Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 233 (MAD)

J. Pandiamunian v. Union of India rep. by the Ministry of Health Office of the Health Minister, New Delhi

2015-01-19

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2015
Judgment 1. By consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. V. Parivallal, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the first respondent, Mr. V.P. Raman, learned counsel for the second respondent and Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned counsel for third respondent. 3. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the second and third respondents to register the name of the petitioner for M.D. Pharmacology. 4. The petitioner completed his M.B.B.S. from Vinayaka Mission’s Medical College, Karaikal during May 2008 and also completed Compulsory Rotatory Resident Internship from 07.07.2008 to 06.07.2009, for which completion certificate has been issued to the petitioner on 17.7.2009. The petitioner has registered himself as Medical Practitioner with the third respondent on 23.07.2009, and thereafter, he started practicing for nine months. Thereafter, the petitioner has joined the fourth respondent College for his M.D. Degree in Pharmacology during May, 2010. The petitioner was informed by the fourth respondent College that the second respondent has given a letter of intent and permission dated 11.4.2008 for starting M.D. Degree in Pharmacology with an annual intake of 3 students per year. Subsequently, the second respondent issued a letter of permission to the fourth respondent to increase the intake from three seats to four seats without recognizing pre-existing three seats and the same was published in the website during April 2011. Therefore, the action of the second respondent shows the positive intent and they have towards the fourth respondent. 5. The petitioner has completed M.D. Degree in Pharmacology course and till date, the same has not been recognized by the Medical Council of India, the petitioner is unable to seek for recognition issued by the Tamil Nadu Medical Council. When representation has been made seeking information under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner was informed that the matter is under consideration of the Medical Council of India. 6. The learned counsel for the Medical Council of India submitted that the issue which is now under consideration by the Medical Council of India is as to whether the Post Graduate degree offered by the fourth respondent is to be recognized or not and no individual issue is taken up. 7. 6. The learned counsel for the Medical Council of India submitted that the issue which is now under consideration by the Medical Council of India is as to whether the Post Graduate degree offered by the fourth respondent is to be recognized or not and no individual issue is taken up. 7. In the light of the fact that the matter is under active consideration of the Medical Council of India, there will be a direction to the second respondent to take into consideration of the petitioner’s representation, requesting for recognition of his M.D. Degree in Pharmacology, obtained from the fourth respondent Institution as expeditiously as possible, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.