Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

30. Recognition of a course and its equivalence to MD/MS qualification are two separate concepts. Recognition and equivalence are not the same. Merely because a course conducted by CPS, Mumbai was granted recognition does not mean that it has attained equivalence to MD/MS degree. This aspect is especially important in the light of the fact that it is the consistent stand of the NMC/PGMEB, NBE as well as the Central Government that the FCPS qualifications have never been considered as equivalent to MD/MS courses. Further, it is also relevant to note that the notification dated 22nd January, 2018 issued by the Central Government again recognising 6 FCPS qualifications clearly mentions at the footnote that the said qualifications shall not be treated as recognised medical qualification for the purpose of teaching, whereas, MD/MS qualifications are treated as recognised medical qualifications for the purpose of teaching. Therefore, the notification dated 22nd January, 2018 granting recognition to FCPS itself clearly indicated that the FCPS qualification was not equivalent to MD/MS qualifications. "Equivalent" has been defined to be equal in value, amount, function, meaning having the same or similar effect or significance, corresponding in position or function. (See: Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 5 SCC 24). Therefore, it is clear that the notification dated 22nd January, 2018 issued by the Central Government recognising the FCPS courses itself never indicated the said courses conducted by CPS, Mumbai as equivalent to MD/MS qualification.

33. Law is settled that courts cannot act as an expert in the field of education. The expert body is empowered and competent to lay down the standards to be maintained and the eligibility criteria for the award of DNB qualifications. The respondent, Union of India vide its letter dated 30th April, 2021 has stated categorically that the FCPS qualifications cannot be treated as equivalent to MD/MS qualifications, thereby clarifying its notification dated 22nd January, 2018 wherein it had been mentioned in clear terms that the FCPS qualifications shall not be treated as recognised medical qualification for the purpose of teaching.

42. Therefore, prima facie this Court is satisfied that PGMEB had considered the issue before letter dated 30th April, 2021 was issued by the Central Government stating that the FCPS qualifications cannot be treated as equivalent to MD/MS qualifications. Thus, this Court finds no manifest arbitrariness or unreasonableness on the face of it, in the decision taken by the respondents.

(emphasis supplied)

45. The judgments as relied upon by the appellants do not come to their aid in any manner and are clearly distinguishable.

45.1 Judgment in the case of Dr. Hindustanwala Mohd. Adnan Vs. Union of India (Supra) does not assist the appellants in any manner, in view of the detailed discussion by this Court hereinabove wherein it has been held that letter dated 30th April, 2021 issued by the Central Government was only clarificatory in nature. The appellants have erred in raising the issue that by letter dated 30th April, 2021 issued by the Government stating that FCPS qualifications are not equivalent to MD/MS courses, the Government is applying its policy retrospectively to notification dated 22nd January, 2018. The fact that FCPS qualifications are not equivalent to MD/MS courses is manifest from the notification dated 22nd January, 2018 issued by the Central Government and that the said position was only clarified by the Government by its letter dated 30th April, 2021. There is no quarrel with the law laid down in the said judgment wherein the policy decision was held to apply prospectively. However, in the present case, it cannot be said that there is any retrospective application of the policy.