Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(vi) the petitioners having been provisionally registered as envisaged under Section 25 of the Act, are entitled to permanent registration upon completion of internship, the requirement of passing of screening test by the petitioners only would not be sustainable it is the settled law that a condition or a qualification prescribed after the joining and commencement of a course would not be applicable to a person who has already joined such courses. The condition envisaged under Section 25 for obtainment of permanent registration produced to the extent of completion of internship and no other condition has been made applicable under Section 25. The MCI or the State Medical Council shall not be entitled to deny the permanent registration to the petitioners.

14. Thus, in view of the amendment and the regulations promulgated by invocation of power under Section 33, the concept of recognition of foreign medical institution has been done away with. Prior to the amendment and the regulations promulgated as above, a decree in medical science obtained by a person from a recognised institute outside India could enable him to get automatic registration with MCI entitling him/her to practice medicine in India subject to fulfilment of certain conditions laid down by MCI. The concept of recognising medical institutions abroad went under a sea change, meaning thereby that obtainment of foreign medical degree from a recognised institute would not ipso facto enable a person for seeking the registration but he would be required to qualify screening test and if a person qualifies the screening test the foreign medical education would be automatically deemed to be recognised for the purpose of the Act. It is averred that the regulations promulgated by invocation of powers under Section 33 of the Act that the provision of "Screening Test Regulations, 2002" has been upheld by the Apex Court while rendering the decision in Civil Appeal No. 2779 of 2002 in re: Medical Council of India v. Indian Doctors from Russia Welfare Association, 2000 (1) SCT 473. It is further averred that only those students possessing the degrees issued by the medical institutions in the erstwhile USSR, who have put in six years for medical education and have successfully completed the course and thereafter have completed one year of internship, would be considered eligible for provisional/permanent registration as the case may be. This requirement has been upheld by the Apex Court while rendering judgment in MCI's case supra. It is further averred that the petitioners after completion of their studies in medicine for six years in the foreign institutes recognised by MCI having applied to MCI for provisional registration for doing one year internship in India, which was granted to them would not give them automatic claim for grant of permanent registration. By enforcement of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 with effect from March 15. 2002, the petitioners would be required to appear for the screening test as they would complete internship period after March 15, 2002. The promulgation of "Screening Test Regulations" 2002, does not create any impediment in the way of the petitioners from obtainment of permanent registration so as to enable them to practice medicine in India. It has been emphatically denied that the petitioners after having completed six years course are not entitled to take the stand that they are not required to undergo compulsory one year rotatory internship. The acquisition of a primary medical qualification would obviously include the internship of one year and if that practical training has not been undergone the primary qualification is not complete and, therefore, they are not entitled to permanent registration. It is further averred that the guidelines for grant of registration in relaxation of the criteria laid down by the Medical Council of India to the persons having acquired of the medical qualifications from the foreign institutions, who were denied registration by the MCI, were placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the said guidelines have been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 8-3-2002. Thus, while exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by accepting the draft guidelines has held that provisional registration prior to March 15, 2001 and the permanent registration before March 14, 2002, would be entertainable and the registration would be granted accordingly.

15. So far as the case of the petitioners is concerned, they have not completed the internship before March 15, 2002 and upon completion of internship after the, said cut off date they shall have to qualify the screening test. The petitioners had not even applied for provisional registration prior to March 15, 2001, therefore, do not fall within the mischief of the guidelines which stands approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in exercise of their power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. This relaxation has been provided to be one time measure and that all future cases would be covered by Screening Test Regulations, 2002. Thus, all those candidates who had come prior to March 15, 2002 and made, their applications for grant of permanent registration, are a separate class as compared to those candidates who have made, their applications to MCI for provisional/ permanent registration after March 15, 2002. It is further averred that a medical student who has successfully undergone the medical education for a period of six years and has completed internship in India for a period of one year, should not have any hesitation in appearing in the screening test which is held only for the purpose of achievement of the object that a person who has acquired medical qualifications in a foreign institute is fit enough to practice medicine in India which would be considered compulsorily to be the qualifications laid down in India. It is further averred that all such qualifications have been upheld by way of amending Act and providing the regulations by invocation of powers under Section 33 of the Act, which have been upheld by a Bench of Delhi High Court while rendering judgment in CWP No. 2260 of 2002 in re: Miss Anuradha Saini v. Union of India.

35. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, two crucial questions have arisen and which need consideration and that after the decision of the said two questions, the rest of the pleas raised may not be required to be answered.

36. The first question which arises is that the amendment which has been promulgated by virtue of addition of Sub-section (4A) and (4B), can the same be applied against the petitioners. Admittedly, the perusal of Sub-section (4A) shows that it is only after "a date" has been specified by the Central government under Sub-section (3) whereafter a person with foreign medical qualifications would not be entitled to be enrolled on any medical register maintained by the State Medical Council or his name may be entered in the Indian Medical Register unless he qualifies the screening test in India prescribed for such purpose. It is further provided that the foreign medical qualification shall be recognised only after the said person has qualified the screening test. The perusal of written statement filed by Union of India and by MCI, it has nowhere been disclosed as to whether any such date has been notified by the Government or not. The answer to the pointed enquiry by this court from the counsel for Union of India has been in the negative. He has not been able to produce in Court any document or record to establish the factum of the notification having been issued by the Government of India. Since the date has not been notified by the Central Government, the provision of Screening Test Regulation by the MCI while invoking powers under Section 33 would be ineffective. It is further admitted case that the aforesaid amendment was notified on September 3, 2001. Thus, in all probability, the cut off date as required to be notified by the Government would have to be thereafter. In the case at hand, the petitioners have joined the practical training (internship in India) in the month of September 2001, and as per the information given by the counsel for the petitioner, they have completed internship, though the same was not required to be undergone as they have already undergone such similar practical training in USSR while completing their qualifications. Admittedly, the course is of seven years out of which one year is required for the purpose of completion of orientation Course (learning Russian language), five years is a theoretical course plus one year practical training. As per the petitioners, after completion of the aforesaid practical training, no other practical training is further required to make them eligible to practice medicine in that country, which fact has not been categorically denied by the respondents. However, it has been argued that the persons with such medical qualifications in USSR is riot entitled to practice medicine, individually unless he completes the apprenticeship of another period of three years. But in this regard neither any rule or regulation applicable tn USSR has been placed on record nor has been reproduced in the respective written statements filed by both the respondents.