V.V.S. RAO, J :-Question for determination in these cases being the same, common order is a necessity. In all these cases, decision dated 10.2.2006 of Executive Committee of Medical Council of India (MCI) and ad hoc Committee dated 10.2.2006 not to grant registration to Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) students who have undergone part of training in an institution in India without obtaining permission from Government of India/MCI, is impugned as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to grant provisional registration and/or permanent registration under Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (the Act, for brevity). The said decision of Executive Committee was communicated to all petitioners by different impeached communications sent by Additional Secretary to MCI. 2. These cases can be divided into three groups. In first group, Indian students obtained MBBS Degree awarded by International Medical and Technological University (IMTU), Dar-essalaam, Tanzania. They passed Screening Test for foreign medical graduates conducted by National Board of Examinations (NBE) under aegis of MCI as per relevant provision in the Act. When they applied for temporary registration under Section 25(1) of the Act, same was denied on the ground that students completed part of the course in unrecognized Indian Medical Colleges. In second group, students after completing MBBS in Tanzania obtained provisional registration and after completion of internship, applied and got permanent registration from Andhra Pradesh Medical Council (State Council). MCr, however, while cancelling permanent registration, requested holders to surrender original permanent registration certificates. In third group, all the petitioners allegedly studied entire MBBS Course in IMTU, Dar-essalaam. They also passed Screening Test conducted by NBE, obtained provisional certificates and completed internship. When they applied for permanent registration, MCI asked for details as to whether students completed entire course in IMTU, Dar-es-salaam. Petitioners having procured evidence in support of the same, produced before MCI who did not pass any orders. 3. The case of MCI in all writ petitions is one of justification. Core contention is that Vignan Educational Foundation (VEF), Bangalore, set up IMTU in Tanzania and even before recognition/ accreditation was granted, VEF advertised seats, admitted students and those students prosecuted pre-clinical and para-clinical courses at Guntur. Those students later continued their course for period of 1 Y2 year at Dar-es-salaam. Core contention is that Vignan Educational Foundation (VEF), Bangalore, set up IMTU in Tanzania and even before recognition/ accreditation was granted, VEF advertised seats, admitted students and those students prosecuted pre-clinical and para-clinical courses at Guntur. Those students later continued their course for period of 1 Y2 year at Dar-es-salaam. As mandatory recognition/permission under Section 10A of the Act was not granted even if petitioners completed their clinical course/training in IMTU, Tanzania, registration cannot be granted. For ready reference, Paragraphs 33 to 35 of counter-affidavit in W.P. No.24645 of 2006 may be extracted. The averments of Para 2 discloses that the petitioners have done both pre-clinical and para-clinical training in an institution at Guntur in Andhra Pradesh for a period of four years. The petitioners state that they have thereafter continued their education for a period of 11/2 year at Dar-e-Salaarn in Tanzania. This would clearly show that the petitioners cannot claim to have studied in a medical institution outside India. The medical institution where the petitioners have studies for a majority part of their course is in India and the same was established without obtaining the approval under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act. The same cannot therefore be treated as an education availed in a proper medical institution within India for the petitioners to claim any benefit from such course of study. A medical institution would necessarily mean institution where the students are imparted training and education. Merely because the sites of Head Office of the institution, is in a different country it would not automatically mean that the medical institution is located outside India. It would be mandatory that the entire institution where training and education is imparted, has to be outside India for the purpose of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act. In the admitted facts of the case that the petitioners have studied a major part of their course in India they cannot be treated as students of a medical institution outside India. It is therefore incorrect to contend that MBBS Degree obtained by the petitioners is a recognized qualification for the purposes of the Indian Medical Council Act or that the same is to be recognized by the Medical Council of India after conducting a Screening Test. It is therefore incorrect to contend that MBBS Degree obtained by the petitioners is a recognized qualification for the purposes of the Indian Medical Council Act or that the same is to be recognized by the Medical Council of India after conducting a Screening Test. In reply to Para 3 it is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to appear for the Screening Test inasmuch as the petitioners have availed training and education in an unrecognized institution in India and the petitioners are therefore not eligible for being entitled to appear for the Screening Test and claim any provisional registration thereafter. The medical institution (being the campus at Guntur) where the petitioners have studied cannot also be stated to be a medical institution outside India for the petitioners to claim the benefit of Section 13(4A) and l3(4B). 4. This Court has heard submissions of Sri E. Manohar, Senior Advocate, appearing for petitioners in first group of cases. MIs. P.V.S. Giridhar, V. Srinivas, M. V. Rajaram and Ms. A. Anasuya, supplemented the submissions of lead Counsel. Learned Standing Counsel for MCI opposed and refuted the submissions made on behalf of petitioners. 5. Two points would arise for consideration. First, whether Section 13(4A) read with Section 25 of the Act disentitle petitioners for grant of provisional/permanent registration? And second point is whether Regulation 11 of Screening Test Regulations, 2002 (Screening Regulations, for brevity) enables MCI to refuse provisional/permanent registration to an MBBS graduate who is qualified in Screening Test? In & Point No.1 (i) Legal context 6. The Act is legislation in the occupied field leaving negligible or little role to federal States. It is an act intended to deal with matters connected with medical profession and medical education. The Act was amended in 1964, 1990,2001 and 2004. Sections lOA, 10B and 10C of the Act were inserted by IMC (Amendment) Act 1993. Section 10A(I) prohibits establishment of a medical college and/or prohibits opening of new courses or increasing admission capacity unless previous permission of Central Government is obtained. Sub-sections (2) to (8) of Section 10A of the Act contain detailed procedure for applying and obtaining previous permission from Central Government and necessary factors to be taken into consideration for approving or disproving the scheme for obtaining permission. Section 10B of the Act speaks of adverse consequences of establishing medical college without previous permission. Sub-sections (2) to (8) of Section 10A of the Act contain detailed procedure for applying and obtaining previous permission from Central Government and necessary factors to be taken into consideration for approving or disproving the scheme for obtaining permission. Section 10B of the Act speaks of adverse consequences of establishing medical college without previous permission. No medical qualification granted by an unrecognized medical college can be recognised for the purpose of the Act. 7. Sections 11 to 14 of the Act form one set of provisions dealing with recognition of medical qualifications granted by Universities or medical institutions in India and outside India. These provisions have to be read along with Schedule-I, Schedule-II and Schedule-III. Schedule-I contains lengthy list of Graduate, Post Graduate (PG) and Super-specialty medical qualifications granted by Universities or medical institutions in India. As per Section 11(1) of the Act, these degrees shall be recognized as medical qualifications for the purpose of the Act. Schedule- II contains list of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions by an Authority outside India with which MCI has entered into a scheme of reciprocity. Schedule-III contains Part-I and Part-II. Part-I contains recognized medical qualifications granted by medical institutions not included in Schedule-I whereas Part-II contains medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India not included in Schedule-II. Schedule III is explained in Section 13 of the Act. 8. Section 13 of the Act as extracted below prior to 2001 amendment contained five sub-sections. They read as under. (13) Recognition of medical qualification granted by certain medical institution whose qualifications are not included in the first or second schedule. (1) The medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in India which are not included in the First Schedule and which are included in Part I of the Third Schedule shall also be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of this the Act. (2) The medical qualifications granted to a citizen of India- (a) before the 15th day of August, 1947, by medical institutions in the territories now forming part of Pakistan, and, (b) before the 1st day of April, 1937, by medical institutions in the territories now forming part of Burma, which are included in part I of the Third Schedule shall also be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of this the Act. (3) The medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India, which are included in Part IT of the Third Schedule shall also be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of this The 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. (4) The Central Governrnent, after consulting the Council, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend Part II of the Third Schedule so as to include therein any qualification granted by a medical institution outside India, which is not included in the Second Schedule: (5) Any medical institution in India which is desirous of getting a medical qualification granted by it included in Part I of the Third Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognised and the Central Governrnent, after consulting the Council, may by notification in the Official Gazette, amend Part I of the Third Schedule so as to include such qualification therein, and any such notification may also direct that an entry shall be made in the last column of Part-I of the Third Schedule against such medical qualification declaring that it shall be a recognised medical qualification only when granted after a specified date. 9. Section 13 of the Act takes care of recognition of medical qualifications, which are not included either in Schedule-lor Schedule-II. Mainly these qualifications include qualifications granted by medical institutions in Pakistan and Burma prior to 15.8.1947 and 1.4.1937 respectively. These are included in Part-I of Schedule-III. Subsection (3) of Section 13 of the Act recognizes medical qualifications included in Part-II of Schedule-III. These. medical qualifications essentially are those granted by medical institutions outside India. Subsections (4) and (5) of Section 13 of the Act enable any medical institution to apply to Central Government for inclusion either in Part-II or Part-I of Schedule-III in which Central Government may, after consulting MCI, can notify qualifications to be included and recognised for the purpose of the Act. 10. Subsections (4) and (5) of Section 13 of the Act enable any medical institution to apply to Central Government for inclusion either in Part-II or Part-I of Schedule-III in which Central Government may, after consulting MCI, can notify qualifications to be included and recognised for the purpose of the Act. 10. Recognition of a medical qualification under the Act gives right for enrolment in Indian Medical Register and/or State Medical Register. Be it noted, Section 21 of the Act contemplates MCI to maintain Indian Medical Register, which shall contain names of all persons with recognized medical qualifications who are for the time being enrolled on any State Medical Register. Unless and until medical practitioner is permanently registered in State! Indian Medical Register, such person cannot practice medicine as medical practitioner in any part of India (Sections 25 and 27 of the Act). Therefore, recognition of a medical qualification and registration of in State/Indian Medical Register is alone fruitful logical end for a person who obtains medical qualifications. (ii) 2001 Amendent 11. The act was amended by IMC (amendment) Act, 2001 (Central Act No.34 of 2001) with effect from 3.9.2001. Sub- sections (4A), (4B) and (4C) were introduced in Section 13. The amendment also inserted two provisos after Section 13(4) and clause (ma) in Section 33 of the Act, which confers power of making regulations of IMC. Section 33(ma) was inserted so as to specify the power of making regulations with reference to a new field which has been brought into existence by inserting Section 13( 4A) and (4B). Before noticing the provisions, which are inserted in Section 13, it is necessary to briefly refer to events (as noticed by Supreme Court in Sanjeev Gupta v. Union of India, (2005) 1 SCC 45 ), leading to such amendment. 12. In 1981, as requested by Government of India, MCI recognised medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in erstwhile States of USSR. These were included in second schedule of the Act. After disintegration of USSR, serious doubts cropped up regarding the standards of medical education offered by large number of institutions in various States of USSR. It was found that large number of institutions without recognition or before such recognition being granted offered courses. A number of Indian students joined such medical institutions and completed the course. This led to difficulties for MCI in recognising their degrees and registration as medical practitioners. It was found that large number of institutions without recognition or before such recognition being granted offered courses. A number of Indian students joined such medical institutions and completed the course. This led to difficulties for MCI in recognising their degrees and registration as medical practitioners. This was subject of indepth enquiry by Government of India and MC!. Ultimately the Executive Committee of MCI in its meeting on 17.9.1997 took decision with regard to modalities for granting registration to those students coming back from various medical institutions from erstwhile States of USSR. Inter alia it was decided that (i) students who complete their medical degree courses of less than six years duration from institutions in erstwhile USSR shall not be eligible for registration; (ii) students successfully completing six years clinical courses in MCI recognised institute on or after 1.7.1997 shall have to undergo one year internship after obtaining qualification and only such students shall be aligible for permanent registration under Section 13(3) of the Act. On condition that they shall also satisfy other criteria laid down by MCI; and (ii) students who are initially admitted in an institution not recognized insitute in erstwhile USSR will not be eligible for any kind of registration in India. 13. Students who took initial admission in non-recognised institutions but later migrated to USSR for study filed writ petitions in different High Courts. Delhi and Allahabad High Courts allowed writ petitions. Aggrieved by which, MCI preferred civil appeals before apex Court. During pendency of appeal before Supreme Court, the Act was amended with effect from 3.9.2001 inserting sub-sections (4A) to (4C) of Section 13 and clause 33 (ma). To be in tune with this, sub-section (3) was also slightly modified. In exercise of their powers under Section 33 (ma), MCI promulgated Screening Regulations. 14. Brief legislative history referred to hereinabove would show that before 2001 Amendment introduced Section 13 (4A), Government of India and MCI faced difficulties in recognising medical degrees granted by institutions in USSR. In those instances, students studied part of the course in unrecognized medical institutions in India and then migrated to complete the course in USSR. The amendment was intended to redress grievance of such category of students. This was also taken notice of by Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v Indian Doctors from Russia Welfare Associations, (2002) 3 SCC 696 . (iii) Submissions of learned Counsel 15. The amendment was intended to redress grievance of such category of students. This was also taken notice of by Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v Indian Doctors from Russia Welfare Associations, (2002) 3 SCC 696 . (iii) Submissions of learned Counsel 15. Learned Counsel for petitioners submit that sub-section 13(4A) deals with one class of persons who obtained medical qualifications granted by any medical institution abroad. Therefore, MCI cannot again introduce sub-classification among those students; one class who completed entire course in medical institutions abroad and obtained medical qualification granted by them and second class of those students who have undergone training in unrecognized institutions in India and then migrated to medical institutions outside the country for completing course and obtaining medical qualification. According to learned Counsel, the plain meaning of Section 13(4A) does not permit any such sub-classification nor did Legislature intend to divide students who obtained medical qualifications from outside Indian Medical Institutions into two categories. They also submit that Section 13(4A) read with Screening Regulations is a special code, which applies to medical qualifications granted by institutions outside India and the other provisions for recognition of medical qualifications contained in Sections 11, 12, 13(1) and 13(3) cannot be read into Section 13 (4A). They would urge that when Section 13(4A) creates a fiction for deemed recognition of citizen qualifying in Screening Test, MCI cannot ignore fiction and introduce other irrelevant elements as no discretion is left to MCL They conclude that the action of MCI is therefore ultra vires. 16. Learned Standing Counsel for MCI vehemently opposes such interpretation. According to him, Section 13(4A) should be interpreted not textually giving its plain meaning but contextually and purposively. He submits that IMTU was set up by VEF, Bangalore, as per MoU between them and Government of Tanzania. Even before accreditation was granted by Higher Education Accreditation Council of Tanzania, Vignan commenced their campus at IMTU at Guntur, admitted students and conducted pre and para medical courses without obtaining prior permission under Section 10A of the Act. Such students, according to him, did not fall within the category of students under Section 13( 4A). He, however, does not dispute that the medical qualification granted by IMTU, which is recognised University, is one such qualification which can be recognised subject to Section 13 (4A). (iv) Principles of interpretation 17. First, however, we may deal with principles of interpretation. Such students, according to him, did not fall within the category of students under Section 13( 4A). He, however, does not dispute that the medical qualification granted by IMTU, which is recognised University, is one such qualification which can be recognised subject to Section 13 (4A). (iv) Principles of interpretation 17. First, however, we may deal with principles of interpretation. The golden rule of interpretation of primary legislation and/or secondary legislation is literal interpretation. The script of the Act and the provision would help understand the spirit of the statute and the purport of the provision. Giving different meaning ignoring plain language of Section in the Act and reading something by supplying 'words and phrases' is not the function of the Court. Indeed, it is not warranted. If the meaning of the language is plain, the intention of the legislation has to be determined with regard to the language used. The golden rule, however, is not without exceptions. If statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation or its grammatical and literal meaning leads to absurdities, then only the Court has to ignore the text and search purpose and context elsewhere to understand legislative intention of making such provision. Even while doing so, the Court has to presume that the Legislature never intended to be unreasonable, unfair and ignore constitutional principle of equality. (See Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh v. L. V.A. Dikshitulu, AIR 1979 SC 193 and Kehar Singh v State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883 ). 18. In District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron & Steel Company, (2001) 7 SCC 358 , after referring to relevant the principal. We feel it apposite to excerpt the following: If a statutory provIsIon is open to more than one interpretation the Court has to choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of the Legislature. This task very often raises the difficulties because of various reasons, inasmuch as the words used may not be scientific symbols having any precise or definite meaning and the language may be an imperfect medium to convey one's thought or that the assembly of Legislatures consisting of persons of various shades of opinion purport to convey a meaning which may be obscure. It is impossible even for the most imaginative Legislature to forestall exhaustively situations and circumstances that may emerge after enacting a statute where its application may be called for. It is impossible even for the most imaginative Legislature to forestall exhaustively situations and circumstances that may emerge after enacting a statute where its application may be called for. Nonetheless, the function of the Courts is only to expound and not to legislate. Legislation in a modern State is actuated with some policy to curb some public evil or to effectuate some public benefit. The legislation is primarily directed to the problems before the Legislature based on information derived from past and present experience. It may also be designed by use of general words to cover similar problems arising in future. But, from the very nature of things, it is impossible to anticipate fully the varied situations arising in future in which the application of the legislation in hand may be called for, and, words chosen to communicate such indefinite referents are bound to be in many cases lacking in clarity and precision and thus giving rise to controversial questions of construction. The process of construction combines both literal and purposive approaches. In other words the legislative intention i.e., the true or legal meaning of an enactment is derived by considering the meaning of the words used in the enactment in the light of any discernible purpose or object which comprehends the mischief and its remedy to which the enactment is directed. (emphasis supplied) 19. That golden rule of literal interpretation ordinarily is preferable to context and purposive interpretation is well settled and is axiomatic. Supreme Court in a number of cases reiterated that the language of the statutes is the key. It is determinative of purpose and intent of legislation. When the language is plain, two meanings cannot be ascribed. Court should also be cautious while dealing with amendment of legislation because such amendment is not always decisive to know the intention as to whether such amendment was intended to alter the entire law or it was intended to meet a particular historical event. When the language is plain, two meanings cannot be ascribed. Court should also be cautious while dealing with amendment of legislation because such amendment is not always decisive to know the intention as to whether such amendment was intended to alter the entire law or it was intended to meet a particular historical event. (See Harbhajan Singh v Press Council of India, 2003 (1) ALD 12 (SC) = (2002) 3 see 722 = AIR 2002 se 1351, Union of India v Hansoli Devi, 2002 (5) ALD 113 (SC) = (2002) 7 see 273 = AIR 2002 se 3240, Easland Combines, Coimbatore v Collector of Central Excise, (2003) 3 see 410 = AIR 2003 se 843, Prakash Nath Khanna v Commissioner of Income Tax, (2004) 9 see 686, Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta, (2005) 2 see 271 = AIR 2005 se 648, Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited v Bombay Environmental Action Group, (2006) 3 see 434 = AIR 2006 se 1489 = 2006 AILD 125 (Se), Promoters & Builders Association of Pune v Pune Municipal Corporation, (2007) 6 see 143 and Ramesh Mehta v Sanwal Chand Singhvi, (2004) 5 see 409 = AIR 2004 se 2258). 20. In a recent judgment in National Insurance Company v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, 2007 (3) ALD 112 (SC) = (2007) 3 see 700, after referring to Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies v. T.A. Kuttappan, (2000) 6 see 127, Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited, (1987) 1 see 424, Chief Justice of A.P v. L. V.A. Dikshitulu (supra), Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) and District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron & Steel Company (supra), Supreme eourt laid down as under: "Golden Rule" of interpretation of statutes is that statutes are to be interpreted according to grammatical and ordinary sense of the word in grammatical or liberal meaning unmindful of consequence of such interpretation. It was the predominant method of reading statutes. More often than not, such grammatical and literal interpretation leads to unjust results which the Legislature never intended. The golden rule of giving undue importance to grammatical and literal meaning of late gave place to 'rule of legislative intent'. The world over, the principle of interpretation according to the legislative intent is accepted to be more logical. .. More often than not, such grammatical and literal interpretation leads to unjust results which the Legislature never intended. The golden rule of giving undue importance to grammatical and literal meaning of late gave place to 'rule of legislative intent'. The world over, the principle of interpretation according to the legislative intent is accepted to be more logical. .. When the law to be applied in a given case prescribes interpretation of statute, the Court has to ascertain the facts and then interpret the law to apply to such facts. Interpretation cannot be in a vacuum or in relation to hypothetical facts. It is the function of the Legislature to say what shall be the law and it is only the Court to say what the law is. (v) Interpretation of Section 13(4A) 21. We may, for the sake of convenience, extract sub-section (4A) to (4B) of Section 13 as amended by Act (4A) A person who is a citizen of India and obtains medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any country outside India recognised for enrolment as medical practitioner in that country after such date as may be specified by the Central Government under sub-section (3), shall not be entitled to be enrolled on any Medical Register maintained by a State Medical Councilor to have his name entered in the Indian Medical Register unless he qualified the Screening Test in India prescribed for such purpose and such foreign medical qualification after such person qualifies that said Screening Test shall be deemed to be the recognised medical qualification for the purposes of this Act for that person. (4B) A person who is a citizen of India shall not, after such date as may be specified by the Central Government under sub-section (3), be eligible to get admission to obtain medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any foreign country without obtaining an eligibility certificate issued to him by the Council and in case any such person obtains such qualification without obtaining such eligibility certificate, he shall not be eligible to appear in the Screening Test referred to in subsection (4A): Provided that an Indian citizen who has acquired the medical qualification from foreign medical institution or has obtained admission in foreign medical institution before the commencement of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2001 shall not be required to obtain eligibility certificate under this sub-section but, if he is qualified for admission to any medical course for recognised medical qualification in any medical institution in India, he shall be required to qualify only the Screening Test prescribed for enrolment on any State Medical Register or for entering his name in the Indian Medical Register. (4C) Nothing contained in sub-sections (4A) and (4B) shall apply to the medical qualifications referred to in Section 14 for the purposes of that section. 22. We are not inclined to resort to purposive interpretation as suggested by learned Standing Counsel for MC!. Subsection (4A) lays down that a citizen of India who obtains medical qualification granted by a medical institution outside the country, but recognised for medical practice in that country, shall not be entitled to be granted registration unless such a citizen qualifies in a Screening Test prescribed for the purpose. Such foreign medical qualifications shall be deemed to be recognised medical qualification only when such person qualifies in the said Screening Test. The entire sub-section nowhere refers to a citizen studying entire medical course in a medical institution abroad. 23. Legislatures do not enact any vacuum. It expresses its intention by enactment either to curb social/public evil or to effectuate some public benefit. Why at all Section 13(4A) to (4C) were introduced by 2001 Amendment? As the brief history referred to above would show that the intention of Government of India was to remove certain difficulties faced by Indian citizens w1\o acquired foreign degree medical qualifications and to remove difficulties faced by MCI in granting recognition to them under Section 13(3). Why at all Section 13(4A) to (4C) were introduced by 2001 Amendment? As the brief history referred to above would show that the intention of Government of India was to remove certain difficulties faced by Indian citizens w1\o acquired foreign degree medical qualifications and to remove difficulties faced by MCI in granting recognition to them under Section 13(3). As observed by Supreme Court of India, in Medical Council of India's case (supra), it was appropriate for the Government of India to formulate policy bearing in mind the human problem arising in relation to Doctors in question. In September, 1997, MCI took a decision inter alia not to grant registration to those students who were initially admitted in unrecognized Indian institutions and later migrated to USSR for obtaining medical qualifications. For redressal of this grievance, writ petitions were filed by such category of students which were allowed. Supreme Court having noticed that Section 13(4A) was amended and approved the guidelines (extracted infra) framed by Government of India. These guidelines are at drastic departure from September 1997 decision of MC!. They never introduced the element of entire study in a medical institution abroad. What was intended is obtaining a medical qualification from a foreign University. In spite of litigation, commencing from early 1990s, Government of India choose to amend the Act and insert Section 13(4A) to give some benefit to such category of students such as the petitioners in first group of cases herein. It is not possible to read something else into the same to deny the benefit to petitioners herein. It is well settled that when the language is plain, whatever be the consequences, the Court has to give full effect to the language, and ordinarily the Court would not resort to a classification by itself. When the Parliament chose to treat all the citizens who obtained medical qualifications from abroad as one category, there is no scope to resort to classifying those who underwent part of the course in Indian institutions as separate category. 24. The legislation took great care in choosing the language. There is no denial that under Section 11, of the medical qualifications granted by Universities/medical institutions in India are included in First Schedule. As per Section 12 of MCI the Act, the medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India are included in Second Schedule. The Third Schedule, however, as noticed supra contains two parts. There is no denial that under Section 11, of the medical qualifications granted by Universities/medical institutions in India are included in First Schedule. As per Section 12 of MCI the Act, the medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India are included in Second Schedule. The Third Schedule, however, as noticed supra contains two parts. The first part contains medical qualifications by medical institutions in the territories which are now included in Pakistan and Burma. Part II of Third Schedule referable to Section 13(3) also deals with medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India. But it is not automatic. For the purpose of Part II of Third Schedule and Section 13(3), Central Government has to notify in the Official Gazette specifying medical institutions whose medical qualifications shall be recognised for the purpose of the Act. Section 13(3) read with Section 13(4A), therefore, leads,to the following. If medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India specified in Official Gazette by Central Government are included in Part II. of Third Schedule, they shall be recognised as medical qualifications. But, under Section 13(4A) of the Act, a person who obtains medical qualification from a foreign medical institution shall not be recognised unless he qualifies in Screening Test. The moment such candidate qualifies in Screening Test, it shall be deemed to be recognised medical qualification for the purpose of Section' 13(3) without any further notification. 25. Sections 11, 12, 13(2), 13(3) or 13(4A) do not refer to 'medical college' but they refer to 'medical institution'. Section 2( e) defines medical institution, as "any institution within or outside India which grant degrees, diplomas or licences in medicine". The term 'medical college' is not defined though Section 10A provides that no person shall establish a medical college except with the previous permission of Central Government obtained in accordance with provisions of Section 10A. Sections 11, 12, 13(3) and 13 (4A) specifically refer to 'medical institution' and not 'medical college'. The term 'medical college' is not defined though Section 10A provides that no person shall establish a medical college except with the previous permission of Central Government obtained in accordance with provisions of Section 10A. Sections 11, 12, 13(3) and 13 (4A) specifically refer to 'medical institution' and not 'medical college'. Though we do not intend to draw strong support from this glaring distinction in the words used, but still we are convinced that for the purpose of Section 13(4A) even if a student has completed part of the medical course like pre and para medical training in an unrecognized Indian Medical College but subsequently migrated to a medical institution outside India and obtained medical qualification, the same does not disentitle such student from seeking benefit under Section 13(4A) subject, however, to complying conditions therein. 26. A submission is made across the Bar that Section 13(4A) creates a fiction. There cannot be any doubt on this. As per Section 13(4A) when once a citizen with degree from medical institution abroad, qualifies in the Screening Test, "such foreign medical qualification ... shall be deemed to be recognised qualification for the purpose of this Act for that person". What is important, therefore, is acquiring a foreign degree granted by a foreign medical institution and qualifying in Screening Test. To be effective, the fiction does not contemplate obtaining a foreign medical qualification from foreign medical institution after completion of entire medical training only in such institution. Therefore, the submission of learned Standing Counsel cannot be countenanced. 27. MCI submits that as the medical college of IMTU at Guntur was not recognised nor permitted under Section 10A though IMTU is recognised medical institution, petitioners herein cannot seek grant of registration. The submission cannot be accepted. If really IMTU college at Guntur had permission under Section 10A and subsequently they had been migrated for obtaining medical qualification from foreign medical institution, the question of applying Section 13(4A) may not apply in a given case. As a matter of fact, it is on record that VEF and Government of Tanzania entered into MoU. As per this, VEF was authorised to set up a private autonomous IMTU in Dar-es-salaam comprising medical college, engineering college and college of business administration from 1996. To that effect, the High Commissioner of India, Dar-es-salaam, also issued a certificate, dated 13 .2.1996. As per this, VEF was authorised to set up a private autonomous IMTU in Dar-es-salaam comprising medical college, engineering college and college of business administration from 1996. To that effect, the High Commissioner of India, Dar-es-salaam, also issued a certificate, dated 13 .2.1996. In addition to this, the Higher Education Accreditation Council, Government of Tanzania, Dar-es-salaam issued a letter of interim authority, dated 7.5.1997 under Section 77(2A) of the Education (Amendment) Act No.10 of 1995 (of Tanzania) authorising to proceed with VEF's intention, determination and plans to establish IMTU. It is the case of petitioners that as there was some delay in establishing IMTU at Dar-es-salaam for want of accreditation. Apart from this, due to some delay in VEF arranging Visas to the students who are admitted, part of the course was held at VEF's facility at Guntur, but the course was recognised by IMTU. Admittedly pre and para medical course of MBBS of IMTU was prosecuted by petitioners at Guntur, but the clinical course of MBBS was prosecuted at IMTU. They passed the University examination and they were granted MBBS by IMTU, Tanzania, which is a foreign medical institution established by VEF in Tanzania. This background would show that the medical qualification granted by IMTU, Tanzania, is recognised for enrolment as medical practitioner in Tanzania and it is specifically or impliedly not excluded from the purview of Section 13 (4A) of the Act. This interpretation also derives support from Medical Council of India's case (supra) and Sanjeev Gupta's case (supra). (vi) Case Law 28. Medical Council of India's case (supra), arose out of civil appeals filed against judgments of Allahabad and other High Courts. MCI on the request of Government of India took a decision to grant permanent registration only for those students in recognised medical institutions in USSR subject to undergoing one year internship and decided not to grant registration to those who initially admitted in Indian unrecognised institution but later migrated and obtained degrees abroad. Large number of students who obtained medical qualifications from institutions in USSR filed those writ petitions. They were allowed by High Courts. Therefore MCI filed appeals. When matters were being heard, Apex Court observed that in the best interest of all concerned, Government of India should formulate an appropriate policy bearing in mind human problem arising in relation to Doctors in question. They were allowed by High Courts. Therefore MCI filed appeals. When matters were being heard, Apex Court observed that in the best interest of all concerned, Government of India should formulate an appropriate policy bearing in mind human problem arising in relation to Doctors in question. While matters were pending, Central Act No.34 of 2001 was enacted amending Section 13 of the Act. Screening Test Regulations were also promulgated. As noticed by Apex Court, these Regulations provide as follows. (i) An Indian citizen possessing a primary medical qualification awarded by any of the medical institutions outside India and desirous of getting provisional or permanent registration with the Medical Council of India or any state Medicals Council on a after 15.3.2002 shall have to qualify a Screening Test conducted by the prescribed authority for the purpose of their registration in India. A person seeking permanent registration shall not have to qualify the Screening Test if he or she had already qualified the same before getting his or her provisional registration. (ii) The primary medical qualification possessed by the Indian citizen should be a recognised medical qualification for enrolment as medical practitioner in the country in which the institution awarding the said qualification is situated. (iii) Any Indian citizen who is desirous of taking admission in an undergraduate medical course abroad on or after 15.3.2002 shall have to obtain an Eligibility Certificate from MCI stating that he or she fulfils the minimum eligibility criteria laid down by MCI for admission in MBBS course in India. 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. 29. We may point out that above is the conspectus of Regulations 3 and 4. Be that as it may, it was pointed out before Apex Court that number of persons who applied for grant of MCI provisional registration after completion of degree course abroad prior to 15.3.2001 were not granted provisional registration for various reasons such as they did not undergo complete duration of six years course from institutions recognised by MCI, they did not fulfil minimum basic qualification for joining medical course, and they obtained medical qualifications which are not recognised by MCI. So as to regulate grant of registration to these categories of persons, Government of India placed before Apex Court a set of three guidelines. Having regard to this, Apex shall have to qualify a Screening Test Court disposed of the matters approving conducted by the prescribed authority those guidelines observing that they will for the purpose of their registration in be applicable to all persons who are• India. A person seeking permanent similarly situated whether they are parties before the Court or not. It was also observed therein that those who are granted registration shall have to undergo one year internship if necessary. 30. The guidelines placed by Central Government before Supreme Court, which received approval, are extracted below. (A) The case of all persons who applied for registration to MCI prior to 15.3.2001 shall be dealt with according to the provisions of the Act as existing prior to the commencement of the IMC (Amendment) Act, 2001 subject to the following: (i) Those students who obtained degrees where the total duration of study in recognised institutions is less than six years (i.e., where a part of the study has been in unrecognised institutions, or the total length of study in a recognised institution is short of six years), shall be granted registration by MCI provided that the period of shortfall is covered by them by way of additional internship over and above the regular internship of one year. In other words, for such categories of students, the total duration of study in a recognised institution plus the internship, would be seven years, which is the requirement even otherwise. (ii) Where students who did not meet the minimum admission norms of MCI for joining undergraduate medical course, were admitted to foreign institutes recognised by MCI, this irregularity be condoned. In other words, the degrees of such students be treated as eligible for registration with MCI. (B) All students who have taken admission abroad prior to 15.3.2002 and are required to qualify the Screening Test for their registration as per the provisions of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 shall be allowed to appear in the Screening Test even if they also come in the categories of circumstances contained in (A)(ii) above, as the relaxation contained therein would also be applicable in their case. In other words, any person at present undergoing medical education abroad, who did not conform to the minimum eligibility requirements for joining an undergraduate medical course in India laid down by MCI, seeking provisional or permanent registration on or after 15.3.2002 shall be permitted to appear in the Screening Test in relaxation of this requirement provided he had taken admission in an institute recognised by MC!. This relaxation shall be available to only those students who had taken admission abroad prior to 15.3.2002. From 15.3.2002 and onwards all students are required to first obtain an Eligibility Certificate from MCI before proceeding abroad for studies in Medicine. (C) The categories of students not covered in (A)(i) and (ii) above and whose entire period of study has been in a medical college not recognised by MCI, will be allowed to appear in the Screening Test for the purpose of their registration provided they fulfil all the conditions laid down in the IMC (Amendment) Act, 2001. In other words, the qualification obtained by them must be a qualification recognised for enrolment as medical practitioner in the country in which the institution awarding the same is situated and they must be fulfilling the minimum eligibility qualification laid down by MCI for taking admission in an undergraduate medical course in India. They shall not be entitled to any relaxation. (emphasis supplied) 31. The above Court approved guidelines of Government of India/MCI do not make any distinction between the students who obtained medical qualifications from a University abroad after completing the entire course there and those students who partly completed their course in Indian institution, which is not recognised under Section 10A of the Act. Indeed guideline A(i) and (C) (supra) specially deals with class of students where they completed part of medical course in unrecognised institution. Therefore, the submission of MCI that the students who completed part of the course in Indian unrecognised institutions are excluded from the purview of Section 13(4A) cannot be accepted. Such a plea would certainly be against the decision of Supreme Court in Medical Council of India's case (supra). 32. Sanjeev Gupta's case (supra), arose out of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before Supreme Court. All the petitioners therein went to various countries forming part of erstwhile USSR for studying M.D., Physician Course which is equivalent to MBBS in India. 32. Sanjeev Gupta's case (supra), arose out of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before Supreme Court. All the petitioners therein went to various countries forming part of erstwhile USSR for studying M.D., Physician Course which is equivalent to MBBS in India. They completed six years medical course including the internship as per the relevant foreign country regulations. After coming back with medical qualifications, they were granted provisional registration under interim orders of Supreme Court. But, they were denied permanent registration. In some other cases, provisional registration was also denied. They inter alia contended that as completed entire course in USSR they are not required to undergo eligibility test under Screening Regulations and that their case would fall under Section 13(3) of the Act. They also unsuccessfully contended that as they have undergone full length of course from medical institutions recognised by MCI in USSR, they cannot be subjected to Screening Test under Section 13 (4A) for the purpose of grant of provisional/permanent registration. Following the decision in Medical Council of India's case (supra). Sanjeev Gupta's case (supra), Bench dismissed the writ petition observing as follows: Under Amendment Act 34 of 2001 the cutoff date was to be specified by the Central Government. It is not in dispute that the cut-off date was specified by the Central Government. The executive policy which was prevalent before 2001 has been given the shape of legislative policy. Such legislative policy having regard to the purposes and objects MCI seeks to achieve can neither be said to be unreasonable nor arbitrary in terms whereof the student obtaining a degree from a foreign University is subject to a Screening Test. There is sufficient and substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 13(4-A) of the Act by the Government of India. It is the Government of India which had fixed 15.3.2002 as the date for bringing into force the Screening Test Regulations. Suggestion of the petitioners that they should be allowed to join the internship by grant of provisional registration without qualifying the Screening Test whereby they can involve themselves in the patient care and management cannot be permitted in the larger public interest. Besides the above, this suggestion is contrary to Regulation 3 of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 and to the observations in Para 4 of the judgment in Medical Council of India. Besides the above, this suggestion is contrary to Regulation 3 of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 and to the observations in Para 4 of the judgment in Medical Council of India. Regulation 3 of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 provides that provisional registration can be granted to the candidate enabling him to start internship for practical training involving patient care and management only after qualifying the Screening Test. It is not permissible to grant provisional registration to a candidate who has not undertaken internship at a recognised medical institution abroad after completion of six years of medicine course without qualifying the Screening Test. (emphasis supplied) 33. As observed by apex Court in Sanjeev Gupta's case (supra), the students who obtained medical qualifications from medical institutions abroad are not debarred from starting medical practice but they are to merely undergo Screening Test as provided in Screening Regulations. As the policy of MCI and Government of India to subject students to Screening Test, has been upheld by Supreme Court in Medical Council of India's case (supra), in these cases respondents cannot introduce another policy decision which would be contra to Section 13 (4A). Furthermore, any plea of MCI in these cases in justification of rejection of grant of provisional/permanent registration would also go against the Screening Regulations, which is the subjectmatter of second point for consideration. 34. There is yet another reason for rejecting purposive interpretation of Section 13 (4A). Notwithstanding equality principle, State is free to classify persons for the purpose of conferring a benefit or burdening them. Such legislation, however, has to satisfy the twin tests of classification, namely, rationality test and nexus test. The classification often results in discrimination in two ways: over-inclusion and under inclusion. If a group of people is classified as one category, people who are left out can always complain that there has been discrimination against them. While grouping people for the purpose of classification, if some people are unnecessarily included in such a category, there can be a case of excess/over-inclusion. In case of under inclusion, Courts tolerate discriminatory classification on the principle that Legislature is free to recognize degrees of harm and confine benefits or burdens only to those classes included in classification. The same is however not in case of over inclusion. In case of under inclusion, Courts tolerate discriminatory classification on the principle that Legislature is free to recognize degrees of harm and confine benefits or burdens only to those classes included in classification. The same is however not in case of over inclusion. If classification fails to answer twin tests, the Courts strike down offending part so as to exclude persons or groups who ought not to have been included. In one case entire provision goes and in another case provision survives after amputation of offending portion (See Sakhawant AU v. Satte of Orissa, AIR 1955 SC 166 , Shanker Birmiwal v. Union of India, AIR 1982 Raj 187 (FB) and B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N., (2001) 7 SCC 231 ). If Section 13(4A) is interpreted as grouping citizens with medical qualifications granted by foreign Universities into two categories, same would be a case of under-inclusion if students such as petitioners before us are included from classification. Such classification would not satisfy twin tests in accordance with provisions of Section 13(4A) as indicated supra. While interpreting provisions it should always be interpreted in accordance with constitutional principles especially equality class. If purposive interpretation is applied and Section 13(4A) interpreted as excluding those citizens who completed part of medical course in India, it would be unconstitutional. Such interpretation, it is trite, must be avoided. 35. In view of these findings, we hold that the decision of ad hoc Committee and Executive Committee of MCI in its meeting on 10.2.2006 deciding not to grant registration to petitioners on the ground that part of training was completed in an institution in India, which had no permission under Section 10A of the Act, is without jurisdiction and illegal. The MCI misdirected itself in assuming an erroneous situation and deciding it wrongly. Therefore, the decision of Medical Council of India, which was communicated to petitioners, is unsustainable. All orders passed pursuant to such decision communicated to petitioners in these cases are liable to be quashed. Point No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of petitioners. In Re point No.2 36. Screening Regulations were promulgated by MCI in exercise of their power under Section 33(ma) for effective enforcement and implementation of legislative policy contained in Section 13 (4A). The purport of these Regulations especially Regulations 3 and 4, as noticed by Supreme Court in Medical Council of India's case (supra), had already been extracted. In Re point No.2 36. Screening Regulations were promulgated by MCI in exercise of their power under Section 33(ma) for effective enforcement and implementation of legislative policy contained in Section 13 (4A). The purport of these Regulations especially Regulations 3 and 4, as noticed by Supreme Court in Medical Council of India's case (supra), had already been extracted. In addition to this, we may notice the Regulations in some detail. 37. Regulation 2 defines the words and phrases used in the Regulations. Regulation 2( t) defines 'primary medical qualifications' means 'a medical qualification awarded by any medical institution outside India which is recognised qualification for enrolment as medical practitioner in the country in which institution awarding the said qualification is situated and which is equivalent to MBBS in India'. As per Regulations 3 and 4, a citizen possessing primary medical qualification awarded by a medical institution abroad has to undergo a qualifying test. Regulation 5 makes it clear that the purpose of conducting Screening Test shall be only to determine eligibility or otherwise of a candidate for his/her registration with MCI or any State Medical Council. 38. A reading of Regulations 2(f), 3, 4, 5 and 11 would show the following position. A person who acquired primary medical qualification from a medical institution abroad cannot be granted provisional registration/permanent registration enabling him to take up medical practice in India as a privilege (see Section 27 of the Act) unless such person qualifies in the Screening Test obtains provisional registration and also permanent registration after successfully undergoing one year internship in an approved institution. These Regulations do not make any distinction between persons who obtained foreign medical qualifications after undergoing a part of the course in Indian unrecognised institution. The important eligibility is that a person must have a primary medical qualification awarded by any medical institution abroad which is recognised for enrolment in that country, in which the institution awarding qualifications is situated and which is equivalent to MBBS. There is no denial that IMTU is recognised medical institution in Tanzania and its degree of MBBS is recognised as equivalent to MBBS. It is also not denied that the degree of MBBS awarded by IMTU, Dares-salaam, Tanzania, is recognised qualification for enrolment as medical practitioner in Tanzania. Indeed the Higher Education Accreditation Council, Dar-es-salaam granted authority to YEF, Tanzania to establish IMTU way back in May, 1997. It is also not denied that the degree of MBBS awarded by IMTU, Dares-salaam, Tanzania, is recognised qualification for enrolment as medical practitioner in Tanzania. Indeed the Higher Education Accreditation Council, Dar-es-salaam granted authority to YEF, Tanzania to establish IMTU way back in May, 1997. Therefore, all the petitioners are also eligible for appearing in Screening Test. In fact, they were allowed to appear in Screening Test and all of them qualified. Therefore, what follows is explained by Regulation 11, which reads as follows. Regulation 11. The Prescribed Authority shall intimate the result of the Screening Test to the candidates as well as to the Secretary, Medical Council of India and the State Medical Councils. The unsuccessful candidates shall also be appropriately informed. The candidates who qualify the Screening Test may apply to the Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi or to any State Medical Council for provisional registration/permanent registration along with the requisite registration fee in favour of Secretary, Medical Council of India or the State Medical Council. The Medical Council of India or the State Medical Councils shall issue provisional registration to such successful candidates, who are yet to undergo one year internship in an approved institution and issue permanent registration to such eligible candidates who have already undergone one year internship, as the case may be. 39. A plain reading of Regulation 11 shows that no discretion is left to MCI to reject provisional registration to petitioners as all of them have qualified in Screening Test. Even the provisions of Section 13(4A) do not disentitle citizens who obtained medical qualifications granted by medical institution abroad even if they had completed part of the course in India. We, however, hasten to add that Section 13(4A) read with Regulation 3 of Screening Regulations make it clear that the benefit of seeking provisional/permanent registration after qualifying in Screening Test is only available for those who completed their degrees abroad and seek registration on or after 15.3.2002 (date of coming into force of Screening Regulations). Section 13(4B) of the Act provides that a citizen shall not after such date as may be specified by Central Government under sub-section (3) of Section 13(4B) be eligible to get admission to obtain medical qualification granted by any medical institution in foreign country without obtaining an Eligibility Certificate issued to him by MCI. Section 13(4B) of the Act provides that a citizen shall not after such date as may be specified by Central Government under sub-section (3) of Section 13(4B) be eligible to get admission to obtain medical qualification granted by any medical institution in foreign country without obtaining an Eligibility Certificate issued to him by MCI. In case, such person obtains such qualification without obtaining any such Eligibility Certificate, he would not be eligible to appear in Screening Test. In the cases before us however Section 13(4B) of the Act admittedly has no application. We are only pointing out this to show that administrative policy in relation to Indian students who obtain MBBS Degrees abroad went on getting refined and fine-tuned till it was given legislative status as Section 13(4A) of the Act and promulgating Screening Regulations. Therefore, we reiterate that when once any student is permitted to appear for Screening Test, it pre-supposes that such person with primary medical qualifications was found eligible to appear for Screening Test and at subsequent stage MCI cannot take a plea against such policy. Secondly, when once a person qualifies Screening Test, primary medical qualification acquired by such person from medical institution abroad shall be deemed to be recognised medical qualification for the purposes of the Act. Such person cannot be denied grant of permanent/provisional registration. We accordingly hold on Point No.2 in favour of petitioners and against respondents. 40. In W.P. Nos.483 and 4022 of 2008 petitioners approached MCI for provisional registration. The same was granted. At that stage their specific case was that they completed entire pre and para-clinical course in IMTU, Dar-es-salaam, and no part of course they studied at IMTU, Guntur. Whether or not MCI accepted this, in 2004 they were granted provisional registration on the strength of which they completed internship during 2005-2006. But when they applied for permanent registration in July 2005, the same was refused by communication dated 27.4.2006 based on decision of Executive Committee dated 10.2.2006. Subsequent to such refusal, MCI received a communication dated 3.7.2006 from High Commissioner of India, Dar-essalaam, enclosing a letter dated 13.5.2006 of IMTU, Tanzania, for consideration of MCI. In their letter IMTU informed High Commissioner of India, that all of them have done full course at IMTU, Dar-es-salaam, by attending extra classes during holidays. Subsequent to such refusal, MCI received a communication dated 3.7.2006 from High Commissioner of India, Dar-essalaam, enclosing a letter dated 13.5.2006 of IMTU, Tanzania, for consideration of MCI. In their letter IMTU informed High Commissioner of India, that all of them have done full course at IMTU, Dar-es-salaam, by attending extra classes during holidays. Therefore, MCI in communication sent in September 2006, requested petitioners to seek certified details of classes attended by them during entire duration of MBBS at IMTU, Tanzania. Petitioners then obtained a communication from Prof. R.A. Lima, Vice-Chancellor of IMTU, Dar-es-salaam, addressed to Secretary of MCI to the effect that petitioners completed mandatory number of hours in every subject. Information furnished by petitioners was acknowledged in April/May 2007 but as no orders are passed they approached this Court seeking direction to MCI to pass appropriate orders and grant permanent registration. In these cases, a submission has already been noticed to the effect that they have completed entire course in IMTU, Dar-es-salaarn, and therefore, they cannot be denied permanent registration. 41. In W.P. No.21046 of 2007 petitioner was granted permanent registration and same was cancelled by impugned order dated 26.9.2007. A submission is raised that MCI has no power to remove name of petitioner from Indian Medical Register till the same is removed in State Medical Register under Section 24(1) of the Act. When permanent registration granted earlier was cancelled by MCI based on decision of Executive Committee dated 10.2.2006 and as this Court has held that such a decision is unsustainable in the face of provisions of the Act and Screening Regulations. We feel not compelled to decide the issue in these cases. Question with regard to power of Medical Council of India to cancel permanent registration even though State Medical Council has not removed name of a person from State Medical Register, is left open to be decided in appropriate case. Conclusion 42. In the result, for the above reasons, these writ petitions are allowed. In all cases where provisional registration has been rejected, a direction shall issue to Medical Council of India to grant provisional registration under Section 25(1) of the Act to all those students who have completed Screening Test in accordance with provisions of Section 13(4A) of the Act read with Screening Test Regulations 2002. In all cases where provisional registration has been rejected, a direction shall issue to Medical Council of India to grant provisional registration under Section 25(1) of the Act to all those students who have completed Screening Test in accordance with provisions of Section 13(4A) of the Act read with Screening Test Regulations 2002. Insofar as grant of permanent registration is concerned, subject to petitioners producing valid certificates in proof of completion of compulsory internship for one year, MCV State Medical Council, as the case may be, shall grant permanent registration under Section 25(4) and Section 15 of the Act. This direction also covers W.P. No.21046 of 2007 and W.P. Nos.483 and 4022 of 2008, which shall stand allowed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of these cases, we desist from making any order as to costs.