Students Not Eligible For FMGE If They Have Obtained Fragmented Medical Qualification In Different Foreign Colleges: Delhi High Court
|The Court held that the same will not be in the public interest as it will certainly amount to compromising the quality of medical professionals in the country.
The Delhi High Court has held that allowing medical registration based on fragmented studies across two to three different foreign colleges would compromise the quality of medical professionals in India and run contrary to the public interest.
The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by foreign medical graduates seeking permission to appear in the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) after acquiring their Primary Medical Qualification across multiple foreign institutions.
The Court also upheld the validity of mandatory Embassy attestation/apostillation for foreign medical degrees and refused to interfere with the National Medical Commission's regulatory powers to exclude certain foreign institutions.
The Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed, “We are in complete agreement to the said reason given by the respondent no.2 as the petitioners are seeking to appear in FMGE on the basis of fragmented studies undergone by them at various foreign medical institutions. Such a fragmented education, in our opinion, will not make the petitioners eligible for the reason already stated on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 and also because, we find that any medical qualification based on a fragmented study in different medical colleges, which in this case are two to three different foreign medical colleges, if treated as an eligible PMQ, the same will not be in public interest as it will certainly amount to compromising the quality of medical professionals in the country.”
Senior Advocate Manish Singhvi appeared for the Petitioners, while Standing Counsel Bishwabandhu appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioners, who have studied allopathic system of medicine abroad, instituted the writ petition against the denial of their request to take the Screening Test conducted by respondent No.2 – National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (“National Board”) which would have entitled them to be registered as medical practitioners by the respondent No.1 – National Medical Commission (“NMC”) enabling them to practice allopathy in India.
By the impugned Regulation, the institutions included in the World Directory of Medical Schools published by the World Health Organisation (“WHO‟) were excluded from the category of institutions whose qualification, awarded to a person, was earlier treated to be a Primary Medical Qualification (“PMQ”), making such a person eligible to be allowed to appear in the Screening Test.
The Petitioners also challenged a letter issued by the Deputy Director (Medical), Department of Examination Conduct of the respondent No.2, which states that the candidates who have submitted an alternative PMQ in lieu of the degree certificates from New Tokyo Medical College, Federated States of Micronesia shall not be considered eligible to appear in FMGE.
The petitioners submitted that they took admission in different foreign medical institutions for pursuing their medical course for award of a degree equivalent to MBBS, however, under certain circumstances like outbreak of civil war, COVID-19, Russia-Ukraine war and for certain personal reasons, they got themselves transferred to other medical schools situated in countries other than where they had initially taken admission.
In the year 2020, the petitioners approached Micronesia Medical College, seeking transfer for completion of their studies of the medical course, which was accepted by Micronesia Medical College and on completion of the medical studies at Micronesia Medical College, they were conferred with the requisite certificate.
Contentions of the Parties
It was contended by the Petitioners that prior to its substitution, Clause 4(1) of the Screening Regulations, 2002 provided that an Indian citizen, who possesses any PMQ from an institution included in World Directory of Medical Schools published by WHO, shall be also treated to be possessed with PMQ for the purposes of allowing him to appear in the Screening Test, however, by substituting Clause 4(1) which is under challenge herein, the medical institutions included in the World Directorate of Medical Sciences published by WHO have been excluded; as a result of which an Indian citizen possessing PMQ awarded by an institution situated outside the country, which was included in the World Directory of Medical Schools published by WHO, will not be eligible to appear in the Screening Test.
The Respondent-NMC argued that the amended Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Regulations was framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 33(ma) read with Section 13(4A) of the IMC Act, 1956 and therefore, it has a statutory force. It has further been argued that the requirement in the impugned Clause 4(1) of the Screening Regulations, 2002, of confirmation of the foreign degree by the Indian Embassy has a rational basis.
Respondent No. 2/National Board argued that the petitioners were fully aware of the impugned provisions of the Information Bulletin and, having once applied for appearing in the said examination in June, 2023 without challenging the provisions of the Information Bulletin, they cannot be permitted to challenge the same and, in fact, the challenge is an afterthought.
Observations and Findings of the Court
The Court opined that Respondent No. 1 is an expert body regulations for the purposes of regulating medical education in India, and if they have decided not to recognise any foreign medical institutions, then such a view taken by them has to be given some credence.
The Court observed, “in our opinion, such a view taken by the body of experts has to be given some credence and no interference in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be permissible unless any such prescription made by the body of experts is found to be absolutely arbitrary. Exclusion of such institutions by substituting the impugned Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Regulations, 2002 vide notification dated 26.09.2009, in our opinion, is based on the consideration of relevant factors by the respondent no.1, which appears to be based on experience of the respondent no.1 while regulating the medical education in India and, therefore, we are of the opinion that no interference in the said Regulation, which is based on expert opinion, is warranted.”
The Court refused to interfere with Clause 2.14 of the Information Bulletin which requires that the foreign medical degrees should be attested either by the Embassy of India or should be apostilled by the appropriate authority of the foreign country concerned.
It held, “We do not find any good ground to interfere with such a provision for the reasons, firstly, that the said provision is in conformity with the requirement of Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Regulations, 2002, which are statutory in nature and secondly, attestation or apostillation of any foreign medical degree is a process of authentication of such a medical qualification and we do not find any prejudice to be caused to any candidate if the foreign medical qualification, on the basis of which he is seeking his eligibility to appear in the FMGE, is required to be authenticated.”
The Court ruled that requiring authentication by the Embassy of India in a foreign country or apostillation of a foreign medical degree in accordance with the requirement of Hague Convention does not cause any prejudice to any candidate and, therefore, any challenge to such a clause of the Information Bulletin has to necessarily fail.
The Court concluded that the advisory was issued by the Indian Embassy at Manila for the reason that despite seeking relevant information from the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia regarding Micronesia Medical College, no response was received and, therefore, the Embassy stated in the said advisory that it shall not be in a position to authenticate any degree or other educational documentation issued by the Micronesia Medical College.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition as being sans merit.
Cause Title: Brij Sharadbhai Bhatt & Ors. v. National Medical Commission & Ors. [Neutral Citation:2026:DHC:7436-DB]
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Manish Singhvi, Advocate DK Devesh
Respondents: Standing Counsel Bishwabandhu, Advocates Bipul Kumar, Nisha, Waize Ali Noor, Mrinal Kr. Sharma, Z. Rahman, Varun Mishra and Ashar Hussain.