Hon’ble Delhi High Court while dealing with a petition here on 26-02-2019 in the case of “Rohinish Pathak v. Medical Council of India” stated that regulation 4(4) of the Screening Test Regulations (STR), 2002 issued by Medical Council of India is constitutionally valid.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner (Rohinish Pathak) passed the Indian Schools Certificate Examination (Class 12) (hereinafter, “ISCE”) in 2002 with 44 Marks in Physics, 53 in Chemistry and 52 in Biology.
He went to China in 2005 and completed the MBBS degree from Soochow University which is recognized by MCI. He has also completed Postgraduate in Orthopedic Surgery and claims to be recognized for enrolment to practice medicine in China. By virtue of the STR, the petitioner was required to qualify in a screening test in order to obtain provisional or permanent registration with the MCI or any State Medical Council (hereinafter “SMC”). For this purpose, he required an “eligibility certificate” issued by the MCI.
The petitioner applied for the eligibility certificate three times, on 22.08.2005, 25.10.2010 and 01.04.2015. His first application was rejected by a communication dated 15.04.2006, pointing out the deficiency that his “10+2 total marks (Physics, Chemistry & Biology) are less than 50%”. This rejection was reiterated by the MCI in its communications dated 23.12.2010 and 15.04.2015, in response to his two later applications.
Aggrieved by this, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Regulation 4(4) of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 under this petition.
DECISION OF THE COURT
Hon’ble Court held that regulation 4(4) of the Screening Test Regulations (STR), 2002 issued by Medical Council of India is constitutionally valid. Court further stated that 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.
Court finally held that no relief can be granted to the petitioner and hence the petition was dismissed.
Read the full Judgement Here-
[embeddoc url=”http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/PRJ/judgement/27-02-2019/PRJ26022019CW59072015.pdf” download=”all”]
