JUDGMENT : 1. The question emerges for consideration in this writ petition is whether the M.H.Sc (Diabetology), a degree of Master in Health Sciences in Diabetology secured by the petitioners from the Annamalai University can be exhibited by the petitioners anywhere? It is admitted that the said course offered by the Annamalai University is not recognized by the Medical Council of India (MCI) or that it is included in the schedule of qualifications under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for brevity, 'the Act, 1956'). 2. To start with, “recognized medical qualification” is defined under Sec.2(h) of the Act, 1956 to mean; any of the medical qualifications included in the Schedules. Section 10A of Act, 1956 deals with permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study; which stipulates that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other law for the time being in force,-- (a) no person shall establish a medical college; or (b) no medical college shall-- (i) open a new or higher course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognized medical qualification; or (ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training), except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of the said section. 3. So also, Sec.10B(2) stipulates that, where any medical college opens a new or higher course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) except with the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Sec.10A, no medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college on the basis of such study or training shall be a recognized medical qualification for the purposes of the Act. So much so, Sec.26(1) of the Act deals with registration of additional qualification, and it is stipulated that, if any person whose name is entered in the Indian Medical Register obtains any title, diploma or other qualification for proficiency in sanitary science, public health or medicine, which is a recognized medical qualification, he shall, on application made in that behalf in the prescribed manner, be entitled to have an entry stating such other title, diploma, or other qualification made against his name in the Indian Medical Register either in substitution for or in addition to any entry previously made, and sub-section (2) thereto prescribes that the entries in respect of any such person in a State Medical Register shall be altered in accordance with the alterations made in the Indian Medical Register. 4. That apart, Regulation 1.4 of Chapter 1 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, deals with display of registration numbers. Regulation 1.4.1 mandates that every physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to his patients. Regulation 1.4.2 stipulates that, physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognized medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/honours which confer professional knowledge or recognizes any exemplary qualification/achievements. So also, Regulation 7.20 requires that a physician shall not claim to be specialist unless he has a special qualification in that branch. These are the relevant provisions to deal with the issues raised by the petitioners in the writ petition. 5. Now coming to the facts projected by the petitioners, 1st petitioner is a Surgeon attached to the Taluk Hospital, Adimaly, who has passed MBBS Degree in 1989 and took MS in General Surgery in 2008, and the 2nd petitioner is a medical practitioner in Thodupuzha, who has secured MBBS Degree in the year 1988. According to the petitioners, they had passed the Degree of Master in Health Sciences in Diabetology [M.H.Sc (Diabetology)] offered by the medical faculty of the Annamalai University, and the said University is established by law, and having a medical faculty as defined in Sec.2(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. 6. According to the petitioners, they had passed the Degree of Master in Health Sciences in Diabetology [M.H.Sc (Diabetology)] offered by the medical faculty of the Annamalai University, and the said University is established by law, and having a medical faculty as defined in Sec.2(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. 6. Case of the petitioners is that, upon a false complaint, the 1st respondent i.e., the Travancore Cochin Medical Council issued notice to 5 doctors including the petitioners to appear before it on 05.01.2018 and file explanations. Accordingly, petitioners appeared before the 1st respondent and the petitioners were compelled to execute an undertaking to remove the additional qualifications displayed upon the boards and letters, and prescription pads of the petitioners, in respect of M.H.Sc. (Diabetology) Post graduate degree. It is also submitted that, petitioners were threatened that unless the undertaking was tendered, petitioners would be suspended from the Rolls of the Council for a period of three months and penal action would follow. It was thereupon that Ext.P8 order is issued. Other contentions are also raised by the petitioners to justify the action of exhibiting the aforesaid Post-graduate Degree in the boards, prescriptions etc. etc. Therefore, according to the petitioners, they are entitled to display the Post-graduate Degree as of right and in terms of laws specified above. 7. The 1st respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, refuting the claims raised by the petitioners. Among other contentions, it is submitted that, the medical practitioners who are registered with the 1st respondent Council are entitled to exhibit only such qualifications which are entered in the Register maintained by the Council. However, the additional qualifications stated to have been obtained by the petitioners are not entered as additional qualifications against their names in the Register referred to above. Circumstances being so, petitioners cannot be permitted to exhibit any such qualifications which are not recognized by the Medical Council of India, and not entered as an additional qualification in the Register maintained by the 1st respondent Council. Circumstances being so, petitioners cannot be permitted to exhibit any such qualifications which are not recognized by the Medical Council of India, and not entered as an additional qualification in the Register maintained by the 1st respondent Council. That apart, it is submitted that, only Post graduate qualifications in Modern Medicine enlisted in the Schedule to the Act, 1956 are considered as recognized medical post-graduate qualification for the purpose of registration, and since the qualification in question was not recognized by the 2nd respondent and not included in the Schedule to Act, 1956, the qualification cannot be registered as additional qualification in the Register maintained by the 1st respondent Council. 8. It is also submitted that the 1st respondent received a complaint from one Dr. K. Ramachandra, Janatha Clinic, Thodupuzha, alleging practice of medicine by certain pseudo Specialists in the field of Medicine in which the names of 10 Medical Practitioners including that of the petitioners were mentioned. Accordingly, the representation was placed before the Disciplinary Committee of the Council of Modern Medicine held on 22.09.2017, which resolved to obtain explanations from those Medical Practitioners. On finding prima facie that there was substance in the complaint against the petitioners and other doctors whose names were mentioned therein, were required to appear in the Disciplinary Committee meeting held on 05.01.2018. On verification of the Register maintained in the office of the 1st respondent, it was found that petitioners are registered medical practitioners with M.B.B.S qualification having Registration Nos.18569 and 17462 respectively, and no other additional qualification are seen entered in the said Register against the names of the petitioners. 9. The Disciplinary Committee thereafter verified the documents and perused the explanations submitted by the petitioners and others and came to a definite conclusion that the petitioners and other doctors have displayed qualifications which are not recognized as per Act, 1956, along with their recognized medical qualification viz., M.B.B.S. It was accordingly the Disciplinary Committee directed them not to display such qualifications which are not 'recognized' qualifications and to remove such qualifications from their name boards etc. At that juncture, petitioners undertook before the Committee in writing that they will not exhibit such degrees any more. Thereupon, petitioners and other doctors were cautioned not to repeat it and were warned that in case any such act is noticed in future, strict action will be taken against them. 10. At that juncture, petitioners undertook before the Committee in writing that they will not exhibit such degrees any more. Thereupon, petitioners and other doctors were cautioned not to repeat it and were warned that in case any such act is noticed in future, strict action will be taken against them. 10. That apart, it is pointed out that, such actions are well within the powers of the Disciplinary Committee, and the 1st respondent Council has agreed with the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee in this regard. It was thereafter that petitioners approached this Court by filing this writ petition, stating that they were compelled to execute undertaking not to display a disputed qualification secured by them. It is also submitted that, 2nd petitioner has earlier filed W.P.(C) No.3046 of 2018, which was withdrawn, and the 2nd petitioner along with the 1st petitioner has again approached this Court with the same cause of action, which cannot be countenanced. 11. The 2nd respondent has also filed a detailed statement, stating that the Post-graduate Degree that is stated to be secured by the petitioners is not a recognized degree, and that the same is not included in the Schedule of the Act 1956. Petitioners have been awarded the said degree by the Annamalai University without securing previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Sec.10A of Act, 1956, and therefore, it is not a recognized medical qualification in terms of Sec.10B(2) of Act, 1956. Other legal contentions in respect of the provisions discussed above are also raised by the 2nd respondent. 12. A reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioners reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition. 13. I have heard Sri. Chittoor Rajamannar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. N. Reghuraj, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri. Titus Mani Vettom, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 14. It is an admitted fact that the Post-graduate Medical Degree specified above and stated to be secured by the petitioners from the Annamalai University, State of Tamil Nadu is not a recognized degree in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, as discussed above. 14. It is an admitted fact that the Post-graduate Medical Degree specified above and stated to be secured by the petitioners from the Annamalai University, State of Tamil Nadu is not a recognized degree in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, as discussed above. It is clearly specified under the provisions of the Act that without securing a prior permission from the Central Government, no new or higher course of study or training can be undertaken by any medical college. So also, Sec.10B(2) makes it clear that, any new or higher course of study or training conducted by any medical college except with the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Sec.10A, no medical qualifications granted to any student of such medical college shall be recognized medical qualification for the purposes of the Act. The said provisions when read along with Sec.26 dealing with registration of medical qualification, it is clear that, unless and until the qualification is a recognized one and included in the Schedule of the Act, 1956, such degree cannot be displayed by any person who has undergone a course of study. That apart, recognized medical qualification is defined to mean; only the medical qualifications included in the Schedule. 15. Taking into account the factual circumstances put forth by the petitioners, it is clear that the claim raised by the petitioners in the writ petition is hit by the provisions of Act, 1956. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners who were law-breakers, cannot make any claim on the basis of a Post-graduate Degree secured by them from the Annamalai University. Regulation 2002 specified above enables only to display as suffix to their names, only recognized medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/honours which confer professional knowledge or recognizes any exemplary qualification/achievements. Since the Post-graduate degree in question is not recognized, petitioners are not entitled to display the same as a suffix. It is also clear from Regulation 7.20 that when such qualifications are added as suffix in the name boards or prescriptions or any other documents, then it is clear that such persons are claimed to be specialists in that branch. Since the Post-graduate degree in question is not recognized, petitioners are not entitled to display the same as a suffix. It is also clear from Regulation 7.20 that when such qualifications are added as suffix in the name boards or prescriptions or any other documents, then it is clear that such persons are claimed to be specialists in that branch. Even though petitioners have raised a contention that the Post graduate degree secured by them are not qualifications under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, they are entitled to display as of right, cannot be sustained, since petitioners themselves have a case that they have secured the Post-graduate medical qualification from the Annamalai University. It is also clear that Ext.P8 order was passed by the 1st respondent in accordance with the undertaking given by the petitioners that they will remove the qualification in question displayed, enabling the petitioners to practice medicine. Therefore, in my considered opinion, petitioners have not made out any case of arbitrariness, illegality or manifest injustice or unfairness on the part of the 1st respondent in passing the order directing the petitioners to remove the Post-graduate degree qualification in question displayed. Upshot of the above discussion is, writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.