Dr. Ravinder Singh vs Medical Council Of India & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 1000 Del

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                W.P.(C) 2877 of 2003 & CM APPL No. 4883/2003

                                        Reserved on: February 9, 2010
                                        Date of decision: February 22, 2010

        DR. RAVINDER SINGH                         ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Mr. Manoj Goel with
                      Mr. Shovodeep Roy and
                      Mr. Gopal Verma, Advocates

                           versus


        MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR             .... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. T.Singhdev, Advocate

        CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

        1.Whether reporters of the local newspapers
          be allowed to see the judgment?                              No

        2.To be referred to the Reporter or not?                       Yes

        3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?      Yes


                            JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of permanent registration as

medical practitioner by the Medical Council of India („MCI‟) and has

accordingly filed the present writ petition.

2. The MCI has denied registration to the Petitioner on two grounds. The

first is that as against the minimum qualifying marks of 50% in the +2

examinations (Senior Secondary Examination), the Petitioner had secured

only 49.7% marks. Secondly, in the judgment dated 8th March 2002 of the

Supreme Court of India in Medical Council of India v. Indian Doctors

from Russia Welfare Associations (2002) 3 SCC 696, a one-time exemption

was granted to those who were ineligible on any one ground and who had

applied for registration prior to 15th March 2001. The Petitioner had not

applied by that date and therefore, he had to necessarily qualify in the

mandatory screening test prior to being granted registration.

3. The facts are really not in dispute except on one point i.e. whether the

Petitioner applied prior to the cut-off date, i.e. 15th March 2001? If the

Petitioner is able to succeed on the first point urged by him, that his 49.7%

marks in the +2 examinations should be considered as 50% by applying the

principle of „rounding off‟, then he would not be ineligible and the question

of availing the one-time exemption to those applying before the cut-off date

would not arise.

4. The Petitioner qualified in the +2 examination with 49.7% marks. He then

went to Russia and completed MD (Physician) course (equivalent to MBBS)

in India in November 2000 from the Daghestan State Medical Academy,

Russia which is under the Ministry of Public Health and Medical Industry of

the Russian Federation and is a recognized Medical Institute of the MCI

under Part II of the Third Schedule of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956

(„Act‟). It is stated that in order to be eligible for the MD (Physician) course

candidates were required to pass a merit-based examination scorning a

minimum of 60% marks in the aggregate. For the preparatory test a 5-point

rating system is followed by the Russian Medical Academy according to

which a grade point of 5 (excellent) is equivalent to 90% to 100%, 4 (good)

is equivalent to 80% to 89% and 3 (satisfactory) is equivalent to 60%-79%.

The Petitioner successfully qualified the said preparatory test by securing

grade point ratings of 4, 3 and 3 in Physics, Chemistry and Biology

respectively. It is stated that the Petitioner completed the MD (Physician)

course in the Daghestan State Medical Academy between 1994 and June

2000. The course was for 6 academic years, the Petitioner completed a one-

year internship and consequently became entitled to grant of permanent

registration in India in terms of Section 13 (3) of the Act.

5. Several seniors of the Petitioner who had passed the said preparatory test

in Medical Institutes of the States forming part of the erstwhile USSR were

refused grant of provisional/permanent registration by the MCI. Their

petitions were heard in the various High Courts and some of them were

granted reliefs. In the appeal filed by the MCI i.e. Medical Council of India

v. Indian Doctors from Russia Welfare Association, the Supreme Court

delivered a judgment on 8th March 2002 in which a one-time exemption was

granted to all such persons provided that they applied for registration before

15th March 2001.

6. The Petitioner states that he came to India and applied to the MCI for

grant of provisional registration in October 2000. He got all his requisite

documents attested on 29th September 2000 and got a demand draft for

Rs.500/- in favour of MCI ready on 3rd October 2000. Thereafter he went to

MCI‟s office on 6th October 2000 to submit his application. It is stated that

when he submitted his duly filled up application form at the specified

counter of the MCI‟s office, the dealing official upon verifying the

application form of the Petitioner saw that he had secured less than 50%

marks in the +2 examinations in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The

dealing official then told the Petitioner that they had been directed by MCI

not to accept the application form of a person who did not fulfil the

minimum eligibility criteria. He also informed the Petitioner that a case in

respect of students who had secured less than 50% marks in the plus two

examination was pending before the Supreme Court and that till the time the

case was decided, the Petitioner‟s application for registration would not be

accepted. The Petitioner was asked to meet Mr. Rahi, the then Secretary of

the MCI who also informed the Petitioner that since there was a case

pending before the Supreme Court, the Petitioner‟s application form for

registration could not be accepted. In proof of having made a demand draft

of Rs.500/- on 3rd October 2000 the Petitioner has produced certificate dated

4th February 2003 issued by the Central Bank of India from where the said

draft was got prepared.

7. Mr. Manoj Goel, learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to an interim

order dated 17th April 2000 passed by the Supreme Court in the

aforementioned appeal (Medical Council of India v. Indian Doctors from

Russia Welfare Associations) which recorded the fact that the General Body

of MCI met on 31st March 2000 and resolved, inter alia, that "any student

who has obtained less than 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry or Biology in

the 10 + 2 examination would not at all be eligible for registration."

According to the MCI this was "an absolute imperative in the larger interest

of public health." It is stated that consistent with the above resolution, the

staff of the MCI did not accept the Petitioner‟s application for registration

when it was sought to be filed by him on 6th October 2000.

8. Mr. Goel then submits that only where the Petitioner suffered at least one

disability would there be a requirement to apply for registration before 15th

March 2001 for not taking screening test. In the present case if the principle

of rounding off applies, the Petitioner‟s marks in the +2 examination would

be treated as 50%. In that event he would not have to seek a one-time

exemption or take a screening test. In this regard, he placed reliance upon

the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pawan

Kumar Tiwari (2005) 2 SCC 10, and State of Punjab v. Asha Mehta

(1997) 11 SCC 410, and the decisions of the High Courts in Rajul Arora v.

Jai Narain Vyas University RLW 2006 (2) Rajasthan 1054, M.

Ramprakash v. Pondicherry University [decision dated 29th August 2002 of

the Madras High Court in WP No. 10212 of 2001], The Director of Teacher

Education v. Joseph Chellamuthu [decision dated 23rd March 2009 of the

Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1582 of 2007].

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the MCI submits that the

minimum qualifying marks of 50% in the +2 examinations is mandatory and

no "rounding off" of the marks was permissible. That would, according to

him, dilute the standards. He further submits that the Petitioner‟s contention

that his application was refused to be accepted by the MCI on 6 th October

2000 was not verifiable and, therefore, unbelievable.

10. This Court is of the view that learned counsel for the Petitioner is right in

contending that 49.7% marks obtained by the Petitioner should be

considered as equivalent to 50% by applying the principle of „rounding off‟.

11. In State of U.P. v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari, 93 posts of Civil Judge (Junior

Division) in the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service were advertised. For the

purpose of providing reservations, certain percentages were worked out for

the different categories. The Respondent belonged to general category. In

terms of the number of posts, the percentage reserved for the general

category worked out to 46.50% as against 50%. The Respondent who was at

the top of the waiting list in the general category was denied an appointment.

He contended that if the percentage of 46.5% would have been rounded off

to 47% then he would have been accommodated. The High Court accepted

the said contention and held that 46.5% should have rounded off to 47%.

This view was upheld by the Supreme Court. It was explained in para 7 as

under (SCC, p. 12):

"7. ...... The rule of rounding off is based on logic and common sense is: if part is one half or more, its value shall be increased to one and if part is less than half then its value shall be ignored. 46.50 should have been rounded off to 47 and not to 46 as has been done. If 47 candidates would have been considered for selection in general category, the respondent was sure to find a place in the list of selected meritorious candidates and hence entitled to appointment."

12. In State of Punjab v. Asha Mehta the question was whether 32.5%

marks could be rounded off to 33%. The Supreme Court answered it in the

affirmative and observed (SCC p. 410-411):

"The question whether 32.5% could be rounded off to 33% is purely an arithmetical calculation, a procedure which the Public Service Commission in fairness has been adopting in all other cases. The High Court noticed this aspect of the matter and also relied upon earlier procedure in support thereof. In that view of the matter, we do not think that it is a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. "

13. In Rajul Arora v. Jai Narain Vyas University, the learned Single Judge

of the Rajasthan High Court held that 44.83% should be rounded off to 45%

and the candidate ought not to be deprived of admission to the LL.B. course.

Likewise, in M. Ramprakash v. Pondicherry University where the

minimum qualification for admission to the B.Tech Course was 50% in the

qualifying examination and the Petitioner had secured 49.66%, it was held

that these marks must be rounded off to 50%. In Joseph Chellamuthu

Teacher Training Institute, the minimum eligibility criteria for admission to

the II year Diploma Teacher Education Course was 45% in +2

Examinations. The candidate had secured 44.8% marks. The High Court of

Madras applied the principle of rounding off and held that the candidate‟s

marks should be rounded off to 45%. Likewise in Dharmendra Kumar

Shrivastava v. Jiwaji University, Gwalior 2002 (2) MPHT 303 49.77%

marks were rounded off to 50%.

14. In view of the settled position in law as explained in the above decisions

of the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts, it appears that there is no

merit in the contention of the MCI that the 49.7% marks secured by the

Petitioner in +2 examinations should not be permitted to be rounded off to

50%.

15. Consequently, there is no disability that comes in the way of the

Petitioner being granted registration. There is therefore no need to consider

whether the Petitioner satisfies the requirements spelt out in para 6 of the

decision of the Supreme Court in MCI v. Indian Doctors from Russia

Welfare Associations which reads as under:

"6. In order to regulate the grant of registration to such persons who have completed their degree abroad prior to March, 15, 2001, the following guidelines are placed before this Court by the Government of India:-

(A) The case of all persons who applied for registration to MCI prior to 15.3.2001 shall be dealt with according to the provisions of the Act as existing prior to the commencement of the IMC (Amendment) Act, 2001 subject to the following:-

(i) Those students who obtained degrees where the total duration of study in recognised institutions is less than six years (i.e. where a part of the study has been in unrecognised institutions, or the total length of study in a recognised institution is short of six years), shall be granted registration by MCI provided that the period of shortfall is covered by them by way of additional

internship over and above the regular internship of one year. In other words, for such categories of students, the total duration of study in recognised institution plus the internship, would be seven years, which is the requirement even otherwise.

(ii) Where students who did not meet the minimum admission norms of MCI for joining undergraduate medical course, were admitted to foreign institutes recognised by MCI, this irregularity be condoned. In other words, the degrees of such students be treated as eligible for registration with MCI.

(B) All students who have taken admission aboard prior to 15.3.2002 and are required to qualify the Screening Test for their registration as per the provisions of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 shall be allowed to appear in the Screening test even if they also come in the categories of circumstances contained in A(ii) above, as the relaxation contained therein would also be applicable in their case. In other words, any person at present undergoing medical education abroad, who did not conform to the minimum eligibility requirements for joining an undergraduate medical course in India laid down by MCI, seeking provisional or permanent registration on or after 15.3.2002 shall be permitted to appear in the Screening Test in relaxation of this requirement provided he had taken admission in an Institute recognised by MCI. This relaxation shall be available to only those students who had taken admission abroad prior to 15.3.2002. From 15.3.2002 and onwards all students are required to first obtain an Eligibility Certificate from MCI before proceeding abroad for studies in Medicine."

16. The stand of the MCI is that the Petitioner suffered from a disability

inasmuch as he did not have 50% marks in the +2 examinations. The

contention is that if he seeks a one-time exemption for this disability and

does not wish to take the screening test, then he should have applied for

permanent registration prior to 15th March 2001. In the instant case since the

Petitioner did not submit the application form for registration prior thereto,

he was not eligible.

17. As already held that the Petitioner does not suffer from any disability. He

should be considered as having been obtained 50% marks in the +2

examination. Therefore, the question whether the Petitioner had submitted

his application form for registration prior to 15th March 2001 need not be

examined.

18. Nevertheless, this Court is satisfied that the Petitioner had approached

the office of the MCI with the completed application form for registration on

5th October 2000 as stated by him. There is no reason to disbelieve the

certificate issued by the Bank. It states that the Petitioner did get the demand

draft of Rs.500/- in favour of MCI on 3rd October 2000. It is not disputed

that Mr. Rahi was with the MCI at the relevant time. It is possible that the

Petitioner did meet him. Therefore, it is plausible that Mr. Rahi refused to

accept the Petitioner‟s application in view of the stand taken by the MCI

before the Supreme Court regarding the inviolability of the rule requiring a

minimum of 50% marks in +2 examinations. Therefore, on both grounds the

Petitioner is entitled to succeed.

19. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the MCI that the Petitioner

has not practised as a medical practitioner at all for 10 years. Therefore,

unless there is some training given to the Petitioner it may be difficult to

permit him to immediately start practising as a doctor. Learned counsel for

the Petitioner fairly submits that the Petitioner is prepared to undergo an

extra period of internship. It is submitted that the Petitioner could undergo a

one-time internship for an extended period of two years.

20. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it

appears to this Court that while the MCI cannot possibly deny registration to

the Petitioner on the ground that he has not obtained 50% marks in +2

Examinations, which in fact he has on applying the principle of rounding

off, the MCI is justified in insisting that the Petitioner should complete an

internship as a pre-condition to the grant of such registration. Therefore,

while the MCI will not require the Petitioner to undergo a screening test, the

MCI will be justified in incorporating a pre-condition to the grant of

registration that the Petitioner should undergo an internship of two years

under the supervision of a senior doctor with not less than 20 years standing

who will assess the performance of the Petitioner during this period and

certify his competence to practice as a full-fledged doctor at the end of

internship. The MCI will be flexible on whether the entire internship should

be with the same doctor. Within two weeks of such certificate of successful

completion of internship by the senior doctor(s), the MCI will issue the

necessary order or certificate granting registration to the Petitioner.

21. With the above directions, the petition is allowed with costs of

Rs.5,000/- which will be paid by the MCI to the Petitioner within a period of

four weeks from today.

22. The petition and the pending applications are disposed of.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

FEBRUARY 22, 2010 rk