Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. On the other hand, on behalf of the first Respondent learned Counsel has relied on the contents of an affidavit in reply filed in these proceedings. The affidavit in reply adverts to the provisions of sub-sections (3), (4) and (4A) and Section 13 of the Act and upon the relevant provisions of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002. The first Respondent, as is stated in the affidavit, primarily has two objections to the enrolment of the Petitioners. The first objection is that the Petitioners were not eligible to appear in the screening test unless it is confirmed by the Indian Embassy in Philippines that they possess a primary medical qualification which is a recognised qualification for enrolment as medical practitioner in the country in which the institution awarding the qualification is situated. The Petitioners, it is submitted, have not produced any document to show that the medical qualification obtained by them makes them eligible for enrolment as medical practitioners in Dmt 7 wp6633-11 Philippines. In certain countries, it is stated, a person is required to qualify at a licentiate examination. The Petitioners have not, it is urged, placed material on record to show that the medical qualification which they possess is sufficient for enrolment as a medical practitioner in Philippines. Secondly, it has been submitted that the Petitioners have undergone a substantial part of their education in India in an institution which has not been granted permission under Section 10A of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956. The Petitioners, it is urged, cannot be permitted to defeat the object of the statutory provisions by obtaining a medical qualification from a country outside India and seeking registration here, whereas, they have undertaken a major part of their studies in India from an institution which is not established under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

Regulation 4 (1) was substituted on 25th September 2009 and reads as follows :-

"No person shall be allowed to appear in the screening test unless: he/she is a Citizen of India or has been granted Overseas Citizenship of India and possess 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."

The Supreme Court emphasised that if the qualification was not recognised for enrolment as a medical practitioner in Tanzania where the institution awarding the qualification was situated, such candidates would not be entitled to take part in the screening test in India.

14. In the present case, the Petitioners have not annexed any material in these proceedings to establish that the qualification which they have obtained is a recognized qualification for enrolment as a medical practitioner in Philippines. Regulation 4 stipulates that the Indian Embassy must confirm that the qualification is a recognized qualification Dmt 20 wp6633-11 for enrolment as a medical practitioner. Prior to 25 September 2009 the requirement, as it then stood, provided that the institution which awards the qualification must be included in the World Directory of Medical Schools, published by the World Health Organization or that the qualification must be confirmed by the Indian Embassy to be a recognized qualification for enrolment in that country. After the amendment of the Regulation on 25 September 2009, the regulation has now been made more stringent by mandating that Indian Embassy must issue a confirmation in that regard; the first part of the earlier regulation has now been deleted. Hence, before the Petitioners can seek provisional or permanent registration in a State Medical Register or on the Indian Medical Register, it must be duly verified and established that the medical qualification which they possess is recognized in Philippines for enrolment of a medical practitioner. The Petitioners cannot claim registration merely on the basis that they have passed the screening test. The statutory conditions of eligibility are (i) Possession of a primary medical qualification; and (ii) Dmt 21 wp6633-11 confirmation by the Indian Embassy that the qualification is recognised for enrolment as a medical practitioner in the country where the institution which awarded the qualification is situated. Unless the Petitioners fulfil the conditions of eligibility, the mere passing of the screening test will not entitle them to seek registration. The documentary material on the record at this stage does not establish that the Petitioners have have fulfilled the conditions of eligibility. But that said, we are of the view that the Petitioners should have an opportunity of establishing to the satisfaction of the MCI that they do fulfil the conditions of eligibility laid down in the Regulations, read with Section 13 (4A) of the Act. A similar issue has arisen before the Delhi High Court in a petition pertaining to forty persons who claim to have undertaken a primary degree course from the Fourth Respondent. In an order of 5 September 2011 the Delhi High Court noted that the Petitioners sought time to produce documentary evidence to establish that their qualification is recognized in Philippines to practice as medical practitioner. The Medical Council of India was also directed to Dmt 22 wp6633-11 verify whether the qualification which the Petitioners there claimed to possess is recognized in Philippines for practicing medicine. The Medical Council of India has addressed a communication to the Indian Embassy in Philippines. The Court is informed by learned Counsel that a response to the communication is awaited. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Medical Council of India states that upon receipt of a response from the Indian Embassy, the Medical Council shall take an appropriate decision in accordance with law in relation to the application made by the Petitioners. We also leave it open to the Petitioners to independently move the Indian Embassy in Philippines, if they are so advised, to seek a clarification in that regard.

16. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that Dmt 27 wp6633-11 on the basis of the material as it stands in the record before the Court, it is not possible to accede to the prayer made by the Petitioners for a direction to the first Respondent to issue a provisional certificate of registration. Before the Petitioners can assert an entitlement to do so, they must satisfactorily establish, in terms of Regulation 4 (1) of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 read with Section 13 (4A) that the qualification which they possess is a recognized qualification for enrolment as medical practitioner in Philippines. The first Respondent has addressed a communication dated 20 September 2011 to the Indian Embassy in Philippines seeking a clarification and we record the statement which is made by Counsel for the MCI that on receipt of a response the First Respondent will take a decision in accordance with law. We leave it open to the Petitioners to independently pursue the Indian Embassy in Philippines, if they are so advised. We also hold that the ground on which the application filed by the Petitioners was rejected by the first Respondent on 8 January 2011 namely that the Petitioners had completed a part of their studies for the medical course in Dmt 28 wp6633-11 Pune and the remaining part in Philippines is untenable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in J. Sai Prasanna. The communication dated 8 January 2011 shall accordingly stand set aside. The application filed by the Petitioners for provisional registration is accordingly restored and shall be dealt with by the first Respondent in accordance with law and in terms of the directions issued earlier.