Medical Council of
India Vs. J.Saai Prasanna & Ors. etc.
O R D E R
1.
The
Medical Council of India (`MCI' for short), the petitioner herein, challenges
the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 2.5.2008 in a batch of writ petitions
filed by students possessing medical qualifications from a foreign University,
directing (i) MCI to grant provisional registration under Section 25(1) of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 (`Act' for short) to all those students who have completed
the screening test in accordance with the provisions of section 13(4A) of the Act
read with Screening Tests Regulations, 2002 (`Screening Regulations' for
short); and (ii) MCI/State Medical Council, as the case may be, to grant permanent
registration under section 25(4) and section 15 of the Act on the production of
valid certificates in proof of completion of compulsory internship for one year.
2.
The
private respondents are students who claim that they have completed the MBBS course
in International Medical and Technological University (`IMT University' for short),
a foreign University situated in Tanzania. The said university was established in
Tanzania, by Vignan Education Foundation, an organization based in India. They
fall under two categories. The first category are those who underwent the first
two terms (Pre-clinical and Para clinical courses of 18 months each) between
October 1998 and May 2002 at Katuri Medical College and Hospital, Guntur (which
was, at that point of time, an unrecognized medical college) and the last term (the
clinical course of 18 months) at Tanzania between June 2002 to November 2003/January
2004. The second category of students is those who underwent the entire course
of study at Tanzania.
3.
All
these students, after successful completion of the course, underwent the Screening
Test conducted by the National Board of Examinations as provided under the Screening
Regulations. Some of the students were declined provisional registration and therefore
could not do the internship in India and obtain permanent registration. Some of
the students were granted provisional registration, completed the internship,
but were declined permanent registration. Some students, after securing provisional
registration and completing the internship, were granted permanent registration,
but subsequently their registrations were cancelled. They all approached the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh for relief.
4.
The
said petitions were resisted by MCI primarily on the following two grounds: (i)
where an Indian student does any study in a medical college in India, established
without the permission from the Central Government under Section 10A of the Act,
is automatically disqualified from getting recognition of his medical degree, even
if such degree is granted by a foreign University; and (ii) if a student's
primary medical qualification is not a recognized qualification for enrolment as
a medical practitioner in the country in which the Institution granting the medical
qualification is situated, he will not be entitled to participate in the screening
test examination.
5.
The
High Court, after exhaustive consideration, allowed the writ petitions holding that
the writ petitioners fulfilled the requirements of the section 13(4A) of the
Act and regulation (4) of the Screening Regulations, 4that is, (i) they were citizens
of India, (ii) they had obtained a medical qualification outside India, granted
by a medical institution (IMT University) in Tanzania, (iii) the medical qualification
granted by the said medical institution in Tanzania is recognized for the
purpose of enrolment as a medical practitioner in Tanzania, (iv) the Indian
Embassy in Tanzania has confirmed that the medical qualification granted by IMT
University, Tanzania (which granted the medical qualifications to the writ petitioners)
was a recognized qualification for enrolment as a medical practitioner in Tanzania;
and (v) the writ petitioners appeared and qualified in the screening test conducted
by National Board of Examinations in India. As a consequence, the High Court
held that the foreign medical qualification of the writ petitioners was deemed
to be a recognized medical qualification for the purpose of the Act and that subject
to completion of the required internship, they were entitled to be enrolled on the
medical register maintained by any State Medical Council or to have their names
entered in the Indian Medical Register.
6.
Section
13(4A) of the Act and Regulation 4 of the Screening Regulations referred to in
the decision are extracted below:
"Recognition of medical
qualification granted by certain medical institutions whose qualifications are
not included in the First or Second Schedule - xxx xxx xxx 4A. A person who is a
citizen of India and obtains medical qualification granted by any medical
institution in any country outside India recognized for enrolment as medical
practitioner in that country after such date as may be specified by the Central
Government under sub-section (3), shall not be entitled to be enrolled on any
Medical Register maintained by a State Medical Council or to have his name entered
in the Indian Medical Registers unless he qualifies the screening te4st in India
prescribed for such purpose and such foreign medical qualification after such
person qualifies the said screening test shall be deemed to be the recognized
medical qualification for the purposes of this Act for that person.
"Regulation 4 of
the screening Regulations as it originally stood is extracted below: "4.
Eligibility Criteria - No person shall be allowed to appear in the screening
test unless : (i) he/she is a citizen of India either whose name and the institution
awarding it are included in the World Directory of Medical Schools, published by
the world Health organization, or and possesses 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; (ii) He/she had obtained
Eligibility Certificate'
from the Medical Council of India as per the `Eligibility Requirement for taking
admissions in an undergraduate medical course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations,
2001'. This 6 requirement shall not be necessary in respect of India citizens, who
have acquired the medical qualifications from foreign medical institutions or have
obtained admission in foreign medical institution before 15th March,
2002."
7.
The
High Court by the impugned judgment elaborately considered the various issues
with reference to section 13(4A) of the Act and Regulation 4 of the Screening
Regulations, and answered the questions of law as under: (i) When the
Parliament chose to treat all Indian citizens who obtained medical
qualification from abroad as one category, there is no scope to resort to
classifying those who underwent part of the course in Indian institutions as a
separate category.(ii) Medical qualification granted by IMT University, Tanzania,
is recognized for enrolment as a medical practitioner in Tanzania and it is neither
specifically nor impliedly excluded from the purview of Section 13(4A) of the
Act.(ii) Once a Medical Graduate of a foreign university qualifies the screening
test, the primary medical qualification acquired by such person from the medical
institution abroad is deemed to be a recognized medical qualification for the
purposes of the Act. Such person cannot be denied grant of
permanent/provisional registration. 7On a careful consideration of the facts and
the legal position, we find no error in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
The special leave petitions are therefore liable to be dismissed.
8.
MCI
contends that where student of a foreign University undergo a part of his training
in an Institution in India which has not obtained the permission from the Central
Government/MCI, as required under section 10A of the Act, such students are not
eligible for registration as medical practitioners in India. The requirements for
recognition of a medical qualification granted by a medical institution outside
India are different from requirements for recognition of medical qualification
granted by Universities or medical institutions in India. It is no doubt true
that if a student in India, does a course of study in medicine in a medial
college in India which does not have the permission of the Central Government
under Section 10A of the Act, the medical qualification granted to any student
of that college will not be a recognized medical qualification for the purposes
of the Act and consequently such student will not be entitled to be enrolled in
the India Medical Register or State Medical Register.
But medical qualifications
granted by medical institutions outside India are dealt with in a special provision,
that is Section 13(4A) of the Act. Necessarily, for examining the validity of
the medical qualification granted by a medical institution in any country
outside India, the norms and tests of the country where the medical institution
is situated, will have to be fulfilled for recognition of the degree in that country
and the norms that are prescribed by the Indian Medial Council Act, 1956 in regard
to Indian medical institutions will have no relevance. So long as the medical
institutions in a country outside India has granted a medial qualification and
that medical qualification is recognized for enrolment as medical practitioner
in that country, all that is required for the purpose of enrolment in the
medical register in India is qualifying in the screening test in India. In the case
of persons who obtained a medical qualification in a medical institution
outside India, the question as to where the course of study was undergone is
not relevant.
The course of study
could be in that country or if the norms of the Medical Council of that country
so permitted, the course of study could be partly in that country and partly in
another country including India. Once that country recognizes a medical qualification
granted by the institution in that country for the purpose of enrolment as a
medical practitioner in that country, and such medical degree holder passes the
screening test in India, the Medical Council of India cannot refuse to
recognize such degree on the ground that the student did a part of his study in
an Institution in India as a part of his medical study 9programme for the foreign
institution. As stated above, as far as the provisions of the Act at the
relevant point of time, all that was required for an Indian citizen holding a
medical qualification from a foreign country for being enrolled in the medical register
was that he should qualify in the screening test in India. Therefore, the fact that
such a medical graduate underwent a part of the medical course of a foreign
university, in an Indian college which was not recognized in India, will not be
relevant.
9.
Learned
counsel for the MCI submitted that unscrupulous operators in India may commence
and conduct courses in unauthorized institutions in India and make the students
take their examination in a foreign country to secure a degree outside India and
thereafter flood India with inadequately and improperly educated Medical
graduates, by appearing and passing in the screening test. This apprehension is
without any basis as the Screening Regulations have now been amended by the Screening
Test Regulations (Amendment), 2010 whereby clause (3) has been added in
Regulation 4 to the following effect: "(3) He/she has studied for the medical
course at the same institute located abroad for the entire duration of the course
from where he/she has obtained the degree."
10.
The
second contention of MCI is also untenable. It is true that if the primary medical
qualification of the candidate was not a recognized qualification for enrolment
as medical practitioner in the country in which the institution awarding the said
qualification is situated, such candidates will not entitled to take part in
the screening test examination in India. In this case the High Commission of India
in Tanzania has confirmed the following: (i) that Tanzania Medical Council has
recognized the curriculum and medical degree of MBBS of International Medical &
Technological, University Dares Salaam, Tanzania as equivalent to MD degree in Tanzania;
and (ii) that the medical degrees offered to the said International Medical &
Technological University, Tanzania are recognized by Medical Council of Tanzania
and the MBBS graduates of the said university are eligible for registration as
Medical practitioners by the Medical Council of Tanzania under the provisions
of the Medical Practitioners & Dentists Act, Cap 152 of the Laws of
Tanzania. Therefore, the question of such primary degree not being recognized in
India for the purpose of sitting in the screening test examination does not
arise.
11.
In
the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High
Court. We may, however, refer to an apprehension expressed by 11the learned counsel
for the MCI. He submitted that these petitioners have completed the course in
2003-2004 and many had undergone the screening test in 2005 and they have not
been practicing thereafter and therefore their knowledge is likely to be
rusted. This court had put a query to the MCI on 12.8.2010 as to whether MCI will
be willing to consider the case of such students, for permanent registration on
undergoing a special package of internship. Learned counsel for MCI, on
instructions, submitted that if this Court upholds the judgment of the High
Court, then the writ petitioners may be required to undergo three separate
papers of pre-clinical, para-clinical and clinical medicine, each of 100 marks
and thereafter again undergo a separate internship. As the Screening
Regulations provide for a single paper, and all the writ petitioners have successfully
completed the screening test, the students need not be required to pass three
special papers again. However, in view of the long gap from the completion of the
course, even those who have completed their internship will have to undergo internship
afresh for one year to obtain permanent registration. On the other hand, those who
have not done the internship in pursuance of the provisional registration shall
be entitled to undergo the internship now and then seek permanent registration.
To ensure that the students undergo such internship after provisional
registration, the students concerned shall inform the MCI about commencement
and completion of internship.
12.
It
is stated that some students, that is respondents 1 and 2 in SLP (C) No.23652/2008
and respondent No.3 in SLP (C) No.23653/2008, have undergone the entire course
in Tanzania and fall under the second category. They have been granted provisional
registration and completed their internship. They are entitled to permanent
registration. Learned counsel for MCI fairly submitted that MCI does not challenge
the order of the High Court in regard to such students.
13.
Subject
to the requirement that the first category students should undergo a fresh
internship of one year in view of the long gap from the date of the degree and internship,
these special leave petitions are dismissed, upholding the decision of the High
Court.
14.
All
applications for impleadment by the similarly situated students (that is
persons having medical degree from IMT University who have done the complete
course at Tanzania) or part of the course in India and remaining part in Tanzania
are allowed. They will be entitled to similar reliefs as granted above.
.................................J.
(R V Raveendran)
.................................J.
(A K Patnaik)
May
09, 2011.
New
Delhi
Back
