Selbin Boban vs National Medical Commission on 27 June, 2025

0
3


Kerala High Court

Selbin Boban vs National Medical Commission on 27 June, 2025

Author: T.R. Ravi

Bench: T.R.Ravi

W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

                                    -1-
                                                    2025:KER:45786

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

     FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1947

                          WP(C) NO. 34898 OF 2022

PETITIONER:

            SELBIN BOBAN
            AGED 27 YEARS
            S/O. BOBAN K. MATHEW, KOICKAKUNNEL HOUSE,
            VATTAKKUNNU P.O., MEENADOM,
            KOTTAYAM-686516.


            BY ADV SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU)


RESPONDENTS:
    1     NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
          DADA DEV MANDIR ROAD, DWARAKA,
          PHASE-I, POCKET 14, SECTOR-8, NEW DELHI- 110077,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON.

     2      THE REGISTRAR,
            KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL,
            COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS ROAD,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.

     3      KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL
            REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
            THE KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL,
            COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS ROAD,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.

          ADDL.R4 & R5 IMPLEADED
 ADDL.R4. UNION OF INDIA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK,
          SECRETARIAT BUILDING, RAISINA HILL,
          NEW DELHI - 110011
 W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

                               -2-
                                                 2025:KER:45786


 ADDL. R5    THE EMBASSY OF INDIA
            PARAMARIBO (SURINAME), REPRESENTED BY THE
            AMBASSADOR, 239, DR. SOPHIE REDMONDSTRAAT, POST BOX
            NO. 1329, PARAMARIBO (SURINANE)
            (ADDL.R4 AND R5 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED
            14-07-2023 IN IA.1/2023 IN WPC 34898/2022)


            BY ADVS.
            SHRI.TITUS MANI
            SRI.N.RAGHURAJ (SR.)
            SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU)
            SHRI.K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR, SC, NATIONAL MEDICAL
            COMMISSION
            SHRI.VIVEK MENON
            SHRI.V.GIRISHKUMAR, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON 27.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

                                   -3-
                                                         2025:KER:45786


                              T.R. RAVI, J.
               --------------------------------------------
                      W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022
               --------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 27th day of June, 2025


                              JUDGMENT

The prayers in the writ petition are; to quash Ext.P11, to

declare that the petitioner is entitled to get permanent registration

under Section 25(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (‘the

1956 Act’ for short) and for a direction to the 2 nd respondent to

grant permanent registration under Section 25(4) of the 1956 Act

or the provisions of Act 30 of 2019 to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner acquired the Doctor of Medicine degree,

equivalent to MBBS, from American International Medical

University, Saint Lucia and passed the screening test prescribed

under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Screening test

Regulation, 2002 and claims to be entitled to get permanent

registration under Section 25(4) of Indian Medical Council Act. It is

contended that the American International Medical University,

Saint Lucia, is one of the Accredited Universities and is listed in the

World Directory of Medical Schools published by the World Health
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-4-
2025:KER:45786

Organization, and on the official website of the then Medical

Council of India (MCI), it is listed as an approved/recognised

University. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, was repealed by

Act 30 of 2019, i.e., the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.

This Act contains a saving clause, under which all medical

qualifications recognised before the new Act’s commencement

were treated as recognised qualifications under Act 30 of 2019.

The petitioner claims that after ascertaining the University’s

credibility on the official website of the erstwhile Medical Council of

India, he applied and pursued the Doctor of Medicine course in the

said university. He claims that the certificate issued by the said

University has been confirmed by the Indian Embassy. It is

contended that the petitioner had been exempted from the

requirement of obtaining an eligibility certificate from the 1st

respondent, under Section 13(4B) of the Indian Medical Council

Act, 1956, as per the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Second

Ordinance, 2013. The petitioner relies on the entry in his passport

to submit that he underwent a regular course of study at Saint

Lucia. When there was a delay in consideration of his application

for provisional registration, the petitioner approached this Court by

filing W.P.(C). No.12454/2020 and based on the directions issued
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-5-
2025:KER:45786

by this Court on 16.7.2020, he was granted provisional

registration. The petitioner submits that he has thereafter

completed his internship at the General Hospital, Kottayam, and is

entitled to get permanent registration for which he had applied on

20.11.2021. By judgment dated 15.7.2022 in W.P. No.

12454/2020, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to decide on

the application, after due verification of the documents. The 2nd

respondent rejected the application for permanent registration, by

Ext.P11, stating that the petitioner has acquired his qualification

through an off-campus mode and he has not undergone a regular

course of study in the University. The petitioner relies on Ext.P13

letter and contends that he had undergone a regular course. It is

submitted that he attended his pre-clinical course fully at the

University itself in a regular mode of classes, and his clinical

course was done in various Medical Colleges within India and

America, affiliated to the University.

3. Ext.P11 order refers to a decision of the Modern

Medicine Council not to grant registration to those foreign medical

graduates who had undergone the course in an off-campus

education method, and to consider only those foreign medical
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-6-
2025:KER:45786

graduates who graduated from foreign medical institutions

approved by the MCI, through a regular course of study, for

registration. The petitioner relies on Ext.P2 and submits that the

American International Medical University is recognised by the

MCI; hence, the decision in Ext.P12 and the decision dated

10.10.2019 does not apply to the petitioner, as he completed his

medical degree as a regular course from a recognised University

approved by the MCI. The counsel for the petitioner relies on the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Medical Council of

India v. J. Saai Prasanna & Ors. [2011 (11) SCC 748], and

Exhibit P12 judgment of this Court, and submits that the petitioner

is entitled to get permanent registration under Section 25(4) of the

1956 Act. It is also submitted that after issuing the eligibility

certificate, clearing the screening test, and completing his

internship based on the provisional registration granted by the 2 nd

respondent, the respondents are estopped from refusing to grant

permanent registration. The counsel referred to Regulation 11 of

the Screening Test Regulation, 2002, which reads thus:

“11. The Prescribed Authority shall intimate the result of
the Screening Test to the candidates as wel as to the
Secretary, Medical Council of India and the State Medical
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-7-
2025:KER:45786

Councils. The unsuccessful candidates shall also be
appropriately informed. The candidates who qualify the
Screening Test may apply to the Secretary, Medical
Council of India, New Delhi or to any State Medical
Council for provisional registration/permanent registration
along with the requisite registration fee in favour of
Secretary, Medical Council of India or State Medical
Council. The Medical Council of India or State Medical
Councils shall issue provisional registration to such
successful candidates, who are yet to undergo one year
internship in an approved institution and issue permanent
registration to such eligible candidates who have already
undergone one year internship, as the case may be.”

4. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of a

Division Bench of this Court in Travancore Cochin Council of

Modern Medicine v. Leeba Mary Eapen & Ors. [2021 SCC

OnLine Ker 1272], to submit that once the petitioner had cleared

the Screening Test, permanent registration cannot be refused. The

judgment in Praveen Kumar M. & Ors. v. Union of India &

Ors. [2012 (4) KHC 413], affirmed by a Division Bench in

appeal, is also relied on for the above contention.

5. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents 2

and 3. It is contended that the prayer for a declaration that the

petitioner is entitled to get permanent registration under Section
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-8-
2025:KER:45786

25(4) of the 1956 Act is not maintainable since the said Act was

repealed by Section 60 of the National Medical Commission Act,

2019. Consequently, it is submitted that the third prayer in the

writ petition has become infructuous. It is submitted that Section

35 of the Act provides for an appeal from every decision of the

Council, particularly its orders under Sections 25, 28, and 33 of

the Act. The petitioner is thus having an efficacious, alternative

remedy by way of an appeal against the Ext.P11 order before the

Government. Reliance is placed on the decision of a learned Single

Judge of this Court in Union Bank of India & Ors. v. K.J.Jose &

Ors. [2022 (2) KHC 739] in support of the above contention.

The respondents assert that the petitioner had completed his

medical degree through an off-campus mode and has not

undergone a regular course of study at the University. It is pointed

out that the petitioner admittedly underwent part of his studies in

India, which shows that he had not undergone the regular mode of

studies as in India. The conflict in the pleadings on this aspect, is

pointed out by referring to Ext.P13 letter. It is submitted that at

the time of consideration of the application for provisional

registration submitted on 01.10.2019, the petitioner was informed

about the decision of the Council, taken at the meeting held on
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-9-
2025:KER:45786

09.03.2018, not to consider the applications for temporary/

permanent registration of medical graduates who had obtained

foreign medical degree through off campus mode. It is stated that

after the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No. 12454/2020, the

Council verified the petitioner’s application and the documents he

submitted and it was found that he had completed the medical

course in different colleges and thus had not undergone a regular

course of study in the University in which he had taken admission.

Accordingly, the Council decided not to grant permanent

registration to the petitioner and issued Exhibit P11

order/proceedings. It is contended that the provisions of the

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, will not apply to the petitioner

since it was repealed by Section 60 of the National Medical

Commission Act, 2019. It is submitted that the petitioner’s

contention that he had undergone a regular course cannot be

decided based on Ext.P7, since it is truncated. It is submitted that

mere entry and exit visas, stamped from a country (St. Lucia),

cannot be considered conclusive to prove that the petitioner has

undergone a regular course of study there. Regarding Ext.P13, it is

submitted that, admittedly, the first phase of the course was

completed on the St.Lucia campus, and part of the studies were
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-10-
2025:KER:45786

completed by him from the SRM Medical College Hospital and

Research Centre and Christian Medical College, Vellore, in India,

while Ext.P13 speaks of completion of the Clinical Science phase in

various hospitals in Caribbean islands and other affiliated hospitals

in the UK and the USA. According to the respondents, the National

Medical Council or its Predecessor Council does not allow the

transfer of House Surgency to any other hospital except where

they studied for medical graduation. It is contended that medical

education in India does not permit distant or Off-campus

education, as the medical profession requires more skill and on

hand experience than any other profession, and any deficiency in

service will adversely affect public health. It is submitted that

before giving registration to a medical graduate to practice, the

Council is bound to ensure that the said person is eligible and

equipped for medical practice in India. Reference is made to the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation

Corporation Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors. (C.A.No.

17869-17870 of 2017), wherein the Apex Court has deprecated

the practice of conferring degrees in engineering undertaken

through the distance education mode. It is submitted that the

Health Sector is much more vital than the technical education field,
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-11-
2025:KER:45786

as it involves human health and life, which is all the more reason

not to permit persons who have obtained their medical degrees

through off off-campus mode to practice medicine in the State of

Kerala. It is contended that permanent registration is granted in

terms of the provisions of Section 24 of the 2021 Act, and not in

terms of Section 25(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act. It is

contended that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be

applied in the case of the petitioner, merely for the fact that he

had passed the FMG examination, and that the dictum laid down

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Saai

Prasanna (supra) is not applicable. It is submitted that the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Medical

Commission v. Pooja Thandu Naresh [(2022) 13 SCC 56],

governs the issue.

6. The Deputy Solicitor General has filed a statement. It is

stated that the Joint Secretary, CPV Division of the Ministry of

External Affairs, by an email dated 07.08.2023, has addressed the

Ambassador, Paramaribo, in the following manner:

“The Mission is doing attestation of the signature of
competent authorities of a foreign Government. In this
case it was the signature of Saint Lucia authority only. The
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-12-
2025:KER:45786

diplomatic Missions are not the competent authorities to
extend recognition or approval for educational
qualifications. The degree in respect of Shri Selbian Boban
was attested keeping the above position in view.

The Mission, is separately sending a note verbale to St.
Lucian authorities seeking a clarification whether
enrolment as a medical practitioner in the country is
permitted or not. However, we know as a matter of fact
that Saint Lucia does not permit students coming out of
such universities to automatically get a licence to practise.
They have to pass some exams external to the University
to get a licence”.

It is also submitted that the St. Lucian authorities, vide their

diplomatic note, had clarified that students who have completed

their studies at the AIMU must successfully pass the Caribbean

Association of Medical Councils Examination (CAMC) and an

internship at a local medical facility before being able to practice in

St. Lucia or the CARICOM.

7. Heard Sri James Abraham (Vilayakattu) for the

petitioner, Sri K.S. Prenjith Kumar, Standing Counsel for the 1 st

respondent, Sri N.Raghuraj, Senior Advocate, instructed by

Sri Vivek Menon for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri V. Girish Kumar,

Central Government Counsel for respondents 4 and 5.
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-13-

2025:KER:45786

8. Section 25 of the 1956 Act reads thus;

“25. Provisional registration.–(1) A citizen of India
possessing a medical qualification granted by a medical
institution outside India included in Part II of the Third
Schedule, who is required to undergo practical training as
prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 13, shall, on
production of proper evidence that he has selected for such
practical training in an approved institution, be entitled to be
registered provisionally in a State Medical Register and shall
be entitled to practice medicine in the approved institution for
the purposes of such training and for no other purpose.
(2) A person who has passed the qualifying examination of
any University or medical institution in India for the grant of a
recognised medical qualification shall be entitled to be
registered provisionally in a State Medical Register for the
purpose of enabling him to be engaged in employment in a
resident medical capacity in any approved institution, or in
the Medical Service of the Armed Forces of the Union, and for
no other purpose, on production of proper evidence that he
has been selected for such employment.

(3) The names of all persons provisionally registered under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) in a State Medical Register
shall be entered therein separately from the names of other
persons registered therein.

(4) A person registered provisionally as aforesaid who has
completed practical training referred to in sub-section (1) or
who has been engaged for the prescribed period in
employment in a resident medical capacity in any approved
institution or in the Medical Service of the Armed Forces of
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-14-
2025:KER:45786

the Union, as the case may be, shall be entitled to
registration in the State Medical Register under section 15.”

9. The Council is constituted in terms of Section 3 of the

Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred

to as the 2021 Act). Section 24 of the 2021 Act states the

eligibility for registration. It reads thus:

“24. Eligibility for registration.– (1) Every holder of a
recognized qualification of Modern Medicine acquired by
a regular mode of education attending theory of medical
science and sufficient number of days of practical training
from recognized institution, is eligible to be registered as
medical practitioner under this Act.

(2) No person shall be eligible for registration under sub-

section (1), if he is subject to any of the disqualifications
mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of section 11.”

10. Respondents 2 and 3 contend that the petitioner

admittedly underwent part of his studies in India, which would

show that he had not acquired the Medical Degree through the

regular mode of studies as in India. Hence, the rejection of the

petitioner’s application for permanent registration is contended to

be legally correct. Reliance is placed on the statement filed by the

DSGI on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, wherein it is stated that

the Saint Lucian authorities vide their diplomatic note had clarified that

students who have completed their studies at the AIMU must
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-15-
2025:KER:45786

successfully pass the Caribbean Association of Medical Councils

Examination (CAMC) and an internship at a local medical facility before

being able to practice in Saint Lucia or the CARICOM. The respondents

submit that admittedly, the petitioner has not completed all the

requirements for being able to practice in St. Lucia or CARICOM.

11. In Saai Prasanna (supra), in paragraph 15, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows;

“15. The second contention of MCI is also untenable. It is
true that if the primary medical qualification of the candidate
was not a recognized qualification for enrolment as medical
practitioner in the country in which the institution awarding
the said qualification is situated, such candidates will not
entitled to take part in the screening test examination in
India. In this case the High Commission of India in Tanzania
has confirmed the following: (i) that Tanzania Medical
Council has recognized the curriculum and medical degree of
MBBS of International Medical & Technological, University
Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania as equivalent to MD degree in
Tanzania; and (ii) that the medical degrees offered to the
said International Medical & Technological University,
Tanzania are recognized by Medical Council of Tanzania and
the MBBS graduates of the said university are eligible for
registration as Medical practitioners by the Medical Council of
Tanzania under the provisions of the Medical Practitioners &
Dentists Act, Cap 152 of the Laws of Tanzania. Therefore,
the question of such primary degree not being recognized in
India for the purpose of sitting in the screening test
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-16-
2025:KER:45786

examination does not arise.”

12. On facts, the Court held that the qualification which the

respondents before the Hon’ble Supreme Court possessed made

them eligible for registration as medical practitioners by the

Medical Council, Tanzania as per the laws of Tanzania and the

question of such primary degree not being recognised in India to

sit in the screening test examination does not arise. Going by the

statement filed by the DSGI, and the above observations of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, the qualification of the petitioner is not

sufficient to permit him to practice in Saint Lucia.

13. In Praveen Kumar (supra), a learned Single Judge of

this Court considered the denial of provisional registration since

students studied in Off-Campus Centres of the Foreign Medical

Centres in India. This Court considered Regulation 4(3) of the

Screening Test Regulations 2002, which stipulates that a candidate

who has studied for the Medical Course in an institution located

abroad should undergo the entire duration of the course in that

institution, was introduced only with effect from 16.04.2010, and

held that the Medical Council of India cannot be heard to contend

that the said stipulation will have retrospective effect and govern

the rights of students like the petitioners who had completed their
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-17-
2025:KER:45786

studies before the calendar year 2010 commenced. The said

situation does not arise in this case since the petitioner completed

the course much after 2010. In the said case, the learned Single

Judge had relied on the decision in Saai Prasanna (supra). After

referring to the said decision, this Court noted that in the case of

persons who have obtained medical qualification from the Medical

Institutions outside India, the question as to where the course of

study was undergone is not relevant, and that the course of study

could be in that country or if the norms of the Medical Council of

that country so permitted, the course of study could be partly in

that country and partly in another country including India, and

once that country recognises the medical qualification granted by

the institution in that country for enrolment as a medical

practitioner in that country, and if such medical degree holder

passes the screening test in India, the Medical Council of India

cannot refuse to recognise such a degree.

14. In Rohit Naresh Agarwal v. Union of India [W.P.

(C)No.1655/2013 & connected cases], the High Court of Delhi

considered a challenge to Clause 4(3) of the Screening Test

Regulations, 2002 and held that the Regulation is ultra vires the

Act and liable to be set aside. The Regulation was thereafter
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-18-
2025:KER:45786

amended in 2016 by adding a proviso to Clause 4(3), permitting

the Council to relax the requirement regarding study at the same

institute located abroad for the entire duration of the course. The

judgment of the High Court of Delhi was challenged by the Medical

Council of India in Civil Appeal No.11321 of 2013 before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it

does not find any error in the decision rendered by the High Court

in declaring Regulation 4(3) of the Screening Test Regulations,

2002 as ultra vires. A learned Single Judge of this Court had

considered the issue in W.P.(C)No.39576/2018 and by judgment

dated 21.08.2019, dismissed the writ petition. The petitioners

before the Court were holders of a Medical Degree from various

Universities in China and Nepal, and the question considered was

whether they had the necessary qualification to practice in the

country from which they acquired their Medical Degrees, and it

was held that they could not.

15. The issue again came up before a Division Bench of this

Court in Leeba Mary Eapen (supra). This Court held as follows:

“30. In our considered opinion, when the said provisions of
the Regulations, 2002 and the Foreign Medical Institution
Regulations, 2002 as discussed above are read together, a
candidate who secures an eligibility certificate and acquires a
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-19-
2025:KER:45786

primary foreign medical qualification, and passes the
screening test, entitles him to provisional/permanent
registration by the Medical Council of India or the State
Medical Council, as of right. This we say because, Section
13(4A)
clearly specifies that a person who is a citizen of
India and obtains medical qualification granted by any
medical institution outside India shall not be entitled to be
enrolled on any medical register maintained by a State
Medical Council, etc. unless he qualifies the screening test in
India prescribed for such purpose and thereafter such
foreign medical qualification shall be deemed to be the
recognised medical qualification for the purposes of the Act,
1956 for that person. As we have pointed out earlier, the
writ petitioner has satisfied the conditions deliberated above
in terms of the Act, 1956 and both the Regulations of 2002.
Therefore, it is clear that by virtue of the said provisions, a
right is conferred on the writ petitioner who satisfied the
conditions of law for the purpose of registration in any of the
registers maintained by the statutory authorities for the
purpose, and post qualification accordingly, the qualification
secured by the person from abroad, by virtue of the
statutory fiction contained under Section 13(4A) shall be a
recognised qualification under the Act, 1956. That apart, the
definition of provisional registration contained under the
Regulations of 2002 makes it clear that it is done for the
purpose of undergoing practical training in India as
prescribed, by those persons who have not undergone such
practical training after obtaining the qualification as may be
required by the rules or regulations in force in the country
granting the qualification, which by itself is a mechanism to
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-20-
2025:KER:45786

regulate and control the practice of medicine. The
documents produced by the petitioner and discussed above
would make it clear that they are satisfying the requirements
of the provisions of law in the Indian context, which were
taken note of by the learned Single Judge while analysing
the situations.”

16. The above judgment was challenged by the Travancore

Cochin Medical Council before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP

No.7293 of 2021, and the operation of the judgment was stayed

by order dated 30.06.2021. However, SLP No.7293 of 2021 has

thereafter been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by

judgment dated 31.10.2023, observing that the Court is not

inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the High

Court.

17. In Sadhiya Siyad v. State of Kerala & Ors. [2021

KHC 5832], a learned Single Judge of this Court considered the

entitlement for registration with the Travancore Cochin Medical

Council to practice Medicine in terms of the Travancore Cochin

Medical Practitioners Act, 1953. Paragraph 21 of the judgment

reads thus;

“21. That apart, Section 13(4B) of the IMC Act itself provides
that in case any person obtains any medical qualification
without obtaining Eligibility Certificate, he shall not be
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-21-
2025:KER:45786

eligible to appear for the Screening Test. In other words,
going by the said provision, the consequence of omission to
obtain Eligibility Certificate is only that the candidate
concerned will not be eligible to appear for the Screening
Test. As far as the present case is concerned, the fact that
the petitioner was permitted by the competent authority to
appear for Screening Test and the fact that she has cleared
the Screening Test are not disputed by the State Medical
Council. True, the State Medical Council, while considering
applications for registration, both provisional and permanent,
has the power to verify whether the candidate has obtained
Eligibility Certificate, but that does not mean that the State
Medical Council is empowered to adjudicate the right of a
person to obtain Eligibility Certificate and to appear for the
Screening Test, ignoring the decisions taken by the Medical
Council of India in this regard. As such, according to me, if it
is found that a candidate has appeared for the Screening
Test without there being any eligibility for the same, the
State Medical Councils can only bring the said fact to the
notice of the Medical Council of India to initiate appropriate
proceedings for recalling the result of the Screening Test. I
take this view for the reason that in terms of the provisions
of the IMC Act, it is for the Medical Council of India to
consider whether a particular candidate is eligible to obtain
Eligibility Certificate and appear for the Screening Test. If it
is held that the State Medical Councils are empowered to
adjudicate the eligibility of a candidate to appear for the
Screening Test in which he has been qualified, the State
Medical Councils will be able to nullify the results of the
Screening Test collaterally, which would, in turn, affect the
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-22-
2025:KER:45786

sanctity of the statutory Screening Test. In other words,
once a candidate qualifies the Screening Test, the State
Medical Council cannot reject the application for registration
preferred by him on the ground that he was not eligible to
appear for the Screening Test. It is all the more so since
Section 13(4A) of the IMC Act provides that a person who
obtains medical qualification granted by any medical
institution outside India recognised for enrolment as a
medical practitioner in that country shall be entitled to be
enrolled on any State Medical Register, if he clears the
Screening Test. Yet another reason for arriving at the said
conclusion is that, as noted earlier, Regulation 11 of the
Regulations also provides that candidates who qualify the
Screening Test may apply to any State Medical Council for
provisional or permanent registration and the State Medical
Councils shall issue provisional registration to such
candidates, who are yet to undergo one year internship in an
approved institution and issue permanent registration to
such eligible candidates who have already undergone one
year internship, as the case may be. In other words, if a
candidate satisfies all the requirements for enrolling as a
medical practitioner on a State Medical Register in India in
accordance of the provisions of the IMC Act and the
Regulations made thereunder, he cannot be denied
registration by a State Medical Council. If the petitioner
satisfies all the requirements for enrolling as a medical
practitioner on a State Medical Register in accordance with
the provisions of the IMC Act as also the regulations made
thereunder, the State Medical Council cannot deny enrolment
to her on the ground that she has obtained Eligibility
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-23-
2025:KER:45786

Certificate after taking admission to the medical institution
abroad and was consequently not eligible to appear for the
Screening Test. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the
petitioner satisfies all the eligibility criteria for registration in
accordance with the provisions of the IMC Act and the
regulations made thereunder and as such, she cannot be
denied registration on the said ground. Question (ii), in the
circumstances, is answered in favour of the petitioner.”

18. The following directions were issued by the learned

Single Judge in the last paragraph of the said judgment;

“In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the
State Medical Council to permit the petitioner to apply for
the permanent registration, and if applied, grant permanent
registration to the petitioner without insisting her to undergo
CRRI, if the application of the petitioner is otherwise in
order. This shall be done within two months. It is made clear
that this judgment will not preclude the State Medical
Council from bringing to the notice of the National Medical
Commission the requirement, if any, for the foreign medical
graduates to undergo internship afresh to get acclimatized
with the diseases and requirements of treatment peculiar to
the State in order to bring in force appropriate statutory
amendments.”

19. Senior Counsel appearing for the Council submitted that

the learned Single Judge had, in the above judgment, assumed

that the Screening Test was conducted by the Medical Council of

India and that, in fact, it is conducted by the National Board of
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-24-
2025:KER:45786

Examination. The said contention is not very relevant since the

Test is conducted under the Screening Test Regulation, 2002,

which lays down the necessary criteria.

20. In Pooja Thandu Naresh (supra) relied on by the

Senior Counsel, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering a

challenge to the judgment of the High Court of Madras, whereby

the writ petitioners were directed to undergo two months of

Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship, followed by one year

of internship, before granting permanent registration under the

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. That was a case in which, after

qualifying the eligibility test, students joined Colleges in the

Republic of China and completed nine semesters of their academic

course, including clinical training on the campus. Due to the

outbreak of COVID-19 Pandemic, the clinical training for the

subjects of Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology and Nuclear

Medicine in the 10th Semester was done online and that they were

granted degree of Bachelor of Medicine & Bachelor of Surgery

(“MBBS”) after qualifying in all the subjects as per the teaching

plan till May 2020 by the Foreign Institute. They qualified in the

Screening Test and sought provisional registration, which was not

granted. After extracting the provisions in the Screening Test
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-25-
2025:KER:45786

Regulation regarding Permanent Registration, Provisional

Registration, Primary Medical qualification, Eligibility criteria, and

the Criteria to recognise Foreign Medical Graduates applying for

Licence or permanent registration for practice in India, contained

in Schedule I issued under Regulation 4, and the clarification

issued on 4.3.2022 that the 2021 Regulations are not applicable to

students who acquired a foreign medical degree prior to

18.11.2021, the Apex Court in paragraphs 13,14,15,17,19,20 and

22 held as follows:

“13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
find that the reliance on the judgment of this Court
in Medical Council of India [Medical Council of India v. J.
Saai Prasanna
, (2011) 11 SCC 748] is not applicable to the
facts of the present case as after the judgment of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered on 2-5-2008 [J. Sai
Prasanna v. Medical Council of India
, 2008 SCC OnLine AP
221], Regulation 4(3) of the Screening Test Regulations was
inserted to make it mandatory that a candidate should have
studied for the medical course at the same institute located
abroad for the entire duration of the course. Though this
Court has delivered judgment after the amendment but the
student had obtained the degree prior to the amendment of
the Regulations. Therefore, such judgment would not be
relevant in the present matter.

14. The fact is that the student has admittedly not
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-26-
2025:KER:45786

completed clinical training, which was part of the curriculum
in the tenth semester; maybe she has not completed part of
clinical training in the ninth semester as well as per the
curriculum.

15. The Eligibility Regulations are to ensure that a student
meets the minimum eligibility condition as per the Graduate
Medical Education Regulations, 1997, but after completing
the curriculum, a candidate has to qualify the screening test,
provided the entire duration of the course has been
completed at the same institute located abroad. The
question to be examined is as to whether the degree
granted by the Foreign Institute even in respect of clinical
training is binding on the appellant and the student has to
be provisionally registered. We find that the appellant is not
bound to grant provisional registration to the student who
has not completed the entire duration of the course from the
Foreign Institute including the clinical training.

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

17. The students had taken admission in medical colleges
outside India for the reason that they could not get
admission in the medical colleges in India. China alone has a
number of Institutes offering medical courses conducted in
English language. The Act and the Screening Test
Regulations are framed in such a way that the course
completed by the students is treated to be valid in India
provided that the medical qualification is recognised for
enrolment of the medical practitioner in that country.
Obviously, none of the Indian students are going to practice
medicine in the foreign country, therefore, the grant of
degree to the Indian students has no corresponding
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-27-
2025:KER:45786

obligation that such students actually practice medicine in
that country. In other words, the medical course is
permitted to be completed abroad to practice in India only
on the basis of an endorsement that the completion of such
medical course entitles them to practice in the said foreign
country. The courses are designed in such a way to attract
students to undertake admission in the foreign institutes so
that such students become eligible to practise medicine in
India. The very framework of the Regulations was
compromising the interests of the Indian nationals and the
health infrastructure in India. However, the malice has been
corrected by the 2021 Regulations but such Regulations are
not applicable to the students who have taken admission in
the foreign institutes prior to 18-11-2021.

19. Therefore, without practical training, there cannot be
any doctor who is expected to take care of the citizens of
the country. Hence, the decision of the appellant not to
grant provisional registration cannot be said to be arbitrary.

20. The argument that certain students have been granted
provisional registration will not confer any right on the
student to claim provisional registration so as to undergo
the internship. There cannot be any equality in illegality.
Reference may be made to a judgment of this Court
in Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh [Chandigarh
Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745].

22. However, the fact remains that the students were
permitted to undergo a medical course abroad and that they
have completed their curriculum according to the certificate
granted by such a Foreign Institute. Therefore, such national
resources cannot be permitted to be wasted, which will
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-28-
2025:KER:45786

affect the lives of young students who have taken admission
in foreign institutes as part of their career prospects.
Therefore, the services of the students should be used to
augment the health infrastructure in the country. Thus, it
would be necessary that the students undergo actual clinical
training of such duration and at such institutes, which are
identified by the appellant, and on such terms and
conditions, including the charges for imparting such training,
as may be notified by the appellant.”

21. Unlike before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case on

hand, the petitioner completed his first phase in the University and

the second phase, as permitted by the laws relating to the foreign

University, was completed in different Colleges spread out outside

the Caribbean. The only objection put forward is that the second

phase was not completed on the same University campus. The

petitioner was permitted to take the Screening Test, granted

provisional registration based on the successful completion of the

Screening Test, and thereafter, he completed the internship at

Kottayam Medical College. The case of the petitioner is to be

considered in the light of the observations of the Apex Court in

paragraph 22 of the judgment extracted above. The petitioner has

a foreign medical degree granted by a recognised University. He

has undergone the Screening Test as well as an internship after
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-29-
2025:KER:45786

the provisional registration. He is hence entitled to permanent

registration, entitling him to practice in India. The above

conclusion is also in consonance with the decisions of this Court, in

Praveen Kumar (supra), Sadhiya Siyad (supra), and in Leeba

Mary Eapen (supra), which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

The petitioner is entitled to succeed. The writ petition is

allowed. Ext.P11 is quashed. It is declared that the petitioner is

entitled to get permanent registration under the provisions of the

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the National Medical Commission

Act, 2019, and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act 2021.

The 2nd respondent is directed to grant permanent registration

under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the

National Medical Commission Act, 2019, and the Kerala State

Medical Practitioners Act 2021, to the petitioner, within one month

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI
JUDGE

dsn
W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

-30-
2025:KER:45786

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34898/2022
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
WORLD DIRECTORY OF MEDICAL SCHOOLS SHOWING
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL UNIVERSITY,
SAINT LUCIA.

Exhibit P2         TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF LIST OF
                   APPROVED    UNIVERSITIES     SHOWING    AMERICAN

INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, SAINT LUCIA
DOWNLOADED AND PRINTED FROM THE OFFICIAL
WEBSITE OF MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.7.2013
ISSUED BY THE AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL
UNIVERSITY, SAINT LUCIA TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P4         TRUE COPY OF THE MBBS CERTIFICATE DATED
                   31.12.2018     ISSUED    BY      THE    AMERICAN
                   INTERNATIONAL    MEDICAL    UNIVERSITY,    SAINT
                   LUCIA.
Exhibit P5         TRUE COPIES PUBLIC NOTICES ISSUED IN THE
                   OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
                   GRANTING EXEMPTION TO OBTAIN ELIGIBILITY
                   CERTIFICATE.
Exhibit P6         TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENING TEST RESULT DATED
                   7.9.2019 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL BOARD OF
                   EXAMINATIONS TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P7         TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF PASSPORT
Exhibit P8         A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PROVISIONAL
                   REGISTRATION DATED 27.7.2020.
Exhibit P9         A   TRUE   COPY    OF  THE     CRRI  COMPLETION
                   CERTIFICATE DATED 26.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE
                   GENERAL HOSPITAL, KOTTAYAM.
Exhibit P10        A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.7.2022
                   IN W.P. NO. 12454/2020.
Exhibit P11        A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C2-25310/2021/MC
                   DATED 2.9.2022.
Exhibit P12        A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF MODERN
                   MEDICINE COUNCIL HELD ON 20.9.2019 AND
                   ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE SAME.
Exhibit P13        TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.1.2020 SENT
                   BY   THE   AMERICAN    INTERNATIONAL     MEDICAL
                   UNIVERSITY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P14        A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT ISSUED
                   BY   THE   AMERICAN    INTERNATIONAL     MEDICAL
 W.P.(C)No.34898 of 2022

                                  -31-
                                                   2025:KER:45786

UNIVERSITY, WHICH IS ATTESTED BY THE EMBASSY
OF INDIA.

Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 25.4.2016
ISSUED BY THE SRM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL &
RESEARCH CENTRE TAMILNADU
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 9.5.2016
ISSUED BY THE CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE,
VELLORE.

Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE DOWNLOADED
FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF
INDIA SHOWING THE REGISTRATION DETAILS OF
PERSON WHO ACQUIRED DOCTOR OF MEDICINE FROM
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL UNIVERSITY,
SAINT LUCIA, WEST INDIES.

Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE DOWNLOADED
FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF
INDIA SHOWING THE REGISTRATION DETAILS OF
PERSON WHO ACQUIRED DOCTOR OF MEDICINE FROM
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL UNIVERSITY,
SAINT LUCIA, WEST INDIES

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT.R2[A] TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MODERN
MEDICINE COUNCIL DATED.2.9.2022



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here