SUNITA KUMARI Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) So far as the petitioner is concerned she had taken admission in a recognized Medical College in the USSR. She has already unsuccessfully appeared once in the Screening Test. Her recent application has not been accepted by the National Board of Examinations on whose behalf it is contended by their learned Counsel that the petitioner had not studied Physics, Chemistry and Biology in School. Even in her Arts examinations she did get 42 per cent marks only. It is contended that the petitioner would not be eligible for the benefit of paragraph 6 A(ii) of the decision in Medical Council of India v. Indian Doctors from Russia Welfare Association, II (2002) SLT 466=(2002) 3 SCC 696. Reliance has instead been placed on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjeev of Gupta v. Union of India, VII (2004) SLT 181=(2005) 1 SCC 45, which concerned the challenge to the legality of Screening Test. In the course of repelling this assault the Supreme Court had taken note of the Resolution of the General Body of the Medical Council of India which met on 31.3.2000. By means of interim Orders dated 17.4.2000 the Apex Court had approved this Resolution whilst carrying out modifications to Clause (vii). Clauses (i) and (vi) of the Resolution dated 31.1.2000 insists that students should obtain not less than 50 per cent marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the 10+2 Examination. This vital criteria has not been met at all. The Apex Court observed, inter alia, as follows-

(2.) Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Counsel for the MCI has drawn my attention to the dismissal of Contempt Petition No. 335/2002 titled Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Bansal v. Dr. M. Sachdeva. The petitioner had obtained only 44.7% marks and had been declined registration. Contempt Case No. 26/2003 titled Jharna Roy v. K.K. Arora in which the petitioners had not passed the 12th Class and Contempt Petition No. 309/2003 titled Dr. Rahul Kumar Singla v. Dr. P.C. Kesvan Kutty Nair and Contempt Petition No. 310/2003 titled Dr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Dr. M. Sachdeva where the petitioner did not possess 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, met with the same result.

(3.) This is the approach taken by me in Brijesh Panjan v. MCI, 108 (2003) DLT 75 which came to be affirmed by the Division Bench presided over by the Chief Justice in LPA 181/2004.