ARUN H BAKLE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. Arun Bakle, M. D. Cardiologist from Patrice Lumumba Peoples' Friendship University, U.S.S.R., having undergone one year's practical training (interneship) during 1979-80 as required by the rules and regulations in force in U.S.S.R. sought enrolment under S.15(1), Medical Council Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on the Maharashtra State Medical Register. It is his case that he has practised medicine as a physician and was a permanent adviser at surgical departments in the Moscow Clinical Hospital No. 64 during the year 1982-83. He also did some research work in September 1983. He was, however, required to leave the work abruptly due to sudden demise of his father at Sholapur in Maharashtra State. With a view to start practice at Solapur in Maharashtra State, he applied to the Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi, respondent 2 herein, for registration. By a letter D/-7-11-1983, respondent 2 informed him (Exh. 'B') that "Indian Nationals holding recognised foreign medical qualifications included in Part II of Sch. 3 to Medical Council Act, 1956, are eligible for registration and practice in India. They have to undergo one year's practical training in an approved hospital in India in the subjects of Medicine, Surgery, Obst. and Gyn. and Community Medicine i.e. three months in each subject after taking provisional registration under S.25(2), Medical Council Act, 1956." He reiterated his request clarifying that as he has already undergone practical training, he should be granted registration without insisting upon further practical training. However, respondent 2 wrote to him on 16-4-1984 (Exh. 'F') that in view of the revised procedure, he is required to undergo practical training in an approved hospital in India for one year. The petitioner, thereupon issued a notice (Exh. 'G') through his Counsel, and called upon respondent 2 to grant registration. The 2nd respondent, by his letter D/-24-4-1984 (Exh. 'H') informed him that the Medical Council of India, "in consultation with the Govt. of India, Ministry of Health, decided in public interest in February, 1981 that thereafter all Indian Nationals holding foreign recognised medical qualification will be required to undergo practical training in an approved hospital in India in order to familiarise themselves with the Indian conditions irrespective of the fact whether they had undergone the prescribed training in the concerned foreign country or not and since then this procedure has been followed in all cases uniformally." To a further request, the petitioner was informed that no further correspondence would be entertained. He, therefore, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, under Art.226 of the Constitution, for a writ of certiorari to quash the above said communication, and for a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to issue permanent registration as also to grant him enrolment under S. 13(1) read with S. 15 of the Act, without insisting upon completion of one year's practical training (interneship).

(2.) The Union of India, and the Registrar, Maharashtra Medical Council respondent 3 herein, have chosen not to file any affidavit in reply. The Secretary of the Medical Council of India, in his affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent 2 herein, reiterated the stand taken in the communications addressed to the petitioner referred to above. It was further stated that the Medical Council of India, is the authority to look after the minimum standards of medical education in India and to lay down norms for registration of medical practitioners in India. With a view to maintain the minimum medical standards and for maintaining the health and welfare of the people, the Medical Council of India, after mature consideration and in consultation with the Govt. of India decided that Indian Doctors who qualify from outside India, should undergo at least practical training for a minimum period of one year in this country so that they may get acclimatized with the conditions of India before they start actual practice. In support of their stand, they relied upon their letter dated 13th February, 1981 addressed by the Secretary, Medical Council of India to the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Annexture-'A'), and a further letter dt. 28-2-1981 (Annexture-'B'). They also relied upon the fact that 193 foreign medical graduates have undergone the training. In this respect, on a query put by the petitioner, it was asserted that M.D. Cardiology Degree of the U.S.S.R. is not recognised in India and what is recognised is, 'General Physician' qualification granted by the Patrice Lumumba People's Friendship University, Moscow. In view of the stand taken in the affidavit in reply, the petitioner sought leave to amend the writ petition, and specifically pleaded that the degree of Doctor of Medicine "General Physician" of the Patrice Lumumba People's Friendship University held by the petitioner is a degree included in Part II of Sch. 3, Medical Council Act, at Sr. No. 'C', and in view of the provisions of S.13(3), Medical Council Act, he is entitled to be enrolled on any State Medical Register, without one year's practical training in India for, he had undergone one year's practical training (interneship) in Therapy, Surgery, Obstetrics and Gyneocology in the year 1979-80 as part of his course of study. He also averred that "Bachelor's Degree of 'General Physician' is titled as 'Doctor of Medicine' of Patrice Lumumba People's Friendship University, Moscow". He is therefore not required to undergo any further training. He also specifically pleaded that only such candidates who have not undergone practical training (interneship) as part of their course of study for the degree awarded to them would be required to undergo such training. The petitioner further pleaded that no Regulation with the previous sanction of the Central Government was made as required by S.33 of the Act prescribing one year's practical training for such medical graduate to become eligible for registration. He also took up the stand that no such Regulation could validly be framed so as to deprive the graduates entitled to be enrolled under S.13(3) read with S.15 of the Act.

(3.) The respondents were given an opportunity to file a further affidavit in reply but none of the respondents have chosen to avail of this opportunity. In the result, as the record now stands, no regulation framed under S. 33 with the previous sanction of the Central Government is placed before the Court. There is not even an assertion by any of the respondents that any such Regulation was ever framed by the Medical Council of India, with the previous sanction of the Central Government as envisaged by S.33 of the Act. The bare assertion of Respondent 2 is that the Medical Council of India, after mature consideration and in consultation with the Government of India decided that Doctors who qualify from outside India should undergo at least one year's minimum practical training in this country. The petitioner's claim has to be decided in this background.