JUDGMENT : S.Manu, J. First respondent in all these appeals joined Dubai Medical College for girls in September, 2014 for a medical degree course. She graduated in May, 2019. From 21.7.2019 to 19.9.2020 she underwent one year internship in various teaching hospitals in Dubai. She cleared licensing examination of the Dubai Health Authority and obtained registration as Medical Practitioner on 18.11.2020. In June, 2019 she cleared screening test as per Section 13(4A) of the Indian Medical Council Act. On 18.1.2020, she submitted application to State Medical Council, the appellant herein for provisional registration. By Ext.P11 the appellant directed the 1st respondent to file an affidavit stating inter alia that provisional registration will not be used for any purpose other than doing Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship (CRRI). First respondent submitted affidavit as demanded and obtained provisional registration. Thereafter, she filed W.P.(C)No.2992/2021 mainly for a declaration that she is entitled to permanent registration to practice medicine in the State and also for a direction to the appellant to grant permanent registration to her. She filed W.P.(C)No.12544/2021 for a direction to the appellant after submitting a representation seeking permission to undertake a medical course in a private hospital. W.P.(C)No.18825/2021 was filed by the 1st respondent challenging the decision of the appellant to insist for one year training in institutions approved by MCI for permanent registration. 2. The appellant resisted all the above mentioned writ petitions. The learned Single Judge heard the writ petitions together and by a common judgment dated 20.10.2021 disposed the cases directing the appellant to permit the 1st respondent to apply for permanent registration and to grant permanent registration without insisting her to undergo CRRI if the application is otherwise in order. Appellant, aggrieved by the common judgment dated 20.10.2021, has preferred W.A.No.260/2022 against the judgment in W.P.(C)No.2992/2021, W.A.No.261/2022 against the judgment in W.P.(C)No.18825/2021 and W.A.No.270/2022 against the judgment in W.P.(C)No.12544/2021. 3. The issue arising for consideration is regarding the decision dated 20.10.2017 by which the minutes of the meeting dated 04.08.2017 of the appellant Medical Council to insist for internship in India for all foreign medical graduates was approved. The appellant Council decided that from 1.1.2018 those persons who secured foreign degree can apply for permanent registration only after completing one year training in institutions approved by the MCI. It was further decided that the same is applicable to persons who had already completed training in that country. 4. The appellant Council decided that from 1.1.2018 those persons who secured foreign degree can apply for permanent registration only after completing one year training in institutions approved by the MCI. It was further decided that the same is applicable to persons who had already completed training in that country. 4. The above mentioned decision of the appellant Council led to several litigations. In W.P.(C)No.39576/2018 a learned Single Judge held that the intention behind the decision of the appellant Council is in public interest and there is no violation of any statutory provisions committed by the appellant Council in taking such a decision and issuing a consequential circular. The view taken by another learned Single Judge in the judgments impugned in these writ appeals is contrary to the view taken in W.P.(C)No.39576/2018. We note that this is a specific ground raised by the appellant to contend that the proper course ought to have been adopted by the learned Single Judge who rendered the impugned common judgment was to refer the matter for consideration by a Division Bench. The learned Single Judge who has rendered the impugned common judgment took note of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.39576/2018 and adopted a different view for reasons specifically stated in paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment. 5. We heard Sri.N.Reghuraj, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Sri.Santhosh Mathew, learned Senior Counsel for the party respondent as also the learned Standing Counsel for the National Medical Commission. We are of the view that elaborate discussions are not required to decide the question posed before us in these appeals. We only need to look into the legality and binding effect of the decision taken by the appellant Council. We, therefore, confine ourselves to this aspect. 6. At the relevant time erstwhile Medical Council of India was the apex body at the national level. The said Council was constituted under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Regulations framed by the Medical Council in exercise of its powers under the IMC Act were in force. We extract hereunder Regulation 11 of the relevant Regulation framed by the Medical Council:- "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. We extract hereunder Regulation 11 of the relevant Regulation framed by the Medical Council:- "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." 7. It is clear from the above provision that candidates who qualify the screening test may apply to the Medical Council of India or to any State Medical Council for provisional registration/permanent registration. The Medical Council of India or State Medical Council as the case may be, issue provisional registration to the candidates who are yet to undergo internship in an approved institution and issue permanent registration to such eligible candidates who have already undergone one year internship. This provision in fact conferred a right on those who had undergone one year internship to get permanent registration. The decision of the State Medical Council to insist for compulsory internship for all foreign medical graduates, irrespective of the fact that they might have underwent internship already for one year in the country where they studied, is in conflict with the above provision. It is indisputable that the Medical Council Act being a Central Act relatable to Entry 66 of List I of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution would prevail over any State enactments relatable to Entry 25 or 26 of List III of the VIIth Schedule. Hence, in case of a conflict between a Rule/Regulation of the Medical Council of India and that of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council (TCMC), the provision under the Indian Medical Council Act should prevail. In the case on hand, the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council had insisted that all foreign medical graduates should undergo CRRI for one year on the basis of a resolution adopted by it. In the case on hand, the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council had insisted that all foreign medical graduates should undergo CRRI for one year on the basis of a resolution adopted by it. No Regulation or Rule was framed for the said purpose. Competency of the TCMC, under the scheme of the Act, for taking such a decision or framing a Regulation/Rule governing internship is also doubtful. We are therefore of the firm view that the resolution of the TCMC was in conflict with the Regulation of the MCI and for this reason alone the resolution and circular issued are liable to be held as arbitrary and illegal. The learned Single Judge has given elaborate reasons for reaching the same conclusion with reference to various provisions of the relevant laws and regulations. We fully concur with the findings of the learned Single Judge in this regard. 8. With regard to the State specific reasons stated by the TCMC for introducing CRRI we observe that permitting State Councils to impose various conditions for registration for such reasons, in addition to the comprehensive conditions insisted by the apex body constituted by the Central Act is not in the interest of maintaining uniformity in the case of medical education and registration of professionals in the country. The very purpose of having a central legislation on the subject and constituting an apex body at the national level is to ensure uniformity. Regional deviations in such matters without any authority of law are not to be countenanced. 9. The writ petitioner joined the medical course without obtaining eligibility certificate. However, she obtained the certificate while undergoing the course. In fact, the consequence of failure to obtain eligibility certificate under the provisions of the Act is ineligibility to appear for the screening test. Nevertheless, she was permitted to appear for the screening test in terms of Section 13(4A) of the IMC Act and she successfully passed the same. Under such circumstances, we do not think that it was within the realm of the TCMC to refuse registration for the reason that the writ petitioner joined for graduate education without obtaining the eligibility certificate. Though there was no strict compliance by the writ petitioner, fact remains that she was eligible to undergo the medical course and eligibility certificate was issued to her while she was undergoing studies. Though there was no strict compliance by the writ petitioner, fact remains that she was eligible to undergo the medical course and eligibility certificate was issued to her while she was undergoing studies. The non-compliance in this regard must be deemed to have been condoned by permitting her to appear for the screening test. Contention of the appellant that she appeared for the screening test before completing the course is also not tenable. 10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the common judgment impugned in these writ appeals needs no interference. The contrary view taken by another learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.39576/2018 was without reference to the effect of the provisions of Section 13(4A) of the IMC Act and also Regulation 11 we extracted above. Hence, we do not find that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in not following the said judgment while rendering the impugned common judgment. Therefore, we dismiss these intra-court appeals by affirming the impugned common judgment.