Telangana High Court
Dr.Rohit Vaaman Dwarakanath ... vs Director, on 16 July, 2021
Bench: T.Amarnath Goud
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL,
TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE: P NAVEEN RAO
WP .NO:13253 of 2013
Between:
Dr. Rohit Vaaman Dwarakanath Kakkar, S/o Late.Dr.Pravesh Chandra
Kakar,
..... Petitioner
AND
1. Director, National Board of Examinations, (Foreign Medical
Graduate's) Medical Enclave, Ansari Nagar, Mahatama Gandhi
Marg, New Delhi-110029.
2. Chairman, M/s. Medical Council of India, Pocket-14, sector-
8,Dwarka, New Delhi-110077.
.....Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court
may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent
for not issuing the eligibility certificate to Registered as Medical practitioner
in India on account of minimum age limit. as illegal, arbitrary, arbitrary,
unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the
Petition and the affidavit filed herein, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri
J . Sudheer and K. Latha, Advocate for the Petitioner, and Sri B. Mayur
Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.1, the Court made the following
ORDER:
Counsel appearing for petitioner submits petitioner has
appeared in Screening Test held on 31-03-2013, results of which
that were declared on 12-04-2013. But result of the petitioner was
withheld on the ground that the petitioner was under aged when
he prosecuted the MBBS course in Russia. The issue of the age
of eligibility for prosecuting MBBS Course is under challenge in
this writ petition.
Leaned counsel for petitioner relies on a judgment of Delhi
High Court in JISHALAKSHI EMBRANDIRI Vs MEDICAL
COUNCIL OF INDIA dated 5-4-2006 in support of petitioner's
claim to validate the course prosecuted without regard to age of
eligibility.
Learned counsel apprehends that since next examination is
scheduled to be held on 6th or 7th of June, 2014 and without
declaring the result of the petitioner, if the petitioner appears for
examination and for any unfortunate reason fails, it may have the
adverse affect on the petitioner even with reference to earlier
examination.
Prima facie, declaring the result of petitioner does not ennure
to the petitioner any advantage since petitioner cannot practice
his profession unless a certificate is issued by the Medical
Council of India. On the contrary, subject to the resolution of the
issue of eligibility, there is no requirement for petitioner to
appear in the subsequent examination if petitioner has already
passed.
..2..
The 1st respondent is directed to inform the result of the
screening test held on 31-3-2013 to the petitioner within two
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made
clear that petitioner is not entitled to receive any certificate of
pass unless the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition and
petitioner shall not use the declaration of result as pass for any
other purpose till the disposal of the writ petition.
Post on 04-06-2014.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
To
1. The Director, National Board of Examinations, (Foreign Medical
Graduate's) Medical Enclave, Ansari Nagar, Mahatama Gandhi
Marg, New Delhi-110029.
2. The Chairman, M/s. Medical Council of India, Pocket-14, sector-
8,Dwarka, New Delhi-110077. (Addressee Nos 1 and 2 by
RPAD)
3. One CC to Sri J. Sudheer, Advocate (OPUC)
4. One spare copy
Skm
HIGH COURT
PNR,J
Drafted by:skm
Drafted on: 5-05-2014
DATE: 28-04-2014
ORDER
WP. NO. 13253 of 2013
DIRECTION
