LAWS(KER)-2025-4-106

OOMMEN JOHN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 07, 2025
Oommen John Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a rehabilitation professional with a Bachelor's Degree in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, is registered with the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) under Sec. 19 of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RCI Act'). The petitioner contends that the Exhibit P1 registration certificate issued on 15/9/2009 includes a condition requiring renewal every seven years based on Continuing Rehabilitation Education (CRE) points, which lacks legal backing under the Act.

(2.) The petitioner, employed under the National Rural Health Mission, Pathanamthitta, secured a job offer from Jordanian Speech Clinic, UAE (Exhibits P2 & P3). However, the prospective employer declined the petitioner's existing certificate due to its renewal clause. Consequently, the petitioner applied for renewal on 27/9/2016 via the online facility provided by the RCI, receiving a provisional registration certificate (Exhibit P4) pending verification of documents and fees. Despite the submission of all requisite documents and remittance of fees duly acknowledged by the RCI on 26/10/2016, the renewed certificate was not issued. Instead, the petitioner was directed to obtain 100 CRE points as a precondition for renewal, as stated in Exhibit P5, which the petitioner contends is a requirement not stipulated in the Act or rules.

(3.) The petitioner contends that the provision of the Act, including Sec. 19, contemplates one-time registration for the professional, but Exhibit P1 Registration Certificate provides a condition of re-evaluation every seven years and the same will be conducted based on participation in Continuing Rehabilitation Education Programmes etc., which is not supported by the law or the rules made thereunder. It is argued that said condition was incorporated in the Exhibit P1 certificate without the support of any law or rules governing the field. It is argued that the second and the third respondents have no power except what is drawn from the Act and rules, and thus the condition as stipulated in Exhibit P5 is ultra vires the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992, and amendments made until 2000.