Delhi High Court
Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors. vs Medical Council Of India And Ors. on 10 February, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
* 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
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,
„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
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
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?
(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
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
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
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
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
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.
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:-
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
