Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1990 (KAR)

Rekha v. Medical Council Of India

2019-09-11

P.G.M.PATIL, S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2019
JUDGMENT : S.N. Satyanarayana, J. In response to the order dated 04.06.2019 an affidavit is filed by one Dr.Ramalingappa Chanabasappa Antaratani who is working as Director (In-charge), Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubballi which is respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein. The particulars furnished by him in the affidavit is totally irrelevant to the dispute which is required to be solved in this petition. 2. When the contents of the affidavit with reference to order dated 04.06.2019 is seen, filing of the affidavit appears to be a formality and it does not make any sense as to why the petitioner-Rekha w/o Arun Walwekar a qualified pharmacologist who has secured M.D. in Pharmacology in the year 2014 is not issued with certificate of recognition pursuant to completion of P.G. Course in M.D. Pharmacology. When the pleadings and prayer of the petitioner is looked into, it is seen that she was admitted to M.D. in Pharmacology on 29.06.2014 in respondent Nos.5 and 6 institution. Her admission was approved in the third round of P.G Entrance Test conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority and the same was against recognized vacant seat. 3. Though petitioner was admitted to the said course on 29.06.2014, the course was commenced on 30.06.2014. Subsequent to the commencement of the course, respondent No.7 took admission to P.G. Course in Pharmacology in the said institution on 07.07.2014 which admittedly is to the second seat which was yet to be recognized by Medical Council of India (for short 'MCI'), as stated by the Director (In-charge) of respondent Nos.5 and 6 who is present before this Court. Thereby indicating that the admission of the petitioner herein is against the recognized seat and whereas the admission of respondent No.7 is against the seat due to be recognized by the MCI. It is further seen that both petitioner and respondent No.7 completed their P.G. Course on 09.07.2017 and thereafter both of them have filed application seeking issuance of certificate of recognition. 4. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that, since her admission is at the earliest point of time as against a recognized seat that was available, the certificate of recognition should have been considered in her favour by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and as well as MCI at first instance. 4. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that, since her admission is at the earliest point of time as against a recognized seat that was available, the certificate of recognition should have been considered in her favour by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and as well as MCI at first instance. Instead it is considered for respondent No.7 by overlooking the application of the petitioner thereby a deliberate mistake is committed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 institution and as well as the MCI. In this behalf several orders were passed by this Court, none of them are implemented by any of the authorities. When an order was passed on 04.06.2019 directing respondent Nos.5 and 6 to file its affidavit as to why certificate of recognition is not issued to the petitioner herein at first instance, the affidavit which is filed by the Director (In-charge) of respondent Nos.5 and 6 does not throw any light on that. Instead there is an attempt to cover up the mistake committed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and as well as the MCI in issuing certificate of recognition to respondent No.7 who is a candidate selected as against the seat to be recognized by the MCI. 5. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the procedure adopted by respondent Nos.5 and 6 in recommending the name of respondent No.7 for issuance of certificate of recognition by MCI and consequentially the said certificate being issued by MCI by overlooking the application filed by the petitioner herein, is highly improper and the same is in not following the procedure which is required to be followed under the fact circumstances. Incidentally, respondent No.7 whose application for recognition is considered out of turn, is not before this Court, in spite of the fact that, she is duly served. The manner in which respondent Nos.5 and 6 have considered the application of respondent No.7 for recognition also appears to be fishy. 6. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Consequently, Annexures-F and F1 are set aside and respondent Nos.5 and 6 and as well as the MCI are directed to recall the certificate of recognition issued to respondent No.7 and issue certificate of recognition to the petitioner herein with retrospective effect within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Consequently, Annexures-F and F1 are set aside and respondent Nos.5 and 6 and as well as the MCI are directed to recall the certificate of recognition issued to respondent No.7 and issue certificate of recognition to the petitioner herein with retrospective effect within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Thereafter, respondent Nos.5 and 6 shall consider the application of respondent No.7 for issuance of certificate of recognition only after necessary orders are passed by the respondent No.1-MCI in approving the additional seat for M.D. in Pharmacology for the year 2014 in respondent Nos.5 and 6 institution. 8. In the event, the aforesaid order not being implemented forthwith as referred to supra by respondent Nos.1,5 and 6, the petitioner is at liberty to initiate contempt proceedings against the concerned officers of respondent Nos.1,5 and 6 who appears to have colluded with respondent No.7 in allowing her to secure certificate of recognition ahead of the petitioner whose admission is against the recognized seat as that of respondent No.7 whose admission is yet to be recognized by MCI. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation.