ORDER
R. Subbiah, J.
1. This writ petition is filed by the Vinayaka Mission University for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and grant necessary permission for the 21 Indian Students, who have obtained M.B.B.S. Degree through the Off-shore Campus-Bangkok, Thailand of the petitioner to undertake Foreign Medical Graduates Examination (Screening Test), during September, 2009, to enable them to undergo Internship/C.R.R.I. in India as part of the M.B.B.S. program to be held on 27.09.2009 and to get themselves enrolled as Medical Practitioner in India after the completion of the Internship of one year as requested in the letter of the petitioner dated 14.09.2009.
2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a Deemed University declared under Section 3 of U.G.C. Act by Notification dated 01.03.2001 of the Central Government. The petitioner deemed university has Constituent Colleges in the field of Medicine, Dental, Engineering, Management Program, etc. The petitioner applied to the Central Government for starting an Off-shore campus to offer Medical Programs at Bangkok, Thailand. By a Notification dated 10th October, 2006, the Ministry of Human Resources Development of the Government of India, accorded approval to the proposal of the petitioner for starting an Off-shore Campus offering Medical programs at Bangkok, Thailand with an intake of 100 under-graduates Medical students per annum on the terms and conditions in the Memorandum of Understanding, signed by the petitioner with Rangsit University, Bangkok, Thailand. In the said Notification, various conditions were stipulated, which includes the following:
(i) The Off-shore campus will abide by the norms and guidelines laid down and instructions issued from time to time by the U.G.C.
(ii) The Off-shore campus shall be subjected to the laws of the land of Thailand, as applicable;
(iii) All norms of Medical Council of India, wherever applicable will continue to be in force and to be complied with;
(iv) The students studying in and passing out from the Off-shore Campus would be treated as those holding a Foreign Medical Degree and would be required to qualify the Screening Test as per the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Screening Test Regulations 2002 of the Medical Council of India.
3. As per the norms of the 2nd respondent-Medical Council of India, the program for MBBS comprise of 4-1/2 years study followed by one year satisfactory completion of Compulsory Rotatory Resident Internship (CRRI). Based on the approval granted by the Central Government for starting the Off-shore Campus Medical Program at Bangkok, totally 21 students (Indians) were admitted to undergo the under-graduate Medical Program at Bangkok. All the 21 students have completed the 4-1/2 study and they have been issued with the provisional certificate as per the guidelines and instructions issued by the Central Government. All the 21 Indian students have expressed their desire to do CRRI in India and accordingly, applied to the 1st respondent for appearing in the Foreign Medical Graduates Examination (FMGE) (Screening Test) during September, 2009, so as to enable them to complete the Internship in India and enroll themselves as Medical Practitioners in India, after completing CRRI.
4. In pursuance of the 1st respondent's letter dated 24.08.2009, the petitioner sent a letter dated 14.09.2009 to the 1st respondent, enclosing the photocopies of the Foreign Medical Qualification Certificates from its Off-shore campus at Bangkok duly attested by the Indian Embassy at Bangkok and also attested by a Gazetted Officer in respect of all the 21 candidates and requested the 1st respondent to allow them to appear for FMGE, September, 2009 Examination. Subsequently, on the request made by the 1st respondent, the petitioner University has also submitted the copies of the Notification issued by the Government of India dated 10.10.2006 on 16.09.2009 requesting the 1st respondent to issue necessary documents to the 21 candidates to write the FMGE (Screening Test) in September, 2009. Since there was no response from the 1st respondent, the petitioner sent a reminder requesting to issue hall tickets and other documents for the 21 candidates to enable them to appear for screening test which is scheduled to take place on 27th September, 2009. Absolutely, there was no response from the 1st respondent in spite of furnishing of the addresses to the 1st respondent and there was no reply to the reminder also. If the students are not allowed to take up the examination as scheduled, they have to wait another six months. The screening test is mandatory to enable the students to undergo CRRI in India for one year. Since the examinations are scheduled to take place on 27.09.2009 and if they are not allowed to attend the test, they will be put to serious prejudice for no fault on them and hence, the petitioner university has come forward with the present writ petition for the reliefs stated supra.
5. During pendency of the writ petition, this Court, by way of interim order, directed the 1st respondent to allow the 21 candidates to write the F.M.G.E. (Screening Test); however, the results were directed to be withheld.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner University would submit that pursuant to the permission accorded by the Ministry of the Human Resources Development Department by Notification dated 10.10.2006, the petitioner had started the Off-shore Campus offering medical programs at Bangkok with an intake of 100 under-graduates medical students per annum. A Memorandum of Understanding was also signed by the petitioner with Rangsit University, Bangkok, Thailand. The Board of Directors of Rangsit University, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 34 of the Private Higher Education Institutes Act, 2003 of Thailand, issued 'No Objection Letter' dated 14.09.2005 to the petitioner university for establishing their Off-shore campus within the premises of Rangsit university. In the said letter, it has been clearly stated that no separate objection letter from the Government of Thailand would be required to establish their Off-shore campus in their university. As per the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the petitioner and the Rangsit university, the first two Pre and Para clinical years will be administered at Rangsit University and the remanning 3-1/2 clinical years, including the clinical internship, will be administered at the petitioner university and thereby, a degree would be awarded by the petitioner University and the Rangsit University. The learned senior Counsel would further submit that only on completion of the first 4/1-2 years course, the provisional certificate for MBBS degree will be issued by the petitioner university. After satisfactory completion of one year C.R.R.I. in the petitioner university at India, the candidates could enroll themselves as Medical Practitioners in India and for one year CRRI course, they have to undergo the screening test. The 1st respondent is the authority, who is conducting the screening test. The role of the 1st respondent is very limited in this issue and their duty is only to conduct the test and announce the result. They cannot withhold the candidates by not issuing the hall tickets for undergoing the screening test. Moreover, in the instant case, the 2nd respondent Medical Council of India had issued eligibility certificate to all the candidates for taking admission in Undergraduates Medical Course coming under 'Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2002', equivalent to M.B.B.S. in India in Medical Institution abroad. When the Government had granted permission to establish Off-shore Campus at Bangkok, Thailand and when the 2nd respondent had also issued eligibility certificate, the 1st respondent cannot deny to issue hall tickets to the candidates to enable them to appear in the screening test, which is the requirement to study CRRI in India and on completion of CRRI only, they could enroll themselves as Medical Practitioners in India.
7. Learned senior Counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court the Notification dated 13.02.2002 published by the Medical Council of India, in which Clause 4 of Screening Test Regulations, 2002 prescribes the conditions to appear in the screening test. Accordingly, the candidates should fulfil three conditions; (i) they should be the citizens of India; (ii) they must possess primary medical qualification and (iii) the name of the institution awarding the said qualification degree must find place in the World Directory of Medical Schools published by the World Health Organisation, or which is confirmed by the Indian Embassy. Thus, by relying upon the said conditions, the learned senior Counsel would submit that all the 21 candidates are Indian citizens; all of them have obtained provisional certificates recognised by the 2nd respondent Medical Council and they have issued eligibility certificates to all the candidates. The name of the petitioner university also finds a place in the Regional Directory of Medical Schools published by the World Health Organisation.
8. The learned senior Counsel, by inviting the attention of this Court to the letter dated 24.08.2009 issued by the 1st respondent to the candidate, would submit that what they need from the candidates is only a photocopy of Foreign Medical Qualification Certificate, Apostilled/Attested by Indian Embassy and then attested by a Gazetted Officer of India. This requirement of the 1st respondent was complied with by all the 21 candidates. Even then, they did not issue the hall tickets to enable the candidates to attend the screening test and the 1st respondent has no authority to interfere in the other issues and if the petition is not allowed, the students will be put to serious hardship.
9. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, by relying upon two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Medical Council of India v. Indian Doctors From Russia Welfare Association : (2002) 3 SCC 696 and Sanjeev Gupta and Ors. v. Union of India : (2005) 1 SCC 45 and would submit that in order to regulate the grant of registration to the persons, who have completed their degree abroad, they have to take the Internship course for one year after undergoing the screening test. Therefore, in the interest of larger students, the responsibility was fixed on the part of the 1st respondent not only to conduct the test but also to regulate the grant of registration. The learned Counsel further would contend that as per Clause 4 of Medical Council Notification dated 13.02.2002, one of the criteria is the name of the institution, which awarded the degree, should find place in the World Directory of Medical Schools published by the World Health Organisation, but the name of the petitioner University did not find place in the said Directory of the year 2007. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has also produced the copy of updated Directory of Medical Schools upto December 2007 in support of his contention and the extract of website copy of Directory of Medical Schools upto December, 2007.
10. Further, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent would contend that the Indian Embassy, Bangkok has addressed a letter dated 25.09.2009 to the 1st respondent stating that the petitioner University is not a recognised Medical Institution as per the recruitment. Further, it is to be noted that no objection letter was received by the 1st respondent from the Government of Thailand. That apart, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent has also made his submission with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition stating that the writ petition was filed by the University and not by the candidates and moreover, the 1st respondent's office is at New Delhi and the eligibility certificates were issued only at New Delhi and hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition.
11. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter, admitting the issuance of eligibility certificates by them in favour of 21 candidates and stated that as per the norms of the 2nd respondent, all 21 candidates have completed the study of 4-1/2 years and they have no serious dispute in this issue.
12. By way of reply, the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition because, on the assurance given by the petitioner University, the students have joined the course and the petitioner University has to protect the interest of the students and moreover, as per the provisions of Notification dated 13.04.2002 published by the Medical Council of India, all the 21 candidates have to register their names in the State Medical Council. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
13. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for all the parties.
14. A perusal of the documents would show that the Government of India have issued the Notification dated 10.10.2006 permitting the petitioner University for starting an Off-shore Campus offering Medical Programs at Bangkok, Thailand with an intake of 100 undergraduates Medical students per annum on the terms and conditions stipulated in the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the petitioner University with Rangsit University, Bangkok. Subsequently, the Rangsit University has also issued a no objection letter which would be evident from the letter dated 14.09.2005. Further, the said letter would show that no objection letter from the Thailand is necessary to establish the University in the premises of Rangsit University. As per the Memorandum of Understanding, the first two Pre and Para clinical years will be administered at Rangsit University and the remanning 3-1/2 clinical years, including the clinical internship, and after completion of 4-1/2 years only, the provisional certificate will be issued in favour of the candidates. As per the said Memorandum of Understanding, the students will be allowed to undergo CRRI at the petitioner University in India to enable them to enroll themselves as Medical Practitioners in India. To undergo the CRRI, the 2nd respondent has issued the eligibility certificates to the candidates. As per the Notification, the candidates should fulfil three conditions, namely, (i) they should be the citizens of India; (ii) they must possess primary medical qualification and (iii) the name of the institution awarding the said qualification degree must find place in the World Directory of Medical Schools published by the World Health Organisation, or which is confirmed by the Indian Embassy. So far as the first two categories are concerned, there is no dispute between the parties, but, according to the 1st respondent, the name of the petitioner University did not find place in the Regional World Directory of Medical Schools published by the World Health Organisation. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the appellant has also produced the website copy of the extract of World Directory of Medical Schools published by the World Health Organisation upto December, 2007; but, a perusal of the same would show that the name of Rangsit University finds place in the Dictionary. Moreover, it is the contention of the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner that the name of the petitioner University also finds a place in the Regional Directory of Training Institutions published by the World Health Organisation. In support of his contention, he has also produced the extract of the Regional Directory of Training Institutions published by the World Health Organisation, which includes the name of the petitioner University. Therefore, under such circumstances, I do not find any force in the submission made by the 1st respondent that since the name of the petitioner university is not available in the World Directory, the petitioner University did not fulfil the conditions stipulated in the Notification.
15. Further, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, by a letter dated 24.02.2009 the 1st respondent itself asked for the photocopies of foreign medical qualification certificate attested by the Indian Embassy. Even at that time, the 1st respondent did not say anything about the eligibility criteria of the candidates to qualify themselves to appear for the screening test. However, as required by the 1st respondent, the candidates sent their photocopies of the foreign medical qualification certificate from the Off-shore Campus at Bangkok duly attested by the Indian Embassy at Bangkok. Though a submission was made by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent that the attestation by the Indian Embassy cannot be taken as an approval because the basic principle of attestation is only for identifying the candidate. But, in my considered opinion, the said contention has no force because all the conditions found in Clause 4 of the Notification were fulfilled by the candidates. It it to be noted that the contention of the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent with regard to the confidential report about the petitioner University has no force because the Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the Rangsit University by virtue of the powers conferred on them and the petitioner University and as such, there is no necessity to call for the confidential report from the Indian Embassy, Bangkok. Moreover, when the Government had issued permission and the 2nd respondent Medical Council of India had issued the eligibility certificate recognising the petitioner university, the objection of the 1st respondent appears to have no meaning. With regard to the two judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent in Medical Council of India v. Indian Doctors From Russia Welfare Association : (2002) 3 SCC 696 and Sanjeev Gupta and Ors. v. Union of India : (2005) 1 SCC 45, the facts of those cases would show that any Indian student who is desirous of taking admission in an undergraduate medical course abroad on or after 15th March 2002 shall have to obtain an eligibility certificate from the Medical Council of India stating that he or she fulfils the minimum eligibility criteria laid down by the Council for admission in MBBS course in India and he shall also have to produce the same at the time of appearing in the Screening test, after completion of his degree abroad, for the purpose of obtaining registration in India. But, in the instant case, admittedly, all the students had studied in the off-shore campus of petitioner university at Bangkok. Therefore, I do not find any valid reason to raise much objection for appearing in the screening test, particularly in the circumstances when the Government of India has given permission and the 2nd respondent has given the eligibility certificate to study the course. Similarly, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent that the petitioner university has no locus standi to file the writ petition because, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner University has to take care of the students by virtue of Memorandum of Understanding entered into between them and the Rangsit University. Hence, the petitioner has locus standi to file a writ petition before this Court. Looked at any angle, the 1st respondent cannot raise any objection to allow the candidates for appearing in the screening test when the Government of India has issued permission to establish the off-shore campus and the 2nd respondent has issued the eligibility certificate recognising the action of the petitioner University. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that if the candidates are not allowed to write the screening test, they would be put to irreparable loss and hardship and their career would be in jeopardy.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.