejwant Singh Gill vs Union Of India And Another on 22 April, 2013

[Cites 0, Cited by 4]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Tejwant Singh Gill vs Union Of India And Another on 22 April, 2013

Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina

CWP No.8231 of 2013
                                                                       -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                             CWP No.8231 of 2013
                                             Date of Decision: 22.04.2013


Tejwant Singh Gill

                                                   ..... Petitioner

                         Versus


Union of India and another
                                                   ..... Respondents


CORAM:-       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

Present:    Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the cut off date fixed in the notification dated 13.02.2002 issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI) saves medical qualifications earned from an institution in a foreign country prior to 15.03.2002. Therefore, the Eligibility Certificate from MCI in terms of the 'Eligibility Requirement for taking admission in an undergraduate medical course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2002' would not be required by persons who have done their basic medical course from an institution in a foreign country prior to the cut off date. The petitioner is stated to have obtained his Doctor of General Medicine from Kuban State Medical Academy, Ukraine. On his return to India, the MCI had permitted the petitioner to appear in the CWP No.8231 of 2013 -2- screening test prescribed by MCI for such persons as have done basic medical education abroad. Not only this the MCI permitted the petitioner to undergo the Compulsory Rotary Internship Training for one year in India. Having done so, the petitioner's request for enrollment as a Doctor in India has not been finalized although a representation dated 29.01.2013 (P-12) has been made to the MCI in this behalf.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since no order has been passed, it would be appropriate that a direction may go to the MCI

- 2nd respondent to consider and decide the aforesaid representation within a time bound period.

This Court is of the view that this is an appropriate case involving valuable rights of the petitioner in which a direction should go to the 2nd respondent to consider and decide the issue raised by the petitioner in the representation and in the present petition.

In view of the nature of the order passed, it is not found necessary to issue notice to the respondents or to call for a reply since this order would not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Consequently, a direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to do the needful after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if found necessary and in the event of rejection of the request, and to take a final decision within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by passing a speaking order containing reasons for the conclusions reached. The result of the exercise be communicated to the petitioner within the time fixed. In case the order is adverse to the petitioner CWP No.8231 of 2013 -3- he would, needless to say, remain at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

Disposed of with the above directions.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 22.04.2013 manju

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court