Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. It is also contended, in the writ petition, that Section 10A of the IMC Act would not apply to the award of PGDCC qualification by the IGNOU, as what is proscribed by Section 10A is the establishment, of a medical college, by any person, or the opening of a new or higher course of study or training, which would enable a student thereof to qualify himself for the award of any recognised medical qualification, by a medical college. The IGNOU, it is pointed out, is not a "medical college", neither had the IGNOU opened any medical college. Rather, the writ petition emphasises clauses (xiii), (xxi) and (xxiii) of Section 5(1) of the IGNOU Act which empowers the IGNOU to recognise courses of study and examinations conducted in other institutions, as those conducted by the IGNOU, and is not required to establish any medical college, to confer a degree in medical sciences. For this reason, too, it is sought to be submitted that Section 10A of the IMC Act does not apply to the PGDCC qualification awarded by the IGNOU.

Written submissions

31. Written submissions have also been filed, by the petitioner as well as the respondents.

32. Apart from reiterating the contentions contained in the writ petition, and the rejoinder, filed by it, the petitioner has, in his written submissions, asserted that Section 11 of the IMC Act did not require the University, or medical institution, seeking recognition of a course conducted by it, to take prior permission of the Central Government, or of MCI, before starting the course. On the aspect of the requirement of prior permission, of the MCI, or the Central Government, before the petitioner decided to start the PGDCC course, it is contended that the said course was started, and continued, under the IGNOU Act, and the PGDCC qualification was awarded by the IGNOU in exercise of the power conferred by Section 5(1)(iii) of the said Act. The IGNOU Act, it is asserted, conferred absolute power, on the IGNOU, to start new courses, which would include medical courses. Even for this reason, it is contended, the MCI and Central Government could not refuse to recognise the PGDCC course conducted by the IGNOU, or the qualification awarded consequent thereupon.

42. Mr. Ramachandran submitted, in rejoinder, that Section 10A of the IMC Act did not, in terms, apply either to the IGNOU, or to the PGDCC qualification awarded by it, as the IGNOU was not a "medical college". As such, he would submit that the Central Government was required to take a decision, on the request, of the IGNOU, for recognition of the PGDCC qualification, awarded by it, directly under Section 11 of the IMC Act, without reference to Section 10A, or requiring compliance, by the IGNOU, therewith.

46. Having said that, it is apparent, from the facts, that the request, of the IGNOU, for recognition to be accorded, under Section 11 of the IMC Act, to the PGDCC diploma conferred by it, has not been considered - far less rejected - on merits.

47. Acutely conscious of the limitation, on the scope of the power of judicial review, which would be exercised in such cases, Mr. Ramachandran, advisedly, submitted, at the very outset, that he was limiting his case to the issue of whether the grounds, on which the MCI, or the Central Government, had refused to consider, on merits, the eligibility, of the PGDCC qualification, awarded by the IGNOU, for recognition under Section 11 of the IMC Act, were justified, or not. According to Mr. Ramachandran, Section 10A of the IMC Act has no application, whatsoever, in the case of the PGDCC qualification awarded by the IGNOU, or its entitlement to recognition which, he would seek to submit, has to be examined solely on the anvil of Section 11 of the IMC Act. For this, his main contention was that Section 10A dealt with two exigencies, the first being that of establishment of a medical College by any person, and the second being opening of a new or higher course of study or training, including a postgraduate course of study or training, by a medical college. He contends that the IGNOU was not a medical college, and even if it were to be regarded as a "person", was not seeking permission to establish a medical college. The PGDCC qualification, he points out, was directly awarded by the IGNOU, which was a University. No "medical college" entered in the picture; consequently, Section 10A of the IMC Act did not apply.