JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J.
1. After his schooling from Delhi, the petitioner perused his medical studies in the erstwhile USSR. He got admission in the MD `Physician' course at the Tver State Medical Academy, Tver, Russia in the year 1989 and obtained the MD Physician degree on 28th June, 1996. This course is equivalent of MBBS degree in India . As this degree was recognised by the Medical Council of India (MCI), the petitioner got himself registered with the MCI on 9th September, 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner got admission in the Ph.D. course in the same university for which he was awarded degree in the year 2001. When he applied to the MCI for registration of this additional qualification under Section 26(1) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `the MCI Act'), his request was rejected on the ground that this was not recognised.
2. Against the aforesaid rejection dated 5th March, 2002, the petitioner filed CWP No.3157/2002 in this court. He also challenged the validity of the Notification dated 27th July, 1999 the details whereof shall be explained at the appropriate stage.
This writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this court vide judgment dated 14th August, 2002. Present review petition is filed seeking review of the aforesaid judgment.
3. In order to understand the grievance of the petitioner, we may state few facts in brief. In the first instance, facts relating to the academic career of the petitioner may be mentioned.
4. As mentioned above, after the petitioner was qualified as MD Physician in the year 1996 and got himself registered with the MCI, he got admission in the Ph.D. Course on 1st September, 1996 and completed the same on 1st September, 2001. It may be mentioned at this stage that as per the averments made made by the petitioner in the writ petition he completed three years' Post Graduate Medical Course in Medicine from 1st September, 1996 to 1st September, 1999 and completed Ph.D.(Medicine Cardiology) from Tver State Medical Academy from 1st September, 1999 to 1st September, 2001. However, the petitioner claims that it was one integrated course which started from 1st September, 1996 and was concluded on 1st September, 2001. He made an application to the MCI for registration of this additional qualification on 21st November, 2001. This application was rejected on 5th March, 2002.
5. Recognising of a particular course or qualification obtained outside India is a matter within the province of the MCI. Under Section 2(e) of the MCI Act, it is for the MCI to recognise medical qualification and also give recognition to medical institutions. As per Section 2(h) of the MCI Act, `recognised medical qualification' means any any of the medical qualification included in the three schedules to the said Act. First schedule relates to the recognised medical qualification granted by the universities or medical institutions in India and as provided by Section 11 of the MCI Act; Second schedule recognises the medical qualification granted by medical institutions outside India in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the MCI Act and the third schedule, which is divided into two parts, provides for recognition of medical qualification granted by the medical institutions, not included in the first and the second schedule, in accordance with provisions of the Section 13 of the MCI Act..
6. While rejecting the petitioner's request, the respondents relied upon the Notification dated 27th July, 1999. It may mentioned that earlier to this Notification, the Central Government had issued Notification dated 7th January, 1997 adding in part II of the Third schedule qualification of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) in Medical Sciences (Stavropol Medical Institute USSR. However, following note was also appended to this Notification:
''The Postgraduate Medical Qualification Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) in Medical Sciences awarded by Supreme Attestation Commission, Moscow (U.S.S.R.) to students sponsored by Medical Council of India or other students fulfillling the minimum eligibility criteria for admission to undergraduate courses in India and admitted in the institutions of erstwhile U.S.S.R for undergraduate or postgraduate courses up to 1989 shall be recognised medical qualifications.''
7. Thereafter Notification dated 27th July, 1999 was issued by the Central Government under Section 13(4) of the MCI Act purportedly on the ground that in the earlier Notification dated 7th January, 1997 there was a mistake in the note and this Notification reads as under:
'' GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health) New Delhi dated 27th July, 1999 S.O. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) Section 13 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the Part I of the Third Schedule to the said Act, namely:-
In the said Part II of the Third Schedule, the following entries shall be added at the end, namely:-
Doctor of Philosophy in Supreme Attestation Medical Sciences (Ph.D) Commission Moscow, (This qualification shall be recognised qualification when granted by Supreme Attestation Commissions Moscow in respect of the students admitted for undergoing the said Ph.D. Courses up to the year 1989) (S.K. Mishra) Desk Officer''
8. It would be observed that while in the Notification dated 7th January, 1997 Ph.D. degrees were recognised in respect of those students who were admitted in the institutions of erstwhile USSR for undergraduate or postgraduate courses up to 1989 in the subsequent Notification dated 27th July, 1999, it was clarified that the qualification shall be recognised ''in respect of the students admitted for undergoing the said Ph.D courses up to the year 1989''. Thus as the petitioner was admitted to Ph.D course after 1989, his registration was rejected.
9. In the writ petition filed by the petitioner, it was the contention of the petitioner that the Notification dated 7th January, 1997 bestowed vested right to the petitioner as it was specifically provided therein that even those students who were admitted for undergraduate postgraduate courses up to 1989 shall be recognised for Ph.D and as the petitioner was admitted to the undergraduate courses in the year 1989, he had become eligible to get his Ph.D qualification added as per the said Notification but amendment vide Notification dated 27th July, 1999 took away this right which was not permissible under the law.
10. The court, vide impugned judgment, dismissed the writ petition holding that no such vested right had accrued in favor of the petitioner. It was also held that as per the petitioner's own averments in the writ petition, he had mentioned that he completed his Ph.D from 1st September, 1999 to 2nd September, 2001. Thus when he took the admission in the Ph.D much after 1997 Notification and even after amendment vide Notification dated 27th July, 1999 there was no vested right. The discussion in this respect can be found in paras 23 and 24 of the judgment which make the following reading:
'' Para 23: Nowhere in the writ petition, has any contention been raised by the petitioner to the effect that the Post-graduate studies leading to awarding of the Ph.D.Degree in Medicine was an integrated course of studies. On the other hand, the statement made in the writ petition, as noticed hereinbefore, clearly suggests that three years' Post-graduate course was available in the said institution which the petitioner had completed from 1st September, 1996 to 1st September, 1999 which is equivalent to MD, Medicine in India. Thus, he had been awarded a separate degree in relation thereto. The petitioner, on his own showing has undertaken a separate course in Ph.D. from 1st September, 1999 to 2001. It is, therefore, ex facie not correct to contend that the course of studies was an integrated one wherefor he can claim the benefit of the 1997 notification.
Para 24: In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that by reason of 1997 notification, no legal right was vested or accrued in favor of the petitioner and thus, the question of the same being taken away or reason 1999 notification does not aris Even if the 1999 notification is not construed to have any retrospective effect, the legal position will not change. This aspect of the matter has recently been considered by this Bench in Ms. Anuradha Saini and Ors. Vs. Union of India, CWP No.2260 decided by this court on 11th July, 2002.''
11. In this review petition, the grievance has been made that the post-graduate and Ph.D course was one integrated course in which the petitioner took admission on 1st September, 1996 and which he completed on 1st September, 2001. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court, in the aforesaid judgment, committed apparent error in holding that it was not an integrated course and the writ petition was dismissed because of this mistaken belief only. In order to show that it was integrated course, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the certificate awarded which was filed with the writ petition as Annexure P-2 colly. She submitted that this degree of Doctor of Philosophy(Ph.D) was the only degree which was awarded to the petitioner and there was no separate degree of post-graduate course. It is for this reason, she explained, the petitioner applied for addition of qualification of Ph.D degree only and no application was made for any post-graduate degree as no such degree was awarded. Referring to the application made to MCI in this behalf, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that date of registration for this course was mentioned as 9th September, 1996 and the date of qualification as 1st September 2001 which would also show that it was one integrated course. It was further submitted that in the writ petition itself, at so many places, it was averred that it was one integrated course.
12. It may be stated at the outset that the petitioner has himself given the impression, by making averments at certain places in the writ petition, that post-graduate course was different from Ph.D course. In the list of dates and events, it was pointed out as under:
''1.9.1996 to 1.9.1999 : The petitioner completed three years Post Graduate Medical Court in Medicine from the Tver State Medical Academy.
1.9.1999 to 1.9.2001: The petitioner completed Ph.D. (Medicine Cardiology) from Tver State Medical Academy. 21.11.2001: The petitioner applied to the Medical Council of India for registration of additional qualification u/s 26(1) of the Indian Medical council Act, 1956.''
13. Likewise in the body of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated as under:
''Thereafter the petitioner continued his further studies from 1.9.96 to 1.9.99 completely three years Postgraduate Course in Medicine from Tver State Medical Academy which is equivalent to M.D. in Medicine in India and from 1.9.99 to 2.9.2001 completed his Ph.D. in (Medicine) (Super Specialty in Cardiology) from Tver State Medical Academy. Copy of the Rotatory Certificate granted by the Supreme Attestation Commission Moscow are collectively marked as Annexure P-3.''
14. On the basis of aforesaid averments, if this court observed that it was not an integrated course, it cannot be said that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. However, we may say that from the documents on record placed by the petitioner and the various averments made in the writ petition, once read together, it would be clear that the petitioner had stated that post-graduate course and Ph.D course was one integrated course. However, even if that position is accepted, the result of the writ petition remains unaltered and, therefore, the decision does not require any recasting.
15. As pointed out above, the court in the impugned judgment categorically held that no vested right accrued in favor of the petitioner on the basis of 1997 Notification. It is so specifically held in the judgment and on this unequivocal finding no grievance is made. It may be stated at the cost of repetition that when the petitioner took admission in the post-graduate/Ph.D course, which may be one integrated course, in the year 1996 there was no such provision for recognising that degree in India.
Such a provision was made for the first time in the year 1997 vide Notification dated 7th January, 1997. Therefore, it cannot be said that pursuant to an assurance given to the public at large, the petitioner had acted and taken admission in the said course. There was a mistake in the Notification dated 7th January, 1997 which was rectified vide the subsequent Notification dated 27th July, 1999. In the impugned judgment, this court accepted the plea of the respondents about the mistake having crept ion, in the first Notification dated 7th January, 1997 and even qua this portion of judgment no discomfiture is shown in the review petition. Thus it is not a case where the petitioner had taken admission after the issuance of Notification dated 7th January, 1997 and, therefore, he is contenting that some vested right accrued in his favor which is sought to be taken away by the amendment by Notification dated 27th July, 1999. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, he had already taken admission in the said course in the year 1996 with open eyes that there was no recognition of this course by the MCI at that time. Notification came to be issued subsequently in the year 1997 of which the petitioner could have taken advantage. However, it is realise that there was some mistake therein. It was within the power of the Government to correct the mistake which is done. As such mistake did not have any effect in the case of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot draw any mileage there from by relying upon Notification dated 7th January, 1997. Therefore, even if it is presumed that post-graduate and Ph.D course was one integrated course and the observations made in paras 23 and 24 are excluded from the judgment, the result would remain unchanged, namely, the respondents rightly, acting on the Notification dated 27th July, 1999, rejected the application of the petitioner for entering the additional qualification.
16. It may be a hard case. This was in fact observed in the impugned judgment also. However, if that is the inescapable conclusion under the law, this court is helpless and cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. We may add that during the pendency of this review petition, we had suggested the MCI if it could reconsider the matter sympathetically as petitioner's case was the solitary case of entry of Ph.D qualification. However, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned counsel for the MCI informed that after reconsideration of the matter, the MCI had expressed its inability to do so.
17. It is not necessary to remind ourselves that we are sitting in review jurisdiction which is very limited in nature. What is to be seen as to whether there is any error apparent on the face of record made in the impugned judgment. [See Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt) and Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others ] As pointed out above, the petitioner has made an endeavor to project that there was apparent error in treating post-graduate and Ph.D course as two different courses whereas it was one integrated course and this purported error has resulted in wrong decision as, according to the petitioner, the entire judgment was based on the presumption that two courses were different. Thus it is the petitioner who is responsible, to great extent, in creating such a belief.
18. However, since the matter relates to the career of the petitioner and it was found that he had in the writ petition made averments to the effect that post-graduate and Ph.D course was one integrated course and established the same from the record, we proceeded to examine the matter further with intention to give fair chance to the petitioner and correct the mistake, if any. However, we conclude that decision did not rest solely on the aforesaid issue as to whether it was one integrated course or no, but primarily on the conclusion that no vested right accrued in favor of the petitioner by 1997 Notification and further that it was an error in that Notification which the respondents had right to correct and that was in fact rectified by subsequent notification issued in the year 1999. In this review petition the petitioner has not made any grievance about these findings and conclusions nor such a challenge could be made in the review petition inasmuch as if the petitioner feels aggrieved by these findings, his only remedy is to challenge the same by approaching the higher forum. We thus hold that the review petition is clearly devoid of merit.
19. In these circumstances, we have no other alternative but to dismiss the review petition.
20. No costs.