ORDER
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1. Disintegration and sudden collapse of one of the mightiest powers in the world -- the U.S. S. R. in August, 1991, is the foundation of this litigation.
2. In 1991, the USSR suddenly disintegrated and each of its constituent republic declared itself as an independent nation. This was indeed one of the most extraordinary events of the century.
3. This unique historical event which was beyond comprehension has shaken and astonished the entire world. Immediately thereafter, there was an atmosphere which created tremendous uncertainty, crises and turmoil, which not only affected the USSR politically but it had a great impact on all aspects of life in the USSR and even in other countries to some extent. Even in the field of medical education a very large number of students of our own country were seriously affected. Their entire future career and fate had been terribly shaken because of sudden disintegration of the USSR. For sometime, there was an atmosphere of total confusion and chaos in the then U. S. S. R. The country which was known for great discipline and exemplary law and order conditions, all of a sudden f that the entire law and order machinery had collapsed and there was total chaos in all fields. Tn such a great nation, even food and shelter was no longer easily available. This litigation is also a part of that unexpected historical event of this century.
4. The controversy involved in this case is rather narrow but its repercussions are extremely vital for the petitioner. Facts involved in all these petitions are more or less similar, thereforee, for the sake of brevity, detailed facts of only C. W. P. No. 4953/97 are highlighted in detail. This judgment would dispose of all those petitions which were heard along with this petition. The petitioner was admitted at Yerevan State Medical University, USSR, a recognized institute, by the Medical Council of India in September, 1990 and studied there up to June, 1991. Due to disintegration of the then USSR and because of the unforeseen circumstances which were beyond control of the petitioner, he studied at Kabardino Balkarian State University in the State of Nalchick, Russia, which was an unrecognized institution from September 1991 to July 1992. The petitioner studied there for a period of about 10 months and thereafter again the petitioner was transferred to Yerevan State Medical University, Armenia, an Institute recognized by the Indian Medical Council and he obtained the final degree from the said recognized institution in July, 1996. The petitioner submitted the complete details as required by respondent No. 2 and was thereafter permitted to take up internship in India. The petitioner had done the internship in India for a period of 9 months from a recognized hospital i.e. Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University. Thereafter, the petitioner again went to Armenia to obtain a degree of M. D. (Physician). The Yerevan State Medical University issued the said degree. The petitioner after returning to India applied for extension of provisional registration granted to him earlier so that the petitioner may complete the remain three months of internship. The petitioner fulfillled the necessary formalities, including depositing a bank draft of Rs. 500/-, but to the utter surprise of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 failed to extend the request/permission for registration for completing the remaining period of internship. In para 7, the petitioner has given the information that one student Dr. Bharat Bharli was similarly placed and now has been given a permanent registration by the respondent. Many similarly paled doctors were permitted to complete internship and are now practicing as doctors. In response to his request, the petitioner received a letter dated 13-11-97 in which it was mentioned that he is not eligible for registration as per the decision of the Executive Committee dated 17-9-97, as approved by the General Body on 23-10-1997. In the letter, it is stated that the students who were initially admitted to the institutions, not recognized by the Indian Medical Council and later on migrated and obtained the degree from recognized medical institutions in the erstwhile USSR, will not be eligible for any kind of registration in India.
5. The petitioner has incorporated in the petition that respondent No. 2 has granted provisional registration for completing the internship to students who had also applied for extension of provisional registration along with the petitioner in July-August, 1997 or so and the number of such students is about 40. The petitioner has given the details of all those students in Annexure-8, at page 61 of the petition. The petitioner specifically mentioned that these students who have been mentioned in Annexure-8, also had completed their studies in the same manner as the petitioner has done. They were admitted to a recognized medical institution and thereafter because of unforeseen circumstances of disintegration of the then USSR for sometime, they also received part of their medical education from Kabardino Balkarian State University in the State of Nalchick, Russia, and thereafter obtained final degree of M. D. (Medicine) from a recognized institution. When these students have been allowed to complete their internship, the petitioner also ought to have been permitted to complete his internship. The petitioner is seriously aggrieved by the discriminatory treatment against him.
6. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that even the Indian Medical Council has been changing its rules from time to time without any basis and on its whims. The petitioner has extracted the minutes of the Executing Meetings and General Body Meetings of the Medical Council of India which would show that in last 4 years how frequently the decisions of the Medical Council of India have been changed without any basis or logic. The details of those decisions are reproduced as under:--
Dateof MeetingExeeutive/GeneralBodyDecision26-7-94Executive General (i) MCI sponsored candidates and private agenciessponsored candidates will have equal status for internshipand for permanent registration after obtaining degree from the recognizedInstitutes/abroad. 25-8-94Body (ii) Finally decided that after fifth course (1+5) provisionalregistration for internship in India will he given for 9 (nine) months andafter obtaining degree from recognized Institute, the remaining threemonths internship will be given and thereafter permanent registration willbe given. (iii) Persons holding a degree including in the Schedule (Part-11 of 3rdSchedule), recognized Institutions by M.C.I. are entitled for permanentregistration. Duration of the course in USSR is (1+5+1) i.e. Languagecourse plus Medical plus internship. 18-7-95 Executive General(i) Changed/modified the earlier decision dated26-7-94/25-8-94 26-7-94/25-8-94 that the medical course in USSR will be treated as (1+6+1)i.e. Language course plus medical plus internship. The Internship will beallowed after obtaining the degree (1+6). 17-10-95 Body(ii) The above will be applicable w.e.f. 1-1-9619-7-96Executive(i) Committee decided to maintain status quo as perits decision dated 26-7-94 i.e. (1+5+1) 31-7-96General Body(ii) Decision dated 18-7-95/17-10-95 will beapplicable only for those students who took admission after 1-1-95 inrecognized Institutes outside India.1-8-96 17-9-97Executive General(i) Obtaining degree after sixth year fromrecognized Institute on or after 1 - 1 -97 shall have to undergo one yearinternship in India and thereafter shall be eligible for permanentregistration i.e. (1+6+1). 23-10-97 Body (ii) Thoseinitially admitted in an institution not recognized by M.C.I. and later onmigrated and obtained the degree from recognized Medical Institution inerstwhile USSR will not be eligible for any kind of Registration in India,whether provisional or permanent.'
7. The petitioner submitted that because of the contradictory, inconsistent and illogical decisions of the Medical Council of India, the petitioner and a large number of Indian Medical students had to suffer. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is beyond comprehension of any prudent person why the decisions have been changed so frequently and without any basis The petitioner further submitted that this clearly indicates that these decisions have been changed without proper application of mind and without any regard to their repercussions on the medical students. This inconsistency and frequent changes of decisions have led to insurmountable problems and difficulties for the students.
8. In the instant case, the petitioner had actually completed 7 years of studies in the then USSR and obtained a medical degree from a recognized institution. The petitioner has also completed 9 months of internship from a hospital which is recognized by the Indian Medical Council. The petitioner and all other petitioners before this Court have been sent similar letters in which it is mentioned that those students who were initially admitted to an institution not recognized by the Medical Council of India and later on migrated and obtained degree from a recognized institution would be eligible for any kind of registration. The petitioner in this case was ad milled to a recognized institution. thereforee, this letter by which the petitioner was denied registration had been sent to him without any application of mind.
9. The petitioner had to run from pillar to post and was given assurances from the President and the Secretary of the Medical Council of India that the extension shall be granted to the petitioner but respondent No. 2 failed to grant the same. After a lapse of 3 months, on 13-11-1997, the petitioner was informed that he is not eligible for registration as per the decision of the Executive Committee dated 17-9-1997, and approved by the General Body on 23-10-97.
10. The petitioner is seriously aggrieved by the decision of the Executive Committee as approved by the General Body and the said letter of the respondent No. 2 dated 13-11 -97, and prayed that these decisions and the decision of the respondent incorporated in the said letter of 13-11-97 are liable to be quashed.
11. This Court issued notice and in pursuance to the Court notice a detailed counter-affidavit had been filed on behalf of the Medical Council of India. In the counter-affidavit, it is mentioned that the Executive Committee of the Council in its meeting held on 13-7-93 had in the light of the said Memorandum of Understanding and representations, decided to permit only those Indian students who were sponsored by the Council for studying in recognized medical institutions of the erstwhile USSR to undergo 9 months of their practical training in clinical areas in recognized teaching hospitals in India during their 6th year of course of study, in part fulfillment of the requirement of the then USSR medical institutions. On successful completion of their 9 months training, students were required to go back to their parent institution in erstwhile USSR for completing their further studies. After obtaining the degree (i.e. after completion of 6 years and passing out at the examination), the students were required to complete the remaining 3 months of internship in recognized teaching hospitals in India before they could be given permanent registration under the provisions of the Act.
12. The Executive Committee of the Council in its meeting held on 26-7-1994, inter alia, decided to extent the aforesaid facility to Indian Students through private agencies also. The Executive Committee in its meeting dated 18-7-95 reviewed its earlier decision and decided not to grant provisional registration to Indian students studying in recognized medical institutions of erstwhile USSR for doing internship in India unless they obtained the requisite degree from their institutions at the end of the medical course, that is, after completion of six years course. The Committee further decided that permanent registration may be granted to the candidates only after they complete a further period of one year internship training.
13. The Executive Committee of the Council in its meeting held on 10-5-96, reviewed its earlier decision of 18-7-95 and inter alia, decided to maintain status quo as per its earlier decision of 26-7-1994. It was further decided that the decision taken on 18-7-1995 would be made applicable to the students who have taken admission into already recognized institutions of the erstwhile USSR after 1-1-1995. In the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that the decision of the Executive Committee taken on 10-5-96 was subsequently modified by another decision of the Executive Committee taken in its meeting held on 17-10-96. It was decided that the students admitted up to 1-1-1991 (completing their medical degree by 1-1-1997) will be permitted for the internship as against the earlier decision permitting the students admitted up to 1-1-1995. The Executive Committee decided that the provisional registration to do internship in India henceforth would be permitted only after completing the full medical degree course of 6 years duration as against the earlier decision permitting the students to do internship during 6th year degree course in erstwhile USSR, provided they meet the other eligibility criteria.
14. In the counter affidavit, it is also mentioned that the Executive Committee considered the entire matter in its meeting held on 17-9-1997 and it was inter alias decided as follows :--
'a) The students who complete their medical degree course of less than 6 years duration from institutions in erstwhile USSR shall not be eligible for registration because of the fact that the duration of M. D. (Physician) coucs.e is 6 years after one year preparatory/ language course.
b) The students completing successfully total six years clinical M. D. (Physician) course in an M.C. 1. recognized institute i.e. obtaining recognized M. D. (Physician) degree on or after 1 -1 -97 shall have to undergo one year internship after obtaining the qualification. Such candidates only shall be eligible for permanent registration Under Section 13(3) of the I. M. C. Act, 1956 provided they meet the other criterion of the Council laid down with regard to admission for undergraduate medical course.
(c) The students who were initially admitted in an institution not recognized by the Medical Council of India and later on migrated and obtained the degree from recognized medical institutions in erstwhile USSR will not be eligible for any kind of registration in India.'
15. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that me registration has been granted only to those candidates who had submitted degrees which indicate that they had studied the medical course throughout in a recognized medical institution.
16. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent Indian Medical Council has not given any reply to the specific averments and allegations of the petitioner incorporated in paras 7 and 8 in which it is stated that all those 40 students who are similarly placed as the petitioner have been allowed to complete internship whereas the petitioner has been denied. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the normal rule of the pleading is that once a particular averment or allegation is not controverter then it has to be accepted as correct.
17. There, is also no reply to the specific averments incorporated in para 9 of the writ petition that the Indian Medical Council has been changing its rule/rules from time to time without any basis and on their whims. All those decisions have already been extracted. In the counter-affidavit, nothing has been mentioned for frequent changes of the decision of the Indian Medical Council. The Indian Medical Council has also failed to give any Explanationn or demonstrated its compulsion for changing its decisions frequently.
18. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit and in the rejoinder, it was stated that it is nowhere specified that the recognized medical qualification if obtained partly from recognized and partly from unrecognized institution cannot be termed as recognized medical qualification. recognized medical qualification means any of the medical qualification included in the Schedule. The respondents cannot after the true nature of sections of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. In the rejoinder, it is mentioned that the petitioner has specifically alleged in the petition that 40 students who were with the petitioner in Kabardino Balkarian States University have been granted provisional registration whereas the petitioner was not permitted to complete his internship.
19. The Executive Committee of the Council from time to time has been changing its decisions. The frequent changes in the professional courses in this manner are bound to create tremendous problems for the students.
20. Mr. Vijay Makhija and Mr. Mukul Rohtagi submitted that because of the most extraordinary historical event which led to the total disintegration of the USSR in 1991, Armenia declared itself to be a separate nation and the medical institute in Armenia declined to honour the agreement between India and the erstwhile USSR. In these circumstances, the petitioner was compelled to go back to the Russian authorities to permit him to complete his medical education. Since there were no seats available in recognized institution and the Russian authorities asked the petitioner to take the remaining part of the education from Nalchick which was not a recognized institution. The petitioner was given assurances by the Russian authorities that they would make all efforts to get the recognition from the Indian Medical Council for the said institution. In these circumstances, the petitioner had taken the middle part of his medical education from the said unrecognized institution. Thereafter, again the petitioner had gone to an institution which was recognized by the Indian Medical Council. Ultimately, the petitioner got the degree of MD from a recognized institution.
21. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the medical qualification granted by medical institution outside India which are included in part (ii) of Schedule III shall also be recognized medical qualifications for this Act. He submitted that the petitioner had successfully obtained the ultimate degree from a recognized institution. Respondent No. 1 now cannot be permitted to go behind the degree. This would be contrary to the spirit of Section 13 of the Act. According to Mr. Rohtagi, the Schedule also does not anywhere insist that medical education year by year should be evaluated. What is incorporated in the schedule is that the ultimate degree of the M.D. should be from a recognized institution.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner after 7 years of medical education had undertaken internship of 9 months. Out of the entire period of education of seven years only for 10 months because of totally unforeseen circumstances, the petitioner had studied in unrecognized institution. By the impugned letter, dated 13-11-97, the respondent has declined to permit the petitioner from completing the internship. That would mean that the petitioner's 7 years medical education and 9 months of internship would be a waste and in case he wants to be doctor, he has to take de novo admission in the medical college and pursue the entire studies and thereafter the internship.
23. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the approach which has been adopted by the Indian Medical Council is totally inhuman and before issuing the impugned order, there has been no application of mind.
24. Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel appearing for the Indian Medical Council submitted that the Council recognized the Degrees which have been obtained from the recognized institutions. He submitted that the recognized medical qualification would mean that the Medical education which has been obtained after studying throughout in recognized institution. Medical qualification obtained partly from the recognized and partly from the unrecognized institution cannot be termed as 'recognized medical qualification.'
25. Mr. Jaitley appearing for the Indian Medical Council submitted that because of Section 13(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, the Council cannot register the petitioner with the Indian Medical Council. According to this provision, the medical qualification granted by the medical institution outside India which are included in Part II of the Third Schedule shall also be recognized medical qualification for the purposes of this Act. In the instant case, the petitioner did not study throughout in a recognized institution. Part of his education was admittedly from an unrecognized medical institution. thereforee, the petitioner cannot be registered with the Indian Medical Council. Mr. Jaitley submitted that this is absolutely imperative in order to maintain a high degree of professional qualification. Mr. Jaitley submitted that despite extraordinary historical event, no relaxation can be granted. Mr. Jaitley further submitted that the Indian Medical Council had to adhere to the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, and the Council cannot pass any order contrary to that.
26. I have carefully perused the relevant provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Indian Medical Council.
27. In order to properly comprehend the requirements of the Indian Medical Council, it would be necessary to have a bird's eye view of the relevant provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. In Section 2, medical education has been defined as,
'the recognized medical education means any of the medical qualifications included in the Schedules.
The relevant provision is Section 13(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the same reads as under:-- '13(3) -- The medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India which are included in Part II of the Third Schedule shall also be recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of this Act, but no person possessing any such qualification shall be entitled to enrolment on any; State Medical Register unless he is a citizen of India and has undergone such practical training after obtaining that qualification as may be required by the rules or regulations in force in the country granting the qualification, or if he has not undergone any practical training in that country, he has undergone such practical training as may be prescribed.
28. According to this provision, it is clear that the medical qualifications granted outside India which are included in part (ii) of the Third Schedule of the Act shall also be recognized medical qualification for the purpose of this Act. In the instant case, the petitioner's medical education can be broadly divided into three parts. Part-A, admittedly, the petitioner was admitted into a recognized institution according to Section 13(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, but thereafter because of the disintegration of the then USSR in August, 1991, the petitioner was compelled to take the middle portion of his medical education from an unrecognized institution of USSR. This may be called Part-11 of his medical education. Again the third and the concluding part (Part III) of the medical education was completed by the petitioner from a recognized institution.
29. On careful scrutiny, this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 cannot go behind the degree cannot be accepted. The medical council while enrolling the new doctors must be permitted to look into their entire educational qualification and if necessary even year-wise education. The true spirit and intention behind this legislation is that the student who is enrolled by the Indian Medical Council should have a good quality of teaching and instructions and for that purpose, respondent No. 1 would be justified even going behind the degree in order to scrutinize and evaluate from which institutions the students had obtained the medical education year after year.
30. In Para 9 of the writ petition deals with a number of decisions of the Executive Council of respondent No. 2. It seems that the Indian Medical Council has been changing its decisions frequently. These decisions have vital impact on the career and future of these students, and such decisions cannot be changed so frequently unless there are such circumstances and situations which compelled them to change their decisions. On analysis of the Executive decisions, it can safely be mentioned that the Medical Council of India had not taken a firm or consistent stand which has led to so many problems for the students and eventually affected the credibility of medical education in this country.
31. This petition raises several important issues concerning the medical education. The petitioner in paras 7 and 8 of the writ petition has specifically incorporated averments in which it is mentioned that when 40 similarly placed students have been given registration, then how can the petitioner be denied registration There is no reply to these specific averments incorporated in the petition. The Medical Council of India has to adopt same yardstick for all similarly placed students. The Council cannot be permitted to pick and choose. If other similarly placed students have been given registration, then the petitioner cannot be denied registration.
32. The crucial question which remains for consideration is when the petitioner was initially admitted in a recognized institution and in normal course, he would have graduated from a recognized institution but because of the great historical event of this century, by which the then USSR disintegrated and collapsed like a pack of cards. This historical event had its impact on every sphere of life including the career of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the real question which falls for consideration is that in this extraordinary situation, what should be the prudent and pragmatic decision of the Indian Medical Council while keeping in view the true spirit and intention of the provisions of the Indian Medical Council
33. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances particularly in view of the extraordinary historical event of the century as a one time measure the Medical Council is directed to permit the petitioner to complete is internship and grant registration to the petitioner with the council. In case the Medical Council is of the considered opinion that the petitioner and other similarly placed students need some extra coaching or instructions so that they may come at par with their counterparts in India, then they must carve out a special course or courses for the petitioner and other students so that on the one hand there would be no compromise on the quality of education and training and on the other hand, seven years of their medical education and internship would not go a waste.
34. In case the Medical Council deems it imperative to give special training to these students then the special Course or courses must be carved out within one month from today. It has become imperative to give this direction because the petitioner and other students have already lost a lot of time with the council and in the Court proceedings after obtaining the final medical degree. This direction has been given because of extremely exceptional circumstances of this case. This case cannot be used as a precedent, for other cases.
35. This writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.