February 27, 2019:
On Tuesday, the Bench of Justices Prateek Jalan and S. Ravindra Bhat of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observes, the standards prescribed by Medical Council of India shall be strictly adhered to and there is no unreasonableness if MCI refuses to adopt a more flexible yardstick.
The petitioner in the present case is a qualified doctor, having being granted an MBBS degree by Soochow University in Shanghai, China.
By way of this writ petition, he assails the constitutional validity of Regulation 4(4) of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 issued by the Medical Council of India and the MCI decision dated 15.04.2015 rejecting his application for an eligibility certificate under Section 13(4B) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
Alternatively, the petitioner seeks the benefit of the relaxation provided under Regulation 4(4) of the STR, 2002.
In view of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in similar cases, the High Court observes that the standards prescribed by the MCI are required to be strictly adhered to and there is no unreasonableness in the MCI refusing to adopt a more flexible yardstick.
"....No provision for rounding off is contained in the STR, ERR or the GMER. In any case where a cut-off has been prescribed, some unfortunate people who are rendered ineligible by a very small margin. Those are hard cases, but they do not per se reveal arbitrariness in the prescribed requirements."
The court is thus, not inclined to grant the petitioner relief to which he is not otherwise entitled, simply on the basis of an argument of parity.
".....Prima facie, it is permissible for an expert body to evaluate the standards of medical education and enrolment requirements in various overseas jurisdictions, and come to the conclusion that some of them are stringent enough to do away with the need for a separate screening test. The petitioner has not discharged his burden of proving to the contrary, or showing that Chinese medical qualifications, generally, are entitled to the same degree of deference as qualifications from the five enumerated countries...."
Bench observes, "...if the MCI has thought it fit to restrict the exemption to only five countries, this cannot be termed as arbitrary in the absence of strong evidence that the classification is unfounded. We therefore reject the petitioner’s challenge to the validity of Regulation 4(4) of the STR. For the same reasons, we cannot also accede to his alternative claim for the benefit of the said provision."
The Bench also highlights the 'role of professional bodies, such as the MCI, in maintaining the standards of education and training in their respective fields.'
According to the Bench, it is MCI’s overarching responsibility for maintenance of quality medical education and professional standards. The qualifications and eligibility criteria prescribed by such an expert body, with important statutory functions, are not liable to be interdicted in judicial review, unless shown to be irrational or manifestly arbitrary.
Therefore, the court holds that neither the provisions of Regulation 4(4) of the STR, nor the decision of the MCI to enforce the standards prescribed by it strictly, suffer from any irregularity.
Read Judgment @ LatestLaws.com
ROHINISH PATHAK vs MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR. 26.02.19(Downloadable PDF)
Picture Source :
