* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11082/2009, 13531/2009, 7398/2010,
14126/2009 and 6211/2011
Decided on: 10th February, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF
PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) 11082/2009
SHASHI PRAKASH AND ORS ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) 13531/2009
RAMESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 7398/2010
PRIYANKA BOSE AND ANR THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
PARIMAL KUMAR BOSE ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) 14126/2009
AMIT KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) 6211/2011
Through: Mr. Ashish Bhagat, Advocate with
Mr. Abdhesh Chaudhary, Ms. Manisha Suri and
Ms. Geetanjali, Advocates for the petitioners.
versus
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv. with Mr.Amit
Kumar, Adv. for respondent No.1/MCI.
Mr. B.V. Niren, CGSC with Mr. Utkarsh Sharma,
Advocate for R-2/UOI in W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and
13531/2009.
Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with Mr. Abhimanyu
Kumar, Advocate for R-2/UOI in W.P.(C)
7398/2010.
Mr. Baldev Malik, Advocate with Ms. Inderjit Singh
Sidhu and Mr. P.N. Tiwary, Advocates for R-2/UOI
in W.P.(C) 14126/2009.
Mr. Rakesh Gosain, Advocate for respondent
No.3/NBE.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. By this judgment, the Court proposes to dispose of the present batch of matters, wherein a common question of law has arisen W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 1 of 19 for consideration, which is as to whether respondent No.1/MCI could have rejected the request submitted by the petitioners in the year 2007, for issuance of eligibility certificates to them under Section 13(4B) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (in short „IMC Act‟) upon application of the amended Screening Test Regulation Act, 2002, that came into force w.e.f. 25.09.2009.
2. The factual matrix of the case which lies in a narrow compass is that in April, 2007, the petitioners had got selected in an online test conducted by the Jinggangshan University, People‟s Republic of China for studies in the field of clinical medicine leading to MBBS degree for the academic session September 2007 to February 2013. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid medical college under the Jinggangshan University is recognized by World Health Organization (in short „WHO‟) and all the courses in the MBBS programme were taught in English medium. Between July-August 2007, the aforesaid University issued admission notices to the petitioners informing them that they had been enrolled as students in a medical college of the said University for the September 2007 session. Immediately upon receipt of the admission notice, the petitioners had applied to respondent No.1/MCI in the prescribed format for grant of eligibility certificates for getting admission in a Graduate Medical Course in the aforesaid University as per The Eligibility Requirement for taking admission in an Undergraduate Medical Course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2002 (in short, W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 2 of 19 „Eligibility Certificate Regulations‟) framed under Section 13(4B) of the IMC Act. After applying to respondent No.1/MCI for issuance of the eligibility certificates, the petitioners had left for China in September- October, 2007 so as to pursue the course of MBBS. Thereafter, during the period November 2007 to February 2008, the petitioners received letters from respondent No.1/MCI, whereunder their applications for grant of eligibility certificates were rejected. One ground that was common for turning down the applications submitted by the petitioners was the non- inclusion of the institution, wherein they had taken admission, in the list of 30 medical institutions approved to enroll foreign students by the Ministry of Education, China, and forwarded by the Embassy of India at Beijing as per its letter dated 28.08.2007. Besides the aforesaid common ground for rejection, there were other discrepancies mentioned by the MCI in the rejection letters issued to the individual petitioners.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are at the fag end of the completion of their MBBS course, which shall be completed by the end of April 2012 and non-issuance of the eligibility certificates to them by respondent No.1/MCI will result in debarring them from appearing in the Screening Test to be held by respondent No.3/NBE in India. He points out that the basis of the rejection letter issued by respondent No.1/MCI was the non-inclusion of the name of the institution, wherein the petitioners are studying in Beijing, in the letter dated 26.07.2007 addressed by the First Secretary, Embassy of India at Beijing W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 3 of 19 to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The said communication mentioned that the Indian Embassy had come across a report in the Chinese-language press about a provisional set of measures designed to impose stricter control on English-language undergraduate medical education imparted to foreign students in China. As per the report, more control would be exercised by the designated bodies of the Chinese Ministry of Education as until then, the medical education institutes there had been following their own standards for intake of foreign students. The letter further noticed that the report in the Chinese- language press had also mentioned 30 medical education institutes approved to enroll foreign students and that the said list had been downloaded from the website of the Chinese Ministry of Education. It was further stated in the letter that the said report did not address the status of students who were already enrolled in other institutes, and that in the meantime it may be ensured by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India that no eligibility certificates be issued by the concerned authorities in India for studying in institutes other than those that were mentioned in the list.
4. Relying upon the aforesaid communication, respondent No.1/MCI is stated to have issued the aforesaid rejection letter, as is apparent from the information uploaded by it on its website, enclosed with the writ petition as Annexure P-10. Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have filed the qualification certificate, issued in favour W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 4 of 19 of the concerned institute which is affiliated to the Jinggangshan University, for admitting international students to higher education. He states that a bare perusal of the said document reveals that the institute in question has been issued a certificate granting it permission to admit international students and the same is valid till July 2012. He further submits that a perusal of the brochure of the University shows that the MBBS programme being offered by the said institute is an English medium programme and the eligibility criteria fixed for students qualified for enrollment is the same as fixed for the medical institutes in India under the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, i.e., a student should have passed intermediate level or 10+2 through science stream with biology/pre-medical subjects having 50% marks in aggregate or 50% in PCB/PCBE. Admittedly, the aforesaid eligibility criteria is identical to the one laid down in the Graduate Medical Examination Regulation, 1997, wherein Regulation 4 lays down the eligibility criteria for admission to medical course on the same lines.
5. In the present case, the Eligibility Certificate Regulations framed by respondent No.1/MCI prescribe the eligibility criteria required to be fulfilled by an applicant for grant of such a certificate, which is as below:-
"8. The Council shall consider the application for Eligibility Certificate and verify the following details as per the Regulations of the Council-
(i) Whether the candidate fulfills the age criterion prescribed by the Council?W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 5 of 19
(ii) Whether the candidate fulfills the eligibility criteria for admission to MBBS course in India as prescribed in the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, i.e., minimum qualifying marks criteria in Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English, including relaxed criteria in case the candidate belongs to a reserved category?
(iii) if the candidate belongs to SC/ST/OBC, whether he/she has produced a caste certificate from a Competent Authority?
9. After verification, as required, if the candidate is found to fulfill the eligibility criteria, the Council shall issue an Eligibility Certificate in the prescribed format to the candidate certifying that he/she is eligible to join a medical institution outside India to obtain a primary medical qualification. The certificate shall indicate that on return after obtaining the foreign primary medical qualification, the candidate shall have to undergo a screening test, subject to fulfillment of the conditions prescribed in the Screening Test Regulations, 2002, and that passing this test shall only entitle him to provisional/permanent registration by the Medical Council of India or the State Medical Councils.
10. In case the candidate does not fulfill any of the qualifying criteria the Council may reject his application for issue of Eligibility Certificate giving the reasons therefor."
6. Counsel for respondent No.1/MCI states under Regulation 3 of the aforesaid Regulations, the petitioners ought to have approached respondent No.1/MCI for issuance of eligibility certificates before joining an undergraduate medical course in a foreign medical institution and having failed to approach respondent No.1/MCI before leaving for a foreign institute to undertake the undergraduate medical course, the petitioners herein cannot claim entitlement to issuance of eligibility W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 6 of 19 certificates.
7. Counsel for respondent No.3/NBE refutes the aforesaid contention and supports the stand of the petitioners by submitting that respondent No.1/MCI is not empowered to reject the request of the petitioners for grant of the eligibility certificate under the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 for the reason that the name of the University in question, i.e., Jinggangshan University has been duly mentioned in the World Directory of Medical Schools published by the WHO. He points out that till date the Indian Embassy in China has not confirmed the fact as to whether the medical qualification awarded by the aforesaid University is a recognized qualification for enrolment as a medical practitioner in China. In addition, it is stated that the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 was amended on 25.09.2009 and the said amendment being clearly prospective in nature, it could not have been applied with retrospective effect by the respondent No.1/MCI.
8. To test the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.1/NBE, it necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Screening Test Regulations. The unamended Screening Test Regulation No.3 reads as below:-
"3. Eligibility Criteria: No persons shall be allowed to appear in the screening test unless:
1. he/she is a citizen of India and possesses any primary medical qualification, either whose name and the institution awarding it are included in the World Directory of Medical Schools, published by the World Health Organisation; or which is W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 7 of 19 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;"
9. Post amendment, the aforesaid Regulation reads as below:-
"4(1) No person shall be allowed to appear in the screening test unless: he/she is a Citizen of India or has been granted Overseas Citizenship of India and possess 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. (2) he/she had obtained „Eligibility Certificate‟ from the Medical Council of India as per the Eligibility Requirement for taking admission in an undergraduate medical course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2002‟. This requirement shall not be necessary in respect of Indian citizens who have acquired the medical qualifications from foreign medical institutions or have obtained admission in foreign medical institution before 15th March, 2002. (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. Insofar as the present cases are concerned, the effect of the aforesaid amendment, is the non-inclusion/deletion of the requirement of inclusion of the name of the institution awarding medical qualification, in the World Directory of Medical Schools published by the WHO. The anxiety expressed by the counsel for respondent No.1/MCI that it is necessary for MCI to satisfy itself that the students, who have undertaken medical courses from foreign institutes and awarded degrees abroad, are W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 8 of 19 imparted education in English language, has not been addressed by way of the amendment to the Screening Test Regulation carried out on 25.09.2009. It is pertinent to note that the letter dated 26.07.2007 was addressed by the Indian Embassy, at Beijing to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and till date, the said Ministry has not issued any directive to respondent No.1/MCI to exclude all other medical institutes, except for the 30 medical education institutes as per the list forwarded by the Embassy of India to the Ministry for the purposes of enrolment of students who had undertaken medical courses in foreign institutes. It is also pertinent to note that even in the aforesaid letter issued to the Ministry, the Embassy had stated that it was in the process of obtaining the full set of regulations and that it would share its opinion only after going through them in detail. In other words, the opinion expressed by the Embassy in its letter dated 26.07.2007 to the Ministry was tentative in nature as it was based only on a report published in the Chinese language press, which had to be got verified after obtaining further documents from other official sources.
11. The anxiety expressed by respondent No.1/MCI that academic standards had to be maintained by students undertaking medical courses from foreign institutes and returning to practice in India, ought to have translated into some concrete action/initiative taken by MCI at its ends. It is an admitted case that till date, respondent No.1/MCI has neither received any direct communication from the Indian Embassy, nor has a W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 9 of 19 copy of any subsequent letter addressed by the Embassy to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare been marked to it, with regard to the full set of regulations circulated by the Ministry of Education, China or about breach of any prescribed minimum standards of education by the Jinggangshan University in China. Moreover, even after the respondent No.1/MCI had carried out an amendment of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 so as to rephrase the eligibility criteria, the said amendment did not address the issue raised by MCI as noted above and in any case, it is quite clear that the same could not have been applied retrospectively. In such circumstances, it has to be held that the letter dated 26.7.2007 addressed by the Indian Embassy at Beijing to the Ministry cannot override the statutory regulations and respondent No.1/MCI being a statutory authority is equally governed by the Act and the Regulations as existing on the relevant date.
12. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/MCI that the petitioners were obliged to have applied to the MCI for issuance of eligibility certificates before joining the Jinggangshan University and having failed to do so, they cannot approach this Court for such directions, has been considered and dealt with in a decision of a co- ordinate Bench of this Court dated 13.12.2010 in W.P.(C) No.5055/2010 entitled „Shambhavi Sharma Vs. National Board of Examinations & Anr.'
13. After taking note of a similar argument raised by learned W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 10 of 19 counsel for the respondent No.1/MCI in the aforesaid case, the Court had observed as below:-
"16. However the counsel for the respondent no.2 MCI has today again urged that the petitioner was required to apply for Eligibility Certificate before joining the St. Petersburg State Medical Academy and did not do so and hence is not entitled to succeed in this writ petition. With reference to Section 13(4B) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Eligibility Certificate Regulations, it is argued that the requirement is of applying before joining the course.
17. Though this aspect was considered and decided against the respondents in the order dated 25th October, 2010 but since the writ petition was not disposed of on that date for complete adjudication, the said argument is again considered today.
18. Undoubtedly, literal reading of the Act and the Regulations shows that the application for Eligibility Certificate has to be made prior to joining the Foreign Medical Institution. The Division Bench of this Court also in Yash Ahuja Vs. UOI MANU/DE/1399/2008 suggests that the application has to be prior to admission in Foreign Medical Institution. Though the petitioner has pleaded to have applied prior to joining the St. Petersburg State Medical Academy but there is no document in that regard. The counsel for the petitioner states that no copy of the application was maintained and there is no practice of giving a acknowledgement. The petitioner also relies on the replies received from the respondent no.2 MCI to the RTI query to the effect that there is no system in the MCI of maintaining records of the applications received or rejected.
19. The Foreign Medical Institutions are not governed by the Act and the Regulations aforesaid. Thus even though the Act and the Regulations suggest obtaining Eligibility Certificate prior to joining the Foreign Medical Institution but since the production of the said Certificate is not necessary for admission in a Foreign Medical Institution governed by their own Rules, admission is granted even without the Eligibility Certificate.W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 11 of 19
20. The only relevance of the Eligibility Certificate thus is for the purpose of appearing in the screening test. The question of appearing in the screening test would arise only when the course from the Foreign Medical Institution is completed. Seen in this light, I do not see any reason for insisting upon applying for the Eligibility Certificate prior to joining the Foreign Medical Institution. The enquiry which is to be done and the satisfaction which is to be reached qua the eligibility can be reached even after gaining such admission and till just before appearing in the screening test. If an Indian Citizen, chooses to pursue Medical Education in a Foreign Medical Institution without the Eligibility Certificate, he would do so at the risk of notwithstanding having completed the education, being denied the Eligibility Certificate and consequently registration with MCI and right to practice Medicine in India. (emphases added).
21. Thus the language of the Act and the Regulations appearing to suggest that the application for Eligibility Certificate has to be made before getting admission in a Foreign Medical Institution, has to be interpreted in the context and purposely and not in a pedantic fashion. The Supreme Court in Yash Ahuja Vs. MCI (2009) 10 SCC 313 an appeal from the judgment aforesaid of the Division Bench traced the history of the medical education in India and the factors resulting in introduction of Section 13(4A) and (4B) to the Act and for formulation of the Regulations and in interpretation of Section 13(4A) held that even if the material words are capable of bearing two constructions, the most firmly established rule for construction of such works in the rule of purposive construction or mischief rule i.e (1) what was the law before the making of the Act, (2) what was the mischief or defect for which the law did not provide, (3) what is remedy that the Act has provided and (4) what is the reason of the remedy. Adopting the said rule, it has to be held that it is immaterial whether the Eligibility Certificate is applied for and issued before admission into Foreign Medical Institution or thereafter. Reference in this regard may also be made to:-W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 12 of 19
(a) Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 111.
(b) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007) 3 SCC 700.
(c) Surjit Singh Vs. MTNL (2009) 16 SCC 722.
(d) Swarn Darshan Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Value Added Tax MANU/DE/1802/2010.
Laying down that the words of a statute are to be understood in the sense they best harmonize with the subject of the enactment and the object which the legislature has in view--where there is a conflict between the purpose and the material, the purpose is to prevail for the material is subordinate to purpose. It was further held that where a statute requires that a thing shall be done in the prescribed manner or form but does not set out the consequences of non-compliance, the question whether the provision was mandatory or directory has to be adjudged in the light of the intention of the legislature as disclosed by the object, purpose and scope of the statute.
22. I am therefore not inclined to accept the plea of the respondent no.2 MCI at this belated stage that the petitioner is not entitled to the Eligibility Certificate for the reason of having applied for the same after joining the St. Petersburg State Medical Academy." (emphasis added)
14. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.1/MCI that MCI has preferred an intra Court appeal against the aforesaid judgment registered as LPA No.157/2011 entitled „Medical Council of India Vs. Shambhavi Sharma & Anr.', which is pending adjudication. However, it is conceded that while admitting the aforesaid appeal vide order dated 26.07.2011, the Division Bench had not stayed the operation of the W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 13 of 19 aforesaid judgment. Judicial discipline demands that if a decision is rendered earlier on the same point by a co-ordinate bench, and the same is brought to the notice of a court of the same strength, then it should also follow the same and if it decides to differ, then the matter be referred to a larger Bench for consideration. As held in the case of Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija & Ors. vs. The Collector, Thane, Maharasthra & Ors. reported as AIR 1990 SC 261, in a multi-judge court, the judges are bound by precedents and procedure. They could use their discretion only when there is no declared principle to be found, and there is no rule and no authority. Judicial decorum and legal propriety demand that, where a Single Judge or a Division Bench does not agree with the decision of a Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the matter shall be referred to a lager Bench. It is subversion of judicial process not to follow this procedure. In the present case, this Court finds no good reason to differ with the findings returned in the case of Shambhavi Sharma (Supra). It is not as if, the decision in the aforesaid case was rendered without any assistance from the learned counsel for the MCI who incidentally happened to be the same counsel who has addressed arguments in the present case. Therefore, taking a cue from the reasoning given in the aforesaid judgment, this Court is also of the opinion that the respondent No.1/MCI cannot be permitted to canvass that the petitioners herein are not entitled to issuance of eligibility certificates merely because they did not await the issuance of such certificates by the respondent No.1/MCI before joining W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 14 of 19 the Beijing University for undertaking the MBBS Course in the academic year commencing from September 2007.
15. As regards the other argument urged by counsel for the respondent No.1/MCI that the rejection letter issued by respondent No.1/MCI is predicated on a communication dated 26.07.2011 addressed by the Embassy of India at Beijing to the Ministry of Health, which could not be ignored as a copy thereof had been endorsed to respondent No.1/MCI, this Court is not inclined to accept the said explanation as sufficient ground to disentitle the petitioners for issuance of an eligibility certificate for the reason that such a communication cannot be treated as a substitute to the extant Rules and Regulations, i.e., Screening Test Regulations, 2002 and the Eligibility Certificate Regulations, 2002; nor can the same override the Rules and Regulations as applicable to the petitioners.
16. Of immense relevance here is the eligibility criteria prescribed in the Screening Test Regulations 2002 as it existed prior to the amendment, which stipulated that an applicant seeking to appear in the Screening Test ought to be a citizen of India and in possession of any primary medical qualification and the name of the institute ought to be included in the world directory of medical schools published by the World Health Organization or in the alternate, an institute that is confirmed by the Indian Embassy to be a recognized institution for enrollment as a medical practitioner in the country in which the said institution awarding the said W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 15 of 19 qualification is situated. Admittedly, the aforesaid eligibility criteria was amended by respondent No.1/MCI on 25.09.2009. Post amendment, the relevant Regulation stipulated that no person would be allowed to appear in the Screening Test unless he/she was a citizen of India or had been granted overseas citizenship of India and possesses any primary medical qualifications which is confirmed by the Indian Embassy concerned to be recognized qualification for enrollment as medical practitioner in the country in which the institution awarding the said qualification is situated.
17. The obvious change in the eligibility criteria prescribed in the Regulation, pre-amendment and post-amendment is that post- amendment, a candidate need not be only a citizen of India but could additionally be an overseas citizen of India. Secondly, the requirement of the name of the institution awarding primary medical qualifications being included in the world directory of medical schools published by the World Health Organization was dispensed with. In such circumstances, the argument of the counsel for respondent No.1/MCI that a report published in the Chinese language press and communicated on 26.7.2007 by the Embassy of India at Beijing to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare could be treated as a legal ground for declining the request of the petitioners for issuance of eligibility certificates is held to be untenable and therefore turned down as being devoid of merits.
18. Lastly, counsel for respondent No.1/MCI points out that out of the eight petitioners in W.P.(C) No.6211/2011 only petitioners No.4 and 5 had W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 16 of 19 applied to the MCI for grant of eligibility certificates in the prescribed format. Counsel for the petitioners however refutes the aforesaid submission and draws the attention of this Court to para 9.4 of the writ petition wherein it is averred that immediately after receipt of the admission notice, all the petitioners had applied to the MCI for grant of eligibility certificates in the prescribed format for getting admission in the graduate medical course in Jinggangshan University, China. It is further averred in Para-9.5 that in August, 2007, all the petitioners had deposited their fees and had submitted their forms and requisite documents in the prescribed format to the MCI.
19. It is pertinent to note that even if the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition, except for petitioners No.4 and 5, do not have in their possession any document to substantiate their claim that they had applied to respondent No.1/MCI for grant of eligibility certificates prior to joining Jinggangshan University, it is an undisputed position that upon receipt of an RTI query as to the system followed by MCI for maintaining records of applications, respondent No.1/MCI had stated that it had no system on the administrative side for maintaining records of applications received or rejected. Thus, there is no method available with respondent No.1/MCI to verify from its records and ascertain as to whether all the petitioners in WP(C)No.6211/2011 had submitted application forms for grant of eligibility certificates. The aforesaid situation was brought to the notice of the Court in the case of Sambhavi Sharma (Supra) and duly commented W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 17 of 19 upon in para-18 of the judgment extracted hereinabove. In any case, even if it is assumed that none of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.6211/2011, except for petitioners No.4 and 5, had applied to respondent No.1/MCI for grant of eligibility certificates, the said certificate gains significance only when a candidate proposes to appear in the Screening Test after completion of the MBBS course from a foreign medical institution. In such circumstances, the petitioners herein would be well within their right to apply to respondent No.1/MCI for grant of eligibility certificates upon completion of their medical course in April, 2012 or for that matter, at any point in time prior to their appearing in the Screening Test.
20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petitions are allowed. The communications issued by respondent No.1/MCI to the petitioners declining their request for the grant of eligibility certificates, on the ground that Jinggangshan University, China does not feature in the list of 30 medical institutions approved to enroll foreign students by the Ministry of Education, China as forwarded by the Embassy of India at Beijing to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, UOI in terms of its letter dated 26.07.2007, is set aside and quashed.
21. It is directed that the petitioners shall apply afresh to the respondent No.1/MCI for grant of such eligibility certificates which shall be considered and processed by respondent No.1/MCI under the Rules and Regulations without raising any objection based on the contents of the W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 18 of 19 aforesaid letter dated 26.7.2007 dispatched by the Embassy of India at Beijing. Upon the petitioners fulfilling all other requirements as stipulated under the extant Rules and Regulations, respondent No.1/MCI shall forthwith issue the eligibility certificates to them.
22. The petitions are disposed of while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 10, 2012 JUDGE
rkb/anb
W.P.(C) 11082/2009 and connected matters Page 19 of 19