Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Dr.P.Harsha Vardhan And Others vs Government Of India, Ministry Of Health ... on 31 December, 2014
Author: Ramesh Ranganathan
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.
WRIT PETITION NO.5784 OF 2014
31-12-2014
Dr.P.Harsha Vardhan and others.Petitioner
Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and others..
Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar
Counsel for respondents: Govt. of India, Ministry of Health;
Sri A. Prabhakar Rao; Sri D. Srinivas,
Learned Standing Counsel for MCI
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Citations:
1) AIR 1956 SC 479
2) (1999) 7 SCC 120
3) (2003) 8 SCC 69
4) (1981) 4 SCC 512
5) AIR 1958 SC 538
6) (1994) 6 SCC 349
7) (1974) 1 SCC 19 = AIR 1974 SC 1
8) AIR 1967 SC 839
9) AIR 1968 SC 1099
10) AIR 1955 SC 191
11) 1952 SCR 284
12) (2002) 3 SCC 302
13) (2002) 4 SCC 539
14) (2014) 8 SCC 390
15) (1974) 4 SCC 428
16) 1989 Suppl. (1) SCC 116
17) (1994) 3 SCC 569
18) (2004) 3 SCC 609
19) (2010) 3 SCC 314
20) (2011) 2 SCC 575
21) (2011) 9 SCC 1
22) (2002) 2 SCC 7
23) (2002) 8 SCC 715
24) (2004) 10 SCC 796
25) (2009) 5 SCC 641
26) (2011) 4 SCC 606
27) (1980) 3 SCC 97
28) (2011) 8 SCC 737
29) AIR 1965 SC 491
30) AIR 1990 SC 1402
31) AIR 2010 SC 1285
32) (2010) 8 SCC 372
33) (2011) 6 SCC 597
34) (1984) 4 SCC 27
35) AIR 1974 SC 1631
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.5784 OF 2014
ORDER:(per Honble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the Medical Council of India (MCI for short) in exercising its powers under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) and amending the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter called the Regulations) by notification dated 17.04.2013, and thereby deleting M.D (Biochemistry) discipline from the eligibility criteria for admission to the super-specialty course of Doctor of Medicine (DM) in Endocrinology, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners have all either completed their post graduate degree (MD) in Bio-chemistry or are undergoing the said course. By notification dated 17.04.2013, the MCI amended the Regulations deleting M.D (Biochemistry) from among the prescribed eligibility criteria for admission to DM (Endocrinology) super specialty course. It is the petitioners case that they opted for M.D (Bio-chemistry) having regard to their future prospects of becoming an Endocrinologist by pursuing DM (Endocrinology) as a super specialty subject; prior to its amendment, the Regulations prescribed M.D (Biochemistry), M.D (Pediatrics) and M.D (General Medicine) as the minimum educational qualifications required for admission to DM (Endocrinology); these Regulations were in existence for more than 13 years till they were amended in the year 2013; in its 33rd meeting held on 03.10.2013, the Board of Governors of MCI resolved that MD (Biochemistry) be deleted as the entry qualification for admission to D.M. (Endocrinology), as M.D (Biochemistry) was a preclinical discipline wherein candidates were not exposed to clinical practice; extensive clinical knowledge was necessary to pursue DM (Endocrinology) which dealt with the endocrine system of the body; they had retained the other two disciplines i.e., M.D (General Medicine) and M.D (Pediatrics) on the ground that these two disciplines were essentially clinical subjects, which dealt with the clinical aspects of the endocrine system in adults and children; this finding of the Board of Governors is incorrect; while clinical practice is necessary for pursuing endocrinology, it cannot be said that M.D (Biochemistry) course does not have any clinical subjects or that candidates possessing a post-graduate degree in Biochemistry are not exposed to clinical subjects at all; the very fact that the candidates, possessing M.D (Biochemistry), were allowed to pursue D.M (Endocrinology) for the past 13 years shows that they were also exposed to clinical subjects during their MBBS programme; if M.D (Biochemistry) is deleted as one of the eligible qualifications, for admission into DM (Endocrinology), Post-Graduates in Biochemistry would be unable to undergo any other super- specialty course except in Immunology and Genetics for which no seats are available in the State of Andhra Pradesh; though these two disciplines are being taught in other States, candidates belonging to the State of Andhra Pradesh are not eligible to undergo the said course; consequently, all candidates who possess the qualification of M.D (Biochemistry) would be required to stop further education in medicine, and rest content only with a post graduate degree; candidates are being eliminated from appearing in the entrance examination, for admission into D.M (Endocrinology), in the midst of their M.D (Biochemistry) course; they cannot even stop pursuing the MD (Biochemistry) course, as they have to lose their Rupees 20 lakhs bond which they gave at the time of admission; even if they were to complete MD (Biochemistry), they cannot pursue another Post Graduation course thereafter to seek admission into DM (Endocrinology), as it is not permissible in law to have two Post- Graduate Degrees/Diplomas; the M.C.I cannot exclude M.D (Biochemistry) abruptly without prior intimation to the student community; before taking a decision to delete MD (Biochemistry), as one of the eligible subjects for admission into DM (Endocrinology), MCI has not examined the repercussions and the plight of students who are either pursuing M.D. (Biochemistry) or have completed the said course; earlier MCI and various universities had allowed students with M.D (Biochemistry) to seek admission to D.M (Endocrinology); even during their MBBS and Post Graduate programme in Biochemistry with rotatory internship, students are given adequate exposure in clinical subjects; the student logbook itself substantiates that M.D (Biochemistry) students are posted in areas where they are given adequate clinical exposure; while undergoing the post graduate degree course in Biochemistry, students are required to examine patients, undertake laboratory diagnosis and treatment etc; the impugned amendment is an abuse of the power vested in the MCI under Section 33 of the Act; before amending the regulations, by deleting M.D (Biochemistry) from the eligible post-graduate courses necessary for admission into DM (Endocrinology), the M.C.I. has neither undertaken any scientific study nor has it considered the adverse impact their decision would have on students pursuing M.D (Biochemistry); having permitted students with M.D (Biochemistry) to pursue DM (Endocrinology) for the past 13 years, M.C.I. has acted arbitrarily in deleting/eliminating them from the stream of students eligible to appear for the entrance examination for admission into DM (Endocrinology) course; and this action of the respondent is arbitrary and illegal.
In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent it is stated that M.C.I, constituted under the provisions of Indian Medical Counsel Act, has been entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the highest standards of medical education through out the country; in the discharge of these statutory obligations, M.C.I. has been empowered, with the prior approval of the Central Government, to frame regulations for laying down the minimum standards of infrastructure, teaching and other requirements for conducting medical courses; the M.C.I. lays down in detail the course content, the duration, distribution of teaching and training on various subjects, and the manner in which examinations should be conducted etc; the Regulations framed by M.C.I are statutory in character, and have the force of law; the Post- Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 were approved by the Government of India on 22.05.2000, and were published in the official gazette on 07.10.2000, with the prior approval of the Central Government; these regulations were amended whereby the procedure for admission in post graduate courses has been prescribed in detail; these regulations provide that admission, in post graduate medical courses, must be on the basis of merit, and merit alone; the mandatory and binding character of the statutory regulations have been upheld by Courts; the Courts would not, normally, interfere with the qualifications prescribed by expert bodies like the M.C.I, especially for admission into super-specialty medical courses; the M.C.I was superseded by the Board of Governors, nominated by the Central Government, in May, 2010; the entire work of M.C.I was carried out thereafter by the Board of Governors, who later demitted office in November, 2013; the Board of Governors, nominated by the Central Government, constituted a Speciality Board to re-examine the eligibility criteria for admission into various super-specialty courses including D.M (Endocrinology) as provided under the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000; the three members of the Speciality Board, who are eminent specialists in the field of medicine and in the concerned super-specialty of Endocrinology, were (i) DR. Nalini Sameer Shah, Professor & Head of the Department of Endocrinology, Seth G.S. Medical College, K.E.M. Hospital, Parel, Mumbai; (ii) Dr. Krishna G. Sheshadri, Professor and Head of Endocrinology and Diabetes at Sri Ramachandra University, Chennai and (iii) Dr. Nikhil Tandon, Professor & Head of the Department of Endocrinology, AIIMS, New Delhi; the members of the Specialty Board, after detailed discussion and due deliberations with regards the eligibility criteria for admission into the D.M. (Endocrinology) super specialty course, unanimously agreed that prior experience as a clinician is required for pursuing the D.M (Endocrinology) course which is a clinical discipline; the recommendations of the specialty board was placed before the Board of Governors, nominated by the Central Government, in their meeting held on 11.06.2012; after due deliberations, with regards the eligibility criteria for admission into D.M. (Endocrinology) course, the Board of Governors agreed with the recommendations of the Specialty Board; a draft notification was sent to the Central Government on 29.06.2012 for its approval; after scrutinizing the proposed amendment in the Schedule to the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, the Central Government duly approved the same; thereafter the notification was sent for publication in the gazette; the M.C.I. has amended the regulations with the prior approval of the Central Government; the amendment to the regulations dated 17.04.2013 was notified in the gazette on 15.05.2013; after the amendment, all candidates desirous of admission in the super-specialty D.M (Endocrinology) course must have obtained a post-graduate degree, from a recognized medical college, either in Medicine or in Pediatrics; candidates possessing the post-graduate medical qualification in Biochemistry are eligible for admission into other super-specialty medical course such as D.M (Clinical Hematology), D.M. (Immunology) and D.M. (Medical Genetics); the petitioners contention that, after the amendment dated 17.04.2013, they cannot pursue a super specialty course is misconceived; the amendment dated 17.04.2013 is not unreasonable, discriminatory or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; with a view to discharge its statutory responsibilities under the Act, the M.C.I. has, from time to time, framed and amended various regulations with the prior approval of the Central Government for laying the minimum norms and requirements; and the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for.
Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, ever since the Regulations were made in the year 2000 till the year 2013 when the amended Regulations came into force, M.D. (Biochemistry) was among the prescribed educational qualifications for admission into the DM (Endocrinology) super speciality course; the MCI has not assigned any reasons for deleting M.D. (Biochemistry) from the prescribed eligibility criteria for admission into D.M. (Endocrinology); the deletion of M.D. (Biochemistry) is discriminatory, and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; the report of the Specialty Board does not disclose any valid reasons for deletion of the M.D. (Biochemistry) course; the averment in the counter-affidavit that students undergoing a post graduate course in Biochemistry are not exposed to clinical subjects is erroneous; a perusal of the syllabus, enclosed along with the Writ Petition, shows that students undergoing M.D. (Biochemistry) course are exposed to clinical subjects also; students who possess M.D. (Biochemistry) qualification are similarly situated to those who have completed a postgraduate degree course in Medicine or Pediatrics; students who possess postgraduate qualification in these three courses are similarly situated; retention of M.D. (medicine) and M.D. (Pediatrics), while deleting M.D. (Biochemistry), as the eligible qualification for admission into D.M. (Endocrinology) does not satisfy the test of a valid classification; and it is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. Learned Counsel would rely on Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India in this regard.
The Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 were made by the Medical Council of India in the exercise of its powers under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. In the Schedule thereto, the eligibility criteria stipulated for admission in D.M. (Endocrinology) course was that the candidate must possess a recognised degree (or its recognised equivalent degree) in M.D. (medicine), M.D. (Pediatrics), and M.D. (Biochemistry). The Regulations were amended by the Postgraduate Educational Amendment Regulation 2012 and, in the schedule to the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 under the head D.M (doctor of medicine) for endocrinology at serial No.4, M.D. (Biochemistry) was deleted. Consequent thereto, it is only students, who possess a Post-graduate degree in Medicine or Pediatrics, who are eligible to seek admission into D.M (Endocrinology) super specialty course. The aforesaid amendment to the Regulations were made, with the approval of the Central Government, on 17.04.2013 and were published in the Gazette of India dated 15.05.2013. For admission into the D.M (Endocrinology) course, after the amendment was published in the gazette on 15.05.2013, candidates, who possess a postgraduate degree in Biochemistry, are no longer eligible.
The MCI has been set up as an expert body, under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, to control the minimum standards of medical education and to regulate their observance. The Act empowers the MCI to prescribe the minimum standards of postgraduate medical education; and it has implicit power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards for admission to medical institutions. The universities are guided by the standards prescribed by the Medical Council. The Medical Council Regulations have statutory force and are mandatory. (Dr.Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. ; Harish Verma v. Ajay Srivastava ; State of Kerala v. T.P. Roshana ). The validity of these statutory regulations can only be impeached on the ground that it falls foul of the parent Act or it is in violation of the constitutional provisions, more particularly Part III of the Constitution of India. It is not even the case of the petitioners that the amended Regulation is in violation of the provisions of the Act. The challenge thereto is limited to its being discriminatory and ultravires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
It must be presumed that the Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds. There is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment, and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles. (Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar ; Gauri Shanker v. Union of India ). There is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment/rule/regulation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles. A rule cannot be struck down as discriminatory on any a priori reasoning. Where a party seeks to impeach the validity of a rule made by a competent authority on the ground that the Rules offend Article 14, the burden is on him to plead and prove the infirmity. The burden is on the petitioner to set out facts necessary to sustain the plea of discrimination and to adduce cogent and convincing evidence to prove those facts for there is a presumption that every factor which is relevant or material has been taken into account in formulating the classification. Unless the classification is unjust on the face of it, the onus lies upon the party attacking the classification to show, by pleading and placing the necessary material before the Court, that the said classification is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.(State of J & K v. Triloki Nath Khosa ; G.D. Kelkar v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports ). It is no part of the respondents burden to justify the classification or to establish its constitutionality. (Triloki Nath Khosa7).
In order to establish that the protection of the equal opportunity clause has been denied to them, it is not enough for the petitioners to say that they have been treated differently from others, not even enough that a differential treatment has been accorded to them in comparison with others similarly circumstanced. Discrimination is the essence of classification and does violence to the constitutional guarantee of equality only if it rests on an unreasonable basis. It is, therefore, incumbent on the petitioners to show that the classification of students into those who hold a postgraduate medical degree either in Medicine or Pediatrics, and those who hold a postgraduate medical degree in Biochemistry, is unreasonable and bears no rational nexus with its purported object. (Triloki Nath Khosa7). The submission, urged on behalf of the petitioners in this regard, is only that the MCI had erred in holding that post graduates in Biochemistry, unlike post graduates in Medicine and Pediatrics, do not have clinical experience.
In examining this contention, it must be borne in mind that Article 14 forbids discrimination, and its gravamen is equality of treatment. A person setting up a grievance of denial of equal treatment by the law must establish that, between persons similarly circumstanced, some were treated to their prejudice and the differential treatment has no reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law. (Gauri Shanker6; Western U.P. Electric Power & Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. ). While Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different basis. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act/Regulation under consideration. (Gauri Shanker6; Ram Krishna Dalmia5; Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar ). The classification must rest upon a real and substantial distinction bearing a reasonable and just relation to the thing in respect to which the classification is made; and classification made without any reasonable basis should be regarded as invalid. (Bidi Supply Co.1; State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar ).
The complaint, of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, cannot be judged by adopting a doctrinaire approach. It is not prudent or pragmatic to insist on a mathematically accurate classification covering diverse situations and all possible contingencies in view of the inherent complexities involved. (State of Karnataka v. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees Association ). The legislature enjoys considerable latitude, and exercises its power of classification enriched by its experience and taking into consideration myriad circumstances. (Ombalika Das v. Hulisa Shaw ). Precision and arithmetical accuracy will not exist in any categorisation, and such precision and accuracy is not what Article 14 contemplates. As long as the broad features of the categorisation are identifiable and distinguishable, and the categorisation is reasonably connected with the object targeted, Article 14 does not forbid such a course of action. (Subramanian Swamy v. Raju ; Murthy Match Works v. CCE ; Roop Chand Adlakha v. DDA ; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab ; Basheer v. State of Kerala ; B. Manmad Reddy v. Chandra Prakash Reddy and Transport and Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust ).
The object sought to be achieved by the classification, in the amended Regulations, is to further excellence in higher Medical Education. The basis of classification of students, between those who have a post graudate degree in medicine and pediatrics on the one hand, and those having a post graduate degree in Biochemistry on the other, for admission in D.M. (Endocrinology) is their clinical experience. While the former group are said to have the requisite clinical experience, the latter are said not to. As the classification of post-graduate Medical students, between those who have the required clinical experience and those who do not, has a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved i.e., maintenance of high standards of Medical Education by restricting admission to DM (Endocrinology) course only to those students who have the required clinical exposure, the test of a valid classification is satisfied, and the petitioners plea of discrimination must fail.
The contention, that no reasons are assigned for amending the regulations, is also devoid of merit. Delegated legislation cannot be questioned on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, especially in the absence of any such statutory requirement. Neither the Legislature nor its delegate are legally obliged to give any reasons for their action while discharging their legislative function. (K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka ; State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh ; W.B. Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd. ; Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Promoters and Builders Assn. and Bihar SEB v. Pulak Enterprises ). The basis of the classification of persons or things may appear on the face of the statute or may be gathered from the surrounding circumstances known to or brought to the notice of the Court. (Ram Krishna Dalmia5; Gauri Shanker6).
Relevant material is always admissible to show the reason and the justification for the classification. Such reasons need not appear on the face of the Rule or the law which effects the classification. (T.N. Khosa7). The reasons, which necessitated amendment of the Regulations, are detailed in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of MCI, and are evident from the record placed for our perusal, which include the report of the speciality board consisting of three eminent Endocrinologists in the country. In the absence of any such requirement, either in the parent Act or in the Regulations themselves, the reasons which necessitated amendment of the Regulations need not be reflected in the Regulations itself and can be gathered from the surrounding circumstances or, for that matter, can be stated in the counter- affidavit filed before this Court.
The mere fact that M.D. (Biochemistry) was among the prescribed qualifications for admission into D.M. (Endocrinology) for thirteen years, from when the Regulations were made in the year 2000 till they were amended in the year 2013, is of no avail. The eligibility criteria for admissions in super-speciality medical courses must be periodically reviewed by the MCI keeping in mind the need to maintain excellence and high standards in higher medical education. Determination of such standards is part of the academic policy of the MCI. (Visveswaraiah Technological University v. Krishnendu Halder ). Revision of standards, for admission into super-speciality courses in Medicine, are matters of policy. The Court cannot strike down a policy merely because there is a variation. Consistency is not always a virtue. What is important is to know whether irrational and extraneous factor foul. (Tamil Nadu Education Deptt. Ministerial & General Subordinate Services Assn. v. State of T.N. ). There can be no quarrel if a policy is revised. The wisdom of yesterday may obsolesce into the folly of today, even as the science of old may sour into the superstition now, and vice versa. (Tamil Nadu Education Deptt. Ministerial & General Subordinate Services Assn.27). Reform must begin somewhere if it has to begin at all and, therefore, the administrator who has complex problems to solve must be allowed the freedom to proceed tentatively, step by step. (T.N. Khosa7). The petitioners cannot be heard to contend that qualifications, once prescribed, must continue forever and not be subjected to change at all.
The records placed before this Court by Sri D. Srinivas, Learned Standing Counsel for MCI, reveal that a Board of Experts was constituted to examine the course content for D.M. (Endocrinology). In its report submitted to the Board of Governors of MCI, the expert committee opined that the goals of the D.M programme, in Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, was to provide comprehensive knowledge, clinical skills, professional attributes and values to prepare trainees to care for patients suffering from diseases of the endocrine system; to ensure clinical care experience to a variety of patients suffering from diverse endocrine problems, and in diagnosing and managing such patients; and to provide a diverse learning experience to trainees in allied areas as they relate to endocrinology, diabetes and metabolism. The expert body suggested that the name of the course be renamed as Doctor of Medicine (D.M) in Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism and the eligibility therefor be prescribed as a post-graduate degree in M.D (Internal Medicine) or M.D (Pediatrics) in three years.
While recommending the competence standards for undergoing the DM (Endocrinology) course, the Board of experts opined that the postgraduate must demonstrate competence in clinical care including evaluation and management of horomonal problems, acute life threatening complications of hyper and hypo glycemia; metabolism in adults and children, and other aspects of Endocrinology and Metabolism. The emphasis placed by the expert body was on competence in clinical care in various areas/aspects. As the expert body was of the view that such clinical exposure is given only to those students who undergo a post-graduate degree course in internal Medicine or in Pediatrics, the eligibility criteria for admission into D.M (Endocrinology) was restricted only to these courses. On receipt of the recommendations of the expert body the M.C.I, after complying with the requirements of Section 33 of the Act, deleted M.D (Biochemistry) from among the educational qualifications prescribed as the eligibility criteria for admission into the D.M (Endocrinology) super specialty course.
The contention that Medical post-graduates in Biochemistry have the required clinical exposure cannot be examined in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court lacks the expertise to examine academic policies and would, ordinarily, abide by the opinion of experts. Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by experts, and must leave such decisions to those who are more familiar with such problems, than the Courts generally can be. (State of T.N. v. K. Shyam Sunder ; University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao ; Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal ; Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity ; Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and State of H.P. v. H.P. Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh ). Whether or not students who have undergone M.D. (Biochemistry) course have been given clinical exposure on par with those who have undergone M.D. (Medicine) or M.D (Pediatrics) courses, are matters of expertise which this Court lacks, and are technical questions not, ordinarily, amenable to judicial review.
The Court would not substitute its opinion for that of the Legislature or its delegate as to what policy would best serve the objects and purposes of the Act or sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by the regulation-making body, and declare a regulation to be ultravires merely on the ground that, in the view of the Court, the impugned provisions will not help to serve the object. As long as the body, entrusted with the task of framing the rules or regulations, acts within the scope of the authority conferred on it, in the sense that the rules or regulations made by it have a rational nexus with the object, the court would not concern itself with the wisdom or efficaciousness of such rules or regulations. It is exclusively within the province of the Legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, what measures would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects.
It is not for the Court to examine the merits or demerits of a policy. (Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth ). It may be a wise policy which will effectuate the purpose of its enactment or it may lack effectiveness calling for its revision and improvement. Any drawbacks in the policy, incorporated in a rule or regulation, will not render it ultra vires and the Court would not strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy. The Legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act. (Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education34).
Equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question based on a proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards and practical attainments of such qualifications, and where the decision is based on the recommendation of an expert body which possesses the requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for adequately discharging such functions, the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by the technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision. It is only where the decision is shown to be based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or is actuated by malafides or is irrational and perverse or is manifestly wrong that the Court would reach out its lethal arm and strike down the decision. (Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India ). The Court would not sit in appeal over the legislative judgment to find out whether, on a comparative evaluation of the rival theories touching upon the question of equivalence in educational qualifications, the theory advocated by the petitioners is not to be preferred. Classification is primarily for the legislature or for the statutory authority charged with the duty of framing the eligibility criteria and if, looked at from the standpoint of the authority making it, the classification is found to rest on a reasonable basis, it has to be upheld. (Triloki Nath Khosa7). This Court would defer to the wisdom of the Speciality Board whose members are experts in the field of Endocrinology, more so as no malafides are attributed to them, and their expertise in this regard is not in doubt.
The contention that deletion of M.D. (Biochemistry), from the list of eligible educational qualifications required for admission into D.M (Endocrinology) course, would deny the petitioners the opportunity of undergoing any super speciality course, does not also merit acceptance. It is evident, from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the MCI, that M.D (Biochemistry) is among the prescribed educational qualifications for admission into the super speciality courses of D.M (clinical Hematology), DM (Immunology) and D.M (Medical genetics). The M.C.I. lays down uniform standards for medical education applicable to all the universities throughout the country and the petitioners, some of whom are undergoing their post graduation in Biochemistry in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, cannot claim to stand on a different footing. While the amendment to the Regulations has resulted in their being denied the opportunity of undergoing the D.M (Endocrinology) course, that, by itself, would not justify striking down the statutory regulations, which are otherwise valid.
Viewed from any angle, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No costs.
_____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J ___________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Date: 31-12-2014.