DR.SHIHAS.P.M v. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33.The learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent submittedthat the fact that the petitioner has qualified the screening test, will allaythe apprehension of the petitioner and averments in paragraphs 16 & 17in the counter affidavit will satisfy the grievances raised by him also. Therefore, in…
Judgment
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.---------------------------------------------W.P.(C) NO. 27607 OF 2009---------------------------------------------Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is a 2nd year student for M.D., Anatomy at Government Medical College, Kottayam. The Writ Petition is filed mainlyfor a direction to the University to issue Eligibility certificate to thepetitioner and for a direction to issue Equivalency Certificate also, for hisM.D. Physician course undergone in a foreign university.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 4threspondent. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the counter affidavit read ashereunder:-16. It is respectfully submitted that the medicalqualification obtained by the petitioner as M.D.“Physician” awarded by Medical University/ Instituteof erstwhile USSR is not recognized qualification; however after qualifying the screening test, suchforeign medical qualification of the petitioner shall bedeemed to be recognized medical qualification for thepurposes of the IMC Act, 1956. Therefore, the M.D.(Physician) qualification awarded by MedicalUniversity of erstwhile USSR to the petitioner isequivalent to MBBS qualification of IndianUniversities. W.P.(C) NO.27607 of 2009217. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner isnot required to submit any equivalency certificate forcontinuation of his Postgraduate Course-M.D.Anatomy in Govt. Medical College Kotiyam asrequired by respondent No.1- University in order tovalidate his admission to the said course as thequalification of M.D (physician) obtained by thecandidate from Belarusian State Medical University, Minsk stands recognized in terms of the statutoryprovisions of the screening Test Regulations, 2002.
Operative part
The learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent submittedthat the fact that the petitioner has qualified the screening test, will allaythe apprehension of the petitioner and averments in paragraphs 16 & 17in the counter affidavit will satisfy the grievances raised by him also. Therefore, in the light of the said stand taken by the Medical Council of India, the admission of the petitioner to M.D. Anatomy is treated as validand the petitioner will be admitted for the examination also. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)spc W.P.(C) NO.27607 of 20093
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
IMC Act, 1956.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 12 Jan 2010. The bench was T R RAMACHANDRAN NAIR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.