ORDER : The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 1 st respondent in Reference No.TNMC/T/534/2021, dated 25.02.2022, cancelling the registration of the petitioner in respect of her MD (Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation) Degree and its decision to surrender her MD (PMR) registration certificate immediately. 2. The petitioner is a qualified MBBS Doctor. She acquired PG Diploma in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (DPMR) in the year 2005. The petitioner got selected to the Government Service through TNPSC in the year 2005 and joined service as Assistant Professor in the year 2006 in Madras Medical College. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to Dharmapuri and then to Salem Medical College. In the year 2017, she was promoted as Associate Professor and now working as as Associate Professor in Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that PG Decree (MD) in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation course was started only in the year 2014 and the first batch was passed out in the year 2017. Prior to the year 2017, the Speciality Course for the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation was only the PG Diploma Course (D.P.M.R). Initially, the course was three years and by virtue of amendment in the year 1992, the duration of the course was reduced to two years. 4. In the year 2010, it was proposed to start PG Course (MD) in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation but the same was not started due to lack of qualified faculty. As per the MCI regulation, the minimum qualification for teaching faculty is PG Degree in the same speciality and discipline. In the year 2011, the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as 'MCI' for brevity) granted one time relaxation for faculty members to engage themselves in teaching the student studying MD (PMR). As per the letter of MCI in Ref. No.MCI-12(1)(EC)/2010-Med.Misc./61610, dated 03.02.2011, the following was clarified as qualification for teaching faculty engaged in taking classes for PG students pursuing MD (PMR). “(1) PG Diploma in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation with 3 years Diploma after spending one additional year in MCI recognized institute in the same discipline shall be considered equivalent to MD for the teaching purposes only. and (2) Person who has 2 years diploma after spending two additional years in MCI recognized institution in the same discipline shall be considered equivalent to MD for the teaching purposes only.” 5. and (2) Person who has 2 years diploma after spending two additional years in MCI recognized institution in the same discipline shall be considered equivalent to MD for the teaching purposes only.” 5. Thereafter, as one time measure, the 2 nd respondent/University conducted a MD Course for qualified persons having PG Diploma in PMR. The syllabus for special MD course was the same as the one for the regular PG Course. In the year 2011, the special exam was conducted for the candidates holding three years PG Diploma in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation after spending one additional year in MCI recognised institute in the same discipline. It is stated that 26 candidates out of 29 candidates, who sat for the examination came out successful. In the year 2012, special exam was conducted for persons holding 2 years PG Diploma in PMR after spending two years in the MCI recognised institution in the same discipline. It is further stated that 7 candidates out of 9 persons participated in the examination came out successful. The petitioner participated in the examination conducted in the year 2012 and passed all the exams. Hence, the petitioner was issued with Decree Certificate by the 2 nd respondent/University. The petitioner registered her additional qualification MD (Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation) before the 1 st respondent and Additional Qualification Registration Certificate was also issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner started using suffix MD (PMR) with her name from the year 2012. In the year 2017, as per the G.O.Ms.No.891, dated 19.04.2017, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor. The said order was challenged by the 5 th respondent herein in W.P.No.12338 of 2017 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.02.2024. 6. In the meantime, the petitioner received a show cause notice from the Tamil Nadu Medical Council on 20.07.2021 regarding display of additional qualification by the petitioner. Thereafter, a reply was submitted by the petitioner on 22.08.2021. Thereafter, a notice was issued directing the petitioner to appear before the Disciplinary Committee of the 1 st respondent and the petitioner appeared before the Committee and submitted her examination and documents. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the impugned order was passed by the 1 st respondent cancelling the registration of the petitioner with regard to the additional qualification MD (PMR) and the petitioner was directed to surrender additional registration certificate. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the impugned order was passed by the 1 st respondent cancelling the registration of the petitioner with regard to the additional qualification MD (PMR) and the petitioner was directed to surrender additional registration certificate. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner try to assail the impugned order on the ground that the 1 st respondent has no authority to decide about the validity of the Degree awarded by the Recognised University. The learned counsel further submitted that the special course was commenced to create eligible school of teaching faculty to teach the students studying newly introduced course of MD (PMR) based on the MCI regulations and the special course is equivalent regular MD PMR. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the 1 st respondent is not the authority to decide the validity or equivalence of the degree and hence, the impugned order passed by the 1 st respondent cancelling the registration is untenable in law. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent by taking this Court to the clarification letter issued by MCI dated 03.02.2011 submitted that persons holding 3 years PG Diploma in PMR with one year experience in MCI recognised institutions or persons holding two years PG Diploma in PMR with two years experience in MCI recognised institutions in the same discipline shall be considered equivalent to the holder of MD PMR only for the purpose of teaching and hence, the qualification cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of clinical practice. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the 1 st respondent passed impugned order directing the registration for additional qualification in MD (PMR). 9. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent/University submitted that though University conducted special examination for awarding MD Degree PMR in view of the clarification issued by MCI, the 2 nd respondent/University withheld the Degree Certificates. The representation submitted by the petitioner and similarly placed persons seeking issuance of Degree Certificates was negatived by relying on the clarification of MCI. 10. The representation submitted by the petitioner and similarly placed persons seeking issuance of Degree Certificates was negatived by relying on the clarification of MCI. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent by relying on the clarification issued by MCI submitted that the petitioner cannot be treated as a holder of regular PG Degree in PMR and hence, the 1 st respondent was justified in cancelling the registration for additional qualification in MD (PMR). 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not undergone regular Post Graduate MD course in PMR, which was started by the 2 nd respondent/University only in the year 2011. As per the averment contained in the affidavit, the petitioner acquired PG Diploma in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation in the year 2005. When Government decided to start MD (PMR), there was no qualified candidate possessing MD (PMR) Degree to get themselves appointed as faculty members. Therefore, in order to overcome the difficulty of dearth of qualified faculties, MCI issued certain clarifications in Letter dated 03.02.2011 cited supra, the same reads as follows:- “The members of the Equivalence Committee considered the matter with regard to inclusion of the Diploma in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation qualification as one of the prescribed qualification for the various faculty posts in the department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. The Committee appreciates that the discipline of physical medicine and rehabilitation is available at very few places and is fast expanding. Country needs human resource in this particular discipline. It is required that to meet the deficiency of faculty with currently prescribed qualification (MD), some time bound relaxation needs to be offered. The Country has several institutions where diploma in physical medicine and rehabilitation is offered. However, diploma and MD Degree cannot be considered equivalent as they differ in requirements such as (a) thesis b) teaching c) difference in the structured syllabus etc. Committee therefore recommends the following:- 1. Person with 3 years diploma after spending one additional year in MCI recognized institution in the same discipline shall be considered equivalent to MD for the teaching purposes only. 2. Person who has 2 years diploma after spending two additional years in MCI recognized institution in the same discipline shall be considered equivalent to MD for the teaching purposes only. Person with 3 years diploma after spending one additional year in MCI recognized institution in the same discipline shall be considered equivalent to MD for the teaching purposes only. 2. Person who has 2 years diploma after spending two additional years in MCI recognized institution in the same discipline shall be considered equivalent to MD for the teaching purposes only. Initially, the person with 3 years diploma in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation and one years experience will be appointed as Sr.Resident. The person with 2 years diploma in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation and two years experience will be appointed as Sr. Resident. After serving 3 years Sr. Residency such person will be eligible for the post of Assistant Professor. For further promotions to the respective posts, the standard channel as outlined earlier will apply.” 12. A reading of the clarification issued by the MCI would make it clear that the persons holding PG Diploma in PMR (either 3 years or 2 years) with necessary years of experience in MCI recognised institution in the same discipline shall be considered equivalent to possessing MD qualification in PMR only for the purpose of teaching. The words teaching purposes only “used in the clarification letter make it clear that the said qualification cannot be considered for the purpose of clinical practice”. 13. In the case on hand, the 2 nd respondent/University after appointing the petitioner to faculty position to teach the subjects in MD (PMR) based on the clarificatory letter issued by MCI, decided to conduct special examination and award MD (PMR) Degree. It is also stated that the petitioner sat for examination and came out successful. However, in view of the clarification issued by the MCI, the 2 nd respondent/University refused to issue degree certificate to the petitioner for MD (PMR) based on the successful completion of special test. Infact, the order passed by the 2 nd respondent/University rejecting the request of the petitioner to issue Master Degree Certificate was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.2425 of 2021 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 16.04.2024. The relevant observation of this Court reads as follows:- “4. ... ... ... ... Therefore, the Tamilnadu Medical Council by its communication dated 25.02.2022 cancelled the erroneous registration of her additional qualification of MD(PMR) and directed to surrender the registration certificate. The relevant observation of this Court reads as follows:- “4. ... ... ... ... Therefore, the Tamilnadu Medical Council by its communication dated 25.02.2022 cancelled the erroneous registration of her additional qualification of MD(PMR) and directed to surrender the registration certificate. Further, without undergoing any such regular recognised course of MD(PMR), the petitioner cannot claim such degree certificate by merely applying for the exam. Admittedly, the petitioners had undergone only post graduate diploma course and they appeared for the examination conducted by respondents 1 and 2. The said examination was not recognised by the Medical Council.” 14. Therefore, it is clear that the special examination conducted by the 2 nd respondent/University for awarding MD (PMR) for the students, who have not undergone regular MD (PMR) course, but acquired PG Diploma in PMR with necessary experience was not recognised by the MCI and for the said reason, the request of the petitioner for issuance of MD (PMR) Degree Certificate was rejected by the 2 nd respondent/University and the said order was confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition filed by the petitioner cited supra. The said issue cannot be reagitated by the petitioner. 15. The clarificatory letter issued by MCI extracted above make it clear that the diploma in PMR with necessary experience in MCI recognised institute shall be treated as equivalent to possession of MD PMR only for the purpose of teaching and not for clinical practice. By taking into consideration the clarificatory letter issued by MCI, the 1 st respondent rightly came to the conclusion that the qualification acquired by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of clinical practice and consequently, the impugned order was passed cancelling the additional registration for MD (PMR). I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the 1 st respondent. 16. A reading of the same would indicate that a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted her reply, explaining qualification possessed by her and the same was rejected by the 1 st respondent by relying on the clarification issued by MCI. The 1 st respondent also had taken into consideration, the special examination conducted by 2 nd respondent/University was not recognised by MCI and therefore, the impugned order was passed after giving opportunity to the petitioner to purforth her case and there is no violation of natural justice principle. The 1 st respondent also had taken into consideration, the special examination conducted by 2 nd respondent/University was not recognised by MCI and therefore, the impugned order was passed after giving opportunity to the petitioner to purforth her case and there is no violation of natural justice principle. Accordingly, I do not find anything to interfere with the order passed by the 1 st respondent. 17. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, a writ petition in W.P.No.12060 of 2017 filed by the 5 th respondent herein questioning promotion of the petitioner to Associate Professor post based on the existing qualification is pending. Any observation made in this writ petition will not affect the right of the petitioner or 5 th respondent in agitating their respective case in W.P.No.12060 of 2017 , wherein the entitlement of the petitioner for promotion is under dispute. 18. With this clarification, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.