Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences vs Srikeerti Reddi Pingle & Ors.

HELD: 1.1 A plain reading of Regulation 4(2) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 shows that the MCI visualized five different situations, having regard to the nature and structure of high school education in India, and provided for equivalence in respect of other variants of similar examinations, possibly even overseas qualifications. In all, the MCI regulations contemplate six qualifications for eligibility - (i) higher secondary examinations conducted by one of the several boards (of secondary and senior secondary school examinations) or the Indian School Certificate Examination [Reg. 4(2)(a)]; (ii) the intermediate examination in science of an Indian University/Board or other recognised examining body [Reg. 4(2)(b)]; (iii) “Pre-professional/pre-medical examination” with Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology, after passing either the higher secondary school examination, or the preuniversity or an equivalent examination, with further stipulation that the pre-professional examination should have a practical test in Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology [Reg. 4(2)(c)];

(iv) the first year examination of the three years degree course of a recognized university, with Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology, with a further stipulation that the candidate should have passed the 10+2 examination with English at a level not less than the “core course” [Reg. 4(2)(d)]; (v) the B.Sc. examination of an Indian University, only if the candidate “has passed the B.Sc. examination with not less than two of the following subjects Physics, Chemistry, Biology (Botany, Zoology)/Bio-technology and further that he/she has passed the earlier qualifying examination with the following subjects – Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English” [Reg. 4(2)(e)]; and lastly, (vi) any examination found to be equivalent to the intermediate science examination of an Indian University/Board, taking Physics, Chemistry and Biology including practical test in each of these subjects and English[Reg. 4(2)(f)]. [Para 11][946-F-G; 947-A-C]

2. Each variant of what is acceptable, lays stress on certain common features: (a) that the candidate should have passed the examination with Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology;

(b) the candidate should have undergone practical tests in those science subjects (c) the candidate should have studied English and, lastly, (d) that marks obtained in Mathematics would not be taken into consideration for deciding admission to the MBBS course. [Para 12][947-D-E]

3. The respondent-student’s argument is twofold: one, that the letters of Conrad High School and the West Hartford Science Department Supervisor together with the certificate of the Telangana Intermediate Education Board, establish that she had successfully undergone a school certificate program, equivalent to the 10+2 qualification in India, and second, that the Advanced Placement (AP) course undertaken by her is equivalent to a firstyear degree qualification in Biology. This court finds the submission insubstantial. While the court cannot claim expertise and pronounce upon the curriculum and pedagogy of any course, much less the academic course which the student (in this case) qualified, what it can certainly do is examine whether the University’s stand that she does not hold a qualification equivalent to any of the five categories of qualifications spelt out [i.e., Regulation 4(2)(a) to (e)], or the sixth category [Regulation 4(2)(f)] is correct. [Para 13][947-F-G; 948-A]

4. A careful reading of the said provision discloses that the MCI emphasized that the candidate should have undergone study at the 10+2 stage, (or in the intermediate course) in the specified subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology. In this case, the certificate relied upon by the student merely clarifies that she undertook a course whilst in the 10th grade. That, by no means, is sufficient to fall within the description of “equivalent” qualification under Regulation 4(2)(f). Nor, in the opinion of this court, can it be deemed adequate having regard to the letter of the Assistant Principal of Conrad High School that the AP course in Biological Sciences is of college standard. [Para 14][948-B-C]

5. There is a rationale and compelling logic on the part of the University to say that the candidate should have studied biology or biological sciences (apart from the other two science subjects, along with the further requirement of having studied English) in all the relevant years during the intermediate or at 10+2 level. Further, the reference to having studied in the first year in a degree course, at the college level with the said subject, carries with it, the implication that the student would have necessarily undergone academic study and training in the said three subjects at the 10+2 or intermediate level (without which, admission in a degree course is inconceivable in India). The further emphasis on having attended or undertaken practical lessons, (again at that level, in each of the concerned years) clearly signifies that a candidate should have undergone study in those subjects for the last two years at school or intermediate college level. The regulation is further clear that the examination score (marks) in Mathematics shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of admission to a medical course, in reckoning merit or performance in the qualifying examination. [Para 15] [948-D-F]

6. It is apparent that the High Court did not closely scrutinize the equivalence certificate or the subject stipulations. It also appears to have been largely influenced by the fact that the candidate was in fact admitted by the University. In the opinion of this court, the construction placed on Regulation 4(2), i.e., that each of the sub clauses (a) to (f) prescribes independent qualifications which should be deemed essential, is rather simplistic. That interpretation ignores the fact that each of the sub-clauses insists that certain subjects should have been studied, and practical examinations attempted at the 10+2 or equivalent level. Secondly, the college or intermediate examination [or equivalent qualifications under Regulation 4(2)(f)] cannot be read in isolation, having regard to the circumstances. The provision must be read in the context of the requirements for eligibility under Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e). The equivalence in qualification is not merely at the level of a 10+2 requirement, i.e., that the candidate should have passed an examination equivalent to the intermediate science examination at an Indian University/ Board. Additional to this requirement, Regulation 4(2)(f) requires equivalence in ‘standard and scope’ in an examination where the candidate is tested in Physics, Chemistry and Biology including practical testing in these subjects, along with English. These subject matter requirements are consistent across Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e) and (f). [Para 19][950-F-H; 951-A-B]

7. The approach and construction placed by the High Court undermines the intent behind the MCI’s insistence that a certain kind of education should be undergone, which is that each candidate for the MBBS course should have undergone study in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, in each of the levels (i.e. the two years of 10+2 board examination, or the concerned intermediate examination) with practical exams, in each of those years; that he or she should also have had English as a subject, and that the score in Mathematics would be ignored and not taken into consideration. The equivalence relied on by the Telangana Intermediate Board in this case, merely alluded to the general equivalence in terms of education at the intermediate level, without stipulating whether the qualifications were equivalent in terms of the subjects in which she undertook courses for the relevant years. [Para 20][951-C-E]

8. The stipulation of equivalence in Regulation 4(2)(f) is not merely a formal one. The provision must be read in the context of the consistent conditions of eligibility prescribed in Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e). Regulation 4(2)(f) explicitly refers to the subject matter requirement reiterated in all the eligibility conditions from

(a) to (e); the substance of the eligibility requirement indeed, is that the candidate should have qualified an intermediate level examination or first year of a graduate course, and studied the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology at this level, along with practical testing in these subject areas, and the English language. This subject matter requirement is at the heart of eligibility to be admitted into the medical course. [Para 21] [951-F-G; 952-A-C]

State of Bombay v. R.M.D Chamarbaugwala 1957 SCR

930 – relied on.

Sharanya Balaji Nadar v. The Dental Council of India W.P.Nos.32099/2019 & WMP 32352 & 32353/2019

dated 14.07.2020; Kashvi Udhayakumar v. Union of India WP Nos. 16529 & 16534/2020 & WMP 20510,

20512, 20517 and 20515/2020 dated 01.12.2020 – referred to.