Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. Aarushi Jaswal, a minor, has approached this Court through her mother Poonam Jaswal with a prayer for declaring Regulation 4(1) of the Medical Council of India Regulation on Graduate Medical Education 1997 (P.2) (for brevity the Regulations) as ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution. A further prayer has also been made for quashing Clause 8(i) of the Information Bulletin and a column in the application form for All India Pre Medical Test (AIPMT-2009) (P.3) dated 4.12.2008. Aarushi is born on 12.9.1993 and is aged about 15 1/2 years. According to the aforesaid Regulation she is required to be 17 years of age on or before 31st of December of the year of admission to the MBBS Course. 2. In response to the notice of motion, Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2 and has prayed that no written statement need to be filed as the question raised in the instant petition is purely legal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book with their able assistance. Regulation 4(1) has prescribed age of 17 years of a candidate who is allowed to be admitted to the MBBS course and such a candidate must complete the age of 17 years on or before 31st of December of the year of admission. The year of admission in the present case is 2009 and by December, 2009 the petitioner age would be 16 years 3 months only. Therefore her application was rejected vide order dated 5.2.2009 by respondent no.2 on the ground that she did not fulfill the age criterion as per clauses 8(i) and (ii) of the Information Bulletin which in turn is based on Regulation 4(1). A similar matter was considered by the Delhi High Court in CWP No. 1255 of 2000 (Ms. Indu v. Central Board of Secondary Education) and the writ petition was dismissed on 5.5.2000. Even Letters Patent Appeal No. 206 of 2000 filed against the aforesaid order was also dismissed on 11.5.2000. The Medical Council of India under Section 33 has the power to prescribe the qualifications including the age. Accordingly, the age criterion of 17 years has been prescribed by Regulation 4(1). Even Letters Patent Appeal No. 206 of 2000 filed against the aforesaid order was also dismissed on 11.5.2000. The Medical Council of India under Section 33 has the power to prescribe the qualifications including the age. Accordingly, the age criterion of 17 years has been prescribed by Regulation 4(1). Therefore the competence of the Medical Council of India for framing the regulation prescribing the minimum age for admission to MBBS Course would not be open to challenge. We are further of the view that there is nothing arbitrary which might result into violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. There is reasonable basis for prescribing the age of 17 years for admission to MBBS Course and the rationale basis has a relation with the object of producing mature doctors. If a child is admitted at the age of 17 years of age to MBBS course he becomes doctor at the age of 22/23 years. It is for the legislation and policy makers to lay down as to what should the mature age to become a full fledged doctor. It is not the function of the Court to go into the question of prescription of age unless it seems to be so absurd and unreasonable that a man of ordinary prudence would not accept such a prescription. Even otherwise courts are not equipped with any expertise to come to a conclusion as to what would be the proper age for a student to enter the MBBS Course. We are further of the view that the policy makers may have also considered as to how many doctors they need at a particular juncture to serve the health need of the country. The age may be one of the considerations to decide such like question. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the argument that the Regulation 4(1) or the clauses in the Information Bulletin suffer from any vice of arbitrariness as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The writ petition is wholly without merit and does not warrant admission. The same is accordingly dismissed.