JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Mrs. Gorantla Sri Ranga Pujitha, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. Devulapalli Brahmam, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 23.08.2017 in W.P. No.11819 of 2017 passed by learned Single Judge, the appellants preferred the present Intra-Court Appeal under Clause -15 of the Letters Patent. 3. Respondent No.1 has filed the aforesaid writ petition to declare the action of appellant No.1 herein - respondent No.2 therein in rejecting to issue eligibility certificate to his daughter - Ms. Janga Shirisha for Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) Course vide proceedings dated 26.12.2016, as illegal, and for a consequential direction to the appellants herein to issue eligibility certificate to his daughter for MBBS Degree for the purpose of attending Screening Test conducted by respondent No.3 herein. 4. Respondent No.1 herein contended that his daughter - Ms.Janga Shirisha was born on 04.03.2000. She attended her SSC final examinations in the month of March, 2014, though the minimum age required to complete 10 th Class was fifteen (15) years. Concerned authorities have permitted his daughter to attend SSC Examination though her age was less. On completion of her SCC, she joined Intermediate Course in Bi.P.C., and completed the said Course in March, 2016. Though she was less than required age for appearing Intermediate examinations, the authorities accorded permission for her to write Intermediate examination as well. 5. It is further contended that on completion of Intermediate examination, she took admission in MBBS Course at General Medicine Faculty of Astana Medical University (Kazakhstan) for the academic year 2016-17 Batch. She joined in the said Course and completed her first year course in the said University. She has submitted a representation on 13.10.2016 to the appellants seeking permission to join medical course on relaxing her age in terms of Section - 13 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (For short ‘Act, 1956’). She has also enclosed exemptions granted by the State Government permitting her to appear SSC and Intermediate Examinations though she is less than required age along with the said representation. On 26.12.2016, after her joining into medical course, the appellants herein issued impugned letter rejecting the request made by her for issuance of eligibility certificate on the ground that she was less than 17 years. 6. On 26.12.2016, after her joining into medical course, the appellants herein issued impugned letter rejecting the request made by her for issuance of eligibility certificate on the ground that she was less than 17 years. 6. Challenging the said proceedings, respondent No.1 filed the aforesaid writ petition contending that in similar circumstances vide order dated 22.08.2016 in W.P. No.36316 of 2015 this Court and a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Ankit Chaturvedi v. Union of India , 2014 LawSuit (All) 814 , though students were less than the required age of 17 years, directed the Medical Council of India (MCI) - appellant No.1 herein to issue eligibility certificate. 7. The appellants herein filed counter contending that the judgment in W.P. No.36316 of 2015 does not apply to the facts of the present case and the MCI Regulations are statutory in nature. The daughter of respondent No.1 herein is not eligible for issuance of eligibility certificate. Thus, the appellants sought to dismiss the said writ petition. 8. Vide impugned order dated 23.08.2017, learned Single Judge placing reliance on the order in W.P. No.36316 of 2015 directed MCI to issue eligibility certificate to the daughter of respondent No.1. Challenging the said order, MCI filed the present Intra-Court Appeal. 9. Mrs. Gorantla Sri Ranga Pujitha, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. Devulapalli Brahmam, learned counsel for respondent No.1 made their submissions extensively. 10. Mrs. Gorantla Sri Ranga Pujitha, learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Jishalakshi Embrandiri v. Medical Council of India , 2006 SCC OnLine Del. 1659 ii) Akshanjali Morya v. Union of India , 2013 SCC OnLine Raj 1698 iii) Ankit Chaturved 1 iv) Rithika Monika v. Union of India , W.P. No.12635 of 2024, decided on 03.05.2024 v) W.P. No.31337 of 2016 & batch, decided on 21.09.2016. vi) Tekula Samhitha Reddy v. Union of India , W.P.No.6265 & 7041 of 2017, decided on 13.07.2017 11. Whereas, Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in National Medical Commission v. Lottongbam Bimolchandra Singh , Civil Appeal No.1218-1219 of 2022, decided on 08.02.2022. 12. In the light of the aforesaid rival submissions, it is relevant to deal with the provisions of Act, 1956 and the Regulations made by it. 13. Whereas, Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in National Medical Commission v. Lottongbam Bimolchandra Singh , Civil Appeal No.1218-1219 of 2022, decided on 08.02.2022. 12. In the light of the aforesaid rival submissions, it is relevant to deal with the provisions of Act, 1956 and the Regulations made by it. 13. Section - 13 (4A) of the Act, 1956 envisages that a person who is a citizen of India and obtains medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any country outside India recognised for enrolment as medical practitioner in that country after such date as may be specified by the Central Government under sub-section (3), shall not be entitled to be enrolled on any Medical Register maintained by a State Medical Council or to have his name entered in the Indian Medical Register unless he qualified the screening test in India prescribed for such purpose and such foreign medical qualification after such person qualifies that said screening test shall be deemed to be the recognised medical qualification for the purposes of the Act for that person. 14. Section - 13 (4B) of the Act, 1956 envisages that a person who is a citizen of India shall not, after such date as may be specified by the Central Government under sub-section (3), be eligible to get admission to obtain medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any foreign country without obtaining an eligibility certificate issued to him by the Council and in case any such person obtains such qualification without obtaining such eligibility certificate, he shall not be eligible to appear in the screening test referred to in sub-section (4A). 15. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section - 33 of the Act, 1956, the Eligibility Requirement for Taking Admission in an Undergraduate Medical Course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2002 (for short Regulations, 2002’) were framed and were notified in the Gazette of India on 18.02.2002. 16. Regulation - 8 of the Regulations, 2002 requires that the Council to consider the application for eligibility certificate and verify the details mentioned in Clauses - (i) to (iii) therein as per the Regulations of the Council. Clause - (i) of the Regulation - 8 requires the Council to ascertain whether the candidate fulfills the age criterion prescribed by the Council. 17. Clause - (i) of the Regulation - 8 requires the Council to ascertain whether the candidate fulfills the age criterion prescribed by the Council. 17. Age criteria stipulated in Regulation - 4 of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997 is that candidate should complete 17 years of age on or before 31 st December of the year of admission into the MBBS Course. The said Regulations are statutory in nature. 18. The fixation of said age limit fell for consideration before a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Akshanjali Morya, 2013 SCC OnLine Raj 1698 Paragraph Nso.8 to 12 of the said judgment are relevant and the same are extracted as under: “8. Thus, a bare perusal of the Regulations extracted hereinabove would reveal that in fact, the age limit of 17 years has been fixed by an expert committee consisting of experts in the medical field and other related fields and we are afraid that the subject matter would, if at all, fall for consideration of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, within the ambit of judicial review. 9. By now it is well settled that it is not the function of the Courts to go into the question of prescription of age, unless, it seems to be so absurd and unreasonable that a man of ordinary prudence would not accept such a prescription. Even otherwise, the Courts are not equipped with any expertise to come to a conclusion as to what would be the proper age for a student to enter the M.B.B.S. Course. It is for the policy makers to consider the various factors which are relevant to the issue, before fixing the age limit for admission to the medical courses. 10. Further, there is a rationale behind the fixing of the date on which a candidate must attain the age of 17 years. It is intended to apply uniformly throughout the country. The Medical Council of India has chosen to fix the date as 31 st of December of the concerned year, in which a candidate is admitted to the M.B.B.S. Course. The qualifying examinations are conducted by the various Boards, Universities etc., at different points of time in a year. Similarly, the entrance examinations for the admission to M.B.B.S. Course are conducted on different dates. 11. The qualifying examinations are conducted by the various Boards, Universities etc., at different points of time in a year. Similarly, the entrance examinations for the admission to M.B.B.S. Course are conducted on different dates. 11. Moreover, the first year M.B.B.S. Course may commence at different points of time in a year. Therefore, with a view to have uniformity, the Medical Council has chosen 31 st of December of the examination, as the date on which the candidate should attain the age of 17 years, in the year in which the admission to the M.B.B.S. Course is made. In the existing pattern of education in the country, normally, a candidate passes the qualifying the examination at the age of 16 or 17 years of age. The Medical Council in its wisdom had come to the conclusion that, for proper understanding and comprehension of medical education, a candidate must possess certain level of maturity, which comes with age. The prescription of the minimum age is on account of studied deliberations made by the Medical Council and is a manifestation of an informed decision taken by the Medical Council in association with the Central Government, for prescribing the minimum standards and qualifications. The said decision has been taken in pursuance of the discussions, consultations and deliberations, made by an expert academic body and is made for the furtherance and maintenance of minimum standards for medical education. Therefore, such a regulation cannot be characterised as arbitrary. 12. It has also been submitted that though Section 33 of the Act of 1956 empowers the Medical Council of India to fix the standard of education, but prescription of minimum age by the Medical Council of India cannot be construed to be within the power. We fail to understand how and on what grounds, such powers can be ousted from the ambit of powers conferred by virtue Section 33 of the Act of 1956. Even if the candidate concerned had been permitted to write the 10 th standard and the plus two examinations by granting an exemption, with regard to the minimum required age of the candidate, it cannot be a good reason for the granting of such an exemption, in respect of the age limit fixed, under Condition Number (ii) of the Eligibility Criterion of the prospectus/admission form, issued by the third respondent, for the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. admissions, for the academic session 2013-2014. Except for the fact that Section 33 of the Act, 1956 empowers the Medical Council of India to fix the standard of education, no apparent arbitrariness, illegality, irrationality or unreasonableness, in the stipulation for minimum age of 17 years, which must have been attained by a candidate on or before 31 st December of the concerned year, is discernible to characterize the same as unconstitutional or ultra-vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the relief(s) sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is devoid of merits.” The Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court on examination of facts of the said case wherein the petitioner therein would not be completing 17 years of age, on or before 31.12.2013, she is not qualified to apply for the MBBS/BDS Courses, for the academic sessions 2013-14. Merely for the reason that the petitioner had been permitted to write the 10 th standard and the plus two examinations, it cannot be a ground for granting the exemption in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the age limit prescribed under condition No.(ii) of the Eligibility Criterion of the prospectus/admission form issued by the CBSE. Paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of the said judgment are also relevant and the same are extracted hereunder: “15. Wisdom is the quality of being wise or the capability of taking wise decisions. Wisdom is something which generally comes with experience and old age. An elderly person is supposed to be more wise and mature when it comes to taking decisions. People possessing a great sense of wisdom are sagacious people, who are skilled and experts when it comes to making and executing their plans and decisions. According to Moliere, “A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behaviour is patience and moderation.” Expecting someone young to have the capability of making wise and just decisions is quite foolhardy. Wisdom is a quality that comes with several experiences in life and is associated generally with people who have come off age. Wisdom tooth appears at the age of 18 in mature adults. Confucius, “By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.” 16. Wisdom tooth appears at the age of 18 in mature adults. Confucius, “By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.” 16. The purpose of the “Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997” is to ensure uniform standards for medical courses in view of the nature of the studies which are undertaken for such courses. The essential qualifications are even fixed for admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Courses by CBSE. The relevant provisions for eligibility for entrance examination to the M.B.B.S./B.D.S.- Courses as stipulated under condition Number (ii) of the Eligibility Criterion of the prospectus/admission form, issued by the third respondent, including others, is as follows: (ii) He/she has attained or will attain the age of seventeen (17) years as on 31st December of the year of the admission to the MBBS/BDS-Courses.” With the said findings, the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court declined to grant relief sought by the petitioner to grant eligibility certificate on the ground that she has not completed 17 years of age as on 31.12.2013. 19. In Ankit Chaturvedi , a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in paragraph Nos.10 and 12 held as under: “10. Undoubtedly, education is a constitutional right and constitutes an essential part of life. But this does not foreclose the statutory powers of an expert academic authority to prescribe reasonable conditions for the pursuit of education in areas over which it has been vested with jurisdiction by Parliament. The requirement that a candidate should have completed 17 years of age on the 31st day of December of the year in which admission is taken to the MBBS Degree Course is based on a rational foundation. 11. The matter can be looked at from two perspectives. The first perspective of the requirement is related to the age at which a candidate would be ordinarily expected to have completed the qualifying examination. The qualifying examination being higher secondary or Class-XII examination, ordinarily, a student would not have completed the examination before completing the age of 17. That proceeds on the basis that even if admission is taken at the age of five (though, in the present age, admission to primary classes is granted at the age of six), students would thereafter pursue 12 years of education. That proceeds on the basis that even if admission is taken at the age of five (though, in the present age, admission to primary classes is granted at the age of six), students would thereafter pursue 12 years of education. In other words, ordinarily speaking, the age requirement is so structured as to allow a student to have completed a full 12 years of study for the purpose of completing the higher secondary education.” 20. With the said observations and on examination of the facts of the said case, the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner therein seeking issuance of eligibility certificate on the ground that he has not completed 17 years of age as on the date of 31 st December of the said admission year. 21. It is apt to note that Ankit Chaturvedi filed SLP vide Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13843 of 2016 (arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05.02.2016 in S.A. No.248 of 2015) before the Apex Court. Vide order dated 31.07.2017, the Apex Court considering the fact that the petitioner therein has already passed the MBBS examination and also qualified in the Screening Test, granted relief sought by the petitioner and directed the MCI to register him as a Medical Practitioner. However, the Apex Court observed that the said order is passed keeping in view the special features of the case, and it has to be treated as an order passed under Article - 142 of the Constitution of India. 22. In Jishalakshi Embrandiri , learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 held as follows: 7. The challenge to the legality of the 17 year criteria has been rejected by the Division Bench in CWP No. 4353 of 2003 titled Mohit Kumar Arora v. University of Delhi by a detailed Judgment on 11th July, 2003. After discussing numerous precedents of the Apex Court as well as other High Courts the Division Bench had opined that the requirement of age, both minimum and maximum, is mandatory and not directory. In professional courses the authorities thought it proper to have proper maturity and understanding of the course by the candidate and have the requirement to prescribe the age and it is based on intelligible differentia. There is an objective to be achieved. In professional courses the authorities thought it proper to have proper maturity and understanding of the course by the candidate and have the requirement to prescribe the age and it is based on intelligible differentia. There is an objective to be achieved. The classification of 17 years is based on rational aspect. A Full Bench presided over by Chief Justice J.S. Verma (as the Learned Chief Justice of India then was) has, in similar vein, observed in Gautam Kapoor v. State of Rajasthan , AIR 1987 Rajasthan 174 that the minimum age of 17 years for entry into a Medical College cannot be called unreasonable or arbitrary. 8. Anxiety over possible stumbling blocks to the future of students aspiring to practice as Doctors in India after pursuing medical studies in foreign Universities has been assuaged in large measure by the requirement of obtaining an Eligibility Certificate prior to the commencement of studies abroad post 15.3.2002. The MCI would now be expected and empowered to issue these Certificates only if the applicant has (a) attained the age of seventeen years, (b) has passed 10+2 in the prescribed subjects with the required minimum percentage (50 per cent) and (c) intends to pursue studies in a foreign University which has been duly mentioned and recognized in the IMC Act. I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the prescription of 17 years had been introduced only in 1997 and is, therefore, not binding on persons who had commenced their studies prior thereto. Learned counsel for the MCI has filed Recommendations adopted by the MCI has filed Recommendations adopted by the MCI in February, 1971 onwards, and Regulations from October, 1978 onwards explicitly requiring that a candidate should have completed the age of 17 years at the time of admission or should have completed that age on or before 31st December of the year of his admission.” With the said findings, Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner therein seeking issuance of eligibility certification on the ground that he has not completed 17 years of age at the relevant point of time. 23. In W.P. No.31337 of 2016 & batch , a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh held as under: “3. 23. In W.P. No.31337 of 2016 & batch , a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh held as under: “3. It appears that Regulation 4 of Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, which prescribes the completion of 17 years of age as on the 31 st December of the calendar year, for admission to undergraduate medical courses came under challenge before a Division Bench of this Court in Master Alli Sai Deepak Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.17162 of 2009). The petitioner in the said case fell short only by two months and 23 days. As a matter of fact, the Government issued an order granting exemption to the petitioner therein. But this Court not only upheld Regulation 4 but also frowned upon the State Government for granting exemption. Therefore, the petitioners in these cases, are not entitled to the reliefs that they seek, in view of the said decision of another coordinate bench of this Court. It is true that in two or three cases on hand, the petitioners fall short by the required age, only by a few days. One of the petitioners has secured more than 982 marks out of 1000 and he has fallen short only by three days.” With the aforesaid observations, the Division Bench dismissed the aforesaid batch of writ petitions. 24. In Tekula Samhitha Reddy , another Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh reiterating the said principle also dismissed the writ petitions on the same ground. 25. In the order dated 22.08.2016 in W.P. No.36316 of 2015, the petitioner therein was born on 13.09.1992, he has submitted an application on 28.04.2010 seeking issuance of eligibility certificate, the same was rejected by the MCI vide order dated 10.09.2015. The petitioner therein filed writ petition challenging the said rejection proceedings. 26. Learned Single Judge relying on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Jishalakshi Embrandiri observed as follows: “The guidelines/ regulations are of the year 1997. During that period, the Mobile phones started coming to our country. The Internet and other advanced electrical gadgets were not in active force. We are moving towards e- courts, paperless courts and appreciating any of the citizen of this country, who does some out of the routine or anti-stream. During that period, the Mobile phones started coming to our country. The Internet and other advanced electrical gadgets were not in active force. We are moving towards e- courts, paperless courts and appreciating any of the citizen of this country, who does some out of the routine or anti-stream. Even in Sports, 16 years 17 years boys and girls are participating and bagging medals for their respective countries. In that case, we appreciate and celebrate that at such a younger age, he/she has attained this much of position. Now we are moving through the advancement and one to move with the supersonic speed. In such a situation, age of 17 years and that his eligibility certificate, I feel has no meaning.” With the said observations, learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh directed the MCI to issue eligibility certificate to the petitioner therein. 27. Learned Single Judge also observed as follows: “In view of the opinion rendered in this petition, I hereby suggest the Central Government and Medical Council of India to revisit the regulations and say good bye to minimum age i.e., 17 years, which is made compulsory before entering into MBBS course.” However, the MCI filed Intra Court Appeal challenging the aforesaid order vide W.A. No.989 of 2016. However, the said writ appeal was dismissed vide order dated 24.09.2024 holding that the issues raised in the said writ appeal shall remain open to be decided in an appropriate case. 28. In Rithika Monika v. Union of India , W.P. No.12635 of 2024, decided 03.05.2024 , the petitioner therein is less than 17 years of age, sought a direction to National Testing Agency, to enable her to submit online application and subsequently allow her to appear for NEET EXAM-2024 which is supposed to be held on 05.05.2024 and to set aside Clause - 5.1.1 of the Information Bulletin issued by the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (UG)-2024, which prescribes the minimum qualifying age for appearing in NEET (UG) accordingly. A Division Bench of this Court held that it is well settled in law that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in contravention of a statutory provision. A Division Bench of this Court held that it is well settled in law that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in contravention of a statutory provision. Regulation - 11 of the Regulations, 2023 framed in exercise of powers under Section - 57 of the Act, 2019 inter alia provides that a candidate has to complete 17 years of age as on 31 st January of the year when the examination has to be held. The validity of the aforesaid Regulation is not under challenge in the writ petition. The Division Bench also considered that validity of prescription for minimum age for the candidates appearing in the NEET Examination has already been upheld by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Master Akash Yadav Minor v. Union of India , 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4114 and a Division Bench of Madras High Court in National Testing Agency v. Minor SP. Shree Harini , 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 5077 The Division Bench also held that in the absence of challenge to Regulation 11 of the 2023 Regulations, it is not necessary for it to deal with the issue raised in the said writ petition elaborately. With the said findings, the Division Bench dismissed the said writ petition. 29. In Lottongbam Bimolchandra Singh , the student applied for eligibility certificate by way of misrepresentation with regard to his age. On notification the said misrepresentation, the MCI rejected the application submitted by him for grant of eligibility certificate. Challenging the said rejection, the student filed a writ petition, and the High Court allowed the said writ petition on the ground that the student would face hardship if the eligibility certificate is not issued.. The Apex Court held that the practice adopted by the father of the student in getting his son admitted in the medical course in a foreign University without an eligibility certificate is deprecated. Further, furnishing false information to the authorities for the purpose of issuance of eligibility certificate is an attempt to hoodwink the authorities. In view of the admission of the student being contrary to the regulations and in view of the false information given by the father of the student in the application filed for eligibility certificate, in the normal course, the Apex Court would have set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal filed by the National Medical Commission. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, taking into account the future of the student, who has completed his medical course in June, 2020 and that he was not responsible for whatever was done by his father, the Apex Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. However, the Apex Court imposed Rs.10.00 lakhs as costs on the father of the student therein. The Apex Court also directed the student to perform charitable service by working with the Government for a period of two (02) years after his successful completion of FMG Screening Test. 30. In view of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, the Regulations and the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the following are undisputed facts: (i) A person, who is Citizen of India and obtains medical qualification granted by any Medical Institution in any Country outside India recognized for enrolment as Medical Practitioner in that Country after such date, has to qualify in the Screening Test in India and after qualifying in the screening test, he/she shall be deemed to be the recognized medical qualification for the said purposes in terms of Section - 13(4A) of the Act, 1956. (ii) He has to obtain eligibility certificate issued by the MCI. (iii) He is not eligible to appear in the Screening Test in terms of Section - 13 (4B) of the Act, 1956. (iv) Regulations were issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section - 33 of the Act, 1956. (v) As per Regulation - 8 of the Regulations, 2002, MCI has to consider the application submitted by any person for eligibility certificate, verify the details mentioned therein and ascertain whether the candidate fulfills the age criterion prescribed by the Council. (vi) As per Regulation - 4 of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997, candidate should complete 17 years of age on or before 31 st December of the year of admission into the MBBS Course. In the present case, the daughter of respondent No.1 was born on 04.03.2000. She joined in Undergraduate Medical Course in Astana Medical University (Kazakhstan) for the year 2016-17 and batch. On 13.10.2016, respondent No.1 made an application on behalf of his daughter to MCI for grant of eligibility certificate. In the present case, the daughter of respondent No.1 was born on 04.03.2000. She joined in Undergraduate Medical Course in Astana Medical University (Kazakhstan) for the year 2016-17 and batch. On 13.10.2016, respondent No.1 made an application on behalf of his daughter to MCI for grant of eligibility certificate. Vide proceedings dated 26.12.2016, the MCI rejected the said request made by respondent No.1 on the ground that she has not completed 17 years of age. Challenging the said proceedings, respondent No.1 approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition. 31. Vide impugned order dated 23.08.2017 in W.P. No.11819 of 2017, learned Single Judge directed the MCI to issue eligibility certificate placing reliance on the order in W.P. No.36316 of 2015. 32. It is apt to note that vide order dated 22.08.2016 in W.P.No.36316 of 2015, learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, placing reliance on the order of the Delhi High Court in Jishalakshi Embrandiri and Ankit Chaturvedi directed the MCI to issue eligibility certificate. 33. Challenging the said order, the MCI preferred the present writ appeal. Vide order dated 09.11.2017 in W.A.M.P. No.3117 of 2017 in W.A. No.1637 of 2017, this Court suspended the impugned order. However, this Court made clear that if the daughter of respondent No.1 continues to pursue her Undergraduate Medical Course in Kazakhstan, it shall be at her risk and she shall not be entitled to claim equities when the writ appeal is finally heard. Even then, she pursued her MBBS Course at General Medicine Faculty of Astana Medical University (Kazakhstan). It is also apt to note that respondent No.1 herein has filed I.A. No.2 of 2025 in the present appeal seeking a direction to MCI to issue eligibility certificate within one week to attend the exam pending disposal of the writ appeal by modifying the stay granted in WAMP No.3117 of 2017 in the present appeal. Vide order dated 23.06.2025, this Court dismissed the said application. 34. Thus, this Court made it clear that the daughter of respondent No.1 cannot claim any equities and that she is pursuing the medical course in Kazakhstan at her own risk. Even then, she pursued her MBBS Course. In the light of the same, the contention of Mr. Vide order dated 23.06.2025, this Court dismissed the said application. 34. Thus, this Court made it clear that the daughter of respondent No.1 cannot claim any equities and that she is pursuing the medical course in Kazakhstan at her own risk. Even then, she pursued her MBBS Course. In the light of the same, the contention of Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that the daughter of respondent No.1 has completed medical course in 2021 itself and, therefore, the same may be considered and dismiss the present writ appeal filed by the MCI directing the MCI to issue eligibility certificate cannot be accepted. 35. Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned counsel, has also placed reliance on the order dated 22.08.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No.36316 of 2015, to contend that the MCI is showing discrimination. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to note that in the said order, learned Single Judge placed reliance on the order passed by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Ankit Chaturvedi and also the order passed by the Delhi High Court in Jishalakshi Embrandiri . 36. As discussed above, in Ankit Chaturvedi the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. It is also apt to note that Ankit Chaturvedi filed a Civil Miscellaneous W.P. No.50073 of 2014 challenging the rejection order issued by the MCI. Vide order dated 16.04.2015, learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court dismissed the said writ petition. Thereafter, he has filed another C.M.W.P. No.28261 of 2015 questioning the constitutional validity of the provisions contained in Regulation - 4 (1) of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 read with Regulation 8 of the eligibility Requirement for taking Admission in an Undergraduate Medical Course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2002. Vide order dated 05.02.2016, the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed the said writ petition. Vide order dated 05.02.2016, the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed the said writ petition. As against the said order, Ankit Chaturvedi filed SLP vide Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13843 of 2016, and the Apex Court considering the fact that Ankit Chaturvedi has already passed the MBBS examination, qualified in the Screening Test, as a special features of the case and in exercise of its power under Article - 142 of the Constitution of India granted relief to him. Learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court did not consider the said aspect in the order dated 22.08.2016 in W.P.No.36316 of 2015. 37. The suggestion made by learned Single Judge in the said order to the Central Government and the MCI to revisit the regulations and say good bye to minimum age i.e., 17 years, which is made compulsory before entering into MBBS Course, is also contrary to the Regulations. Learned Single Judge has no power to suggest the Central Government and MCI to revisit the regulations. With due respect, learned Single Judge has no power or suggest or Advisory jurisdiction, like the Apex Court under Article - 143 of the Constitution of India. Placing reliance on the said order dated 22.08.2016 in W.P. No.36316 of 2015, vide order dated 23.08.2017, learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court allowed W.P. No.11819 of 2017 directing the MCI to issue eligibility certificate. There is no consideration of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court, Rajasthan High Court, Allahabad High Court, Delhi High Court and this Court in the aforesaid cases. 38. It is also apt to note that the MCI preferred an appeal vide W.A. No.989 of 2016 challenging the order dated 22.08.2016 in W.P. No.36316 of 2015. Vide order dated 13.10.2016 in W.A.M.P. No.2222 of 2016 in W.A. No.989 of 2016, a Division Bench of this Court declined to interfere with the order dated 22.08.2016 in W.P. No.36316 of 2016, however, the issuance of eligibility certificate shall be subject to the result of the writ appeal. As against the said order, the MCI filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.31683 of 2016 and the same was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 11.11.2016. As against the said order, the MCI filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.31683 of 2016 and the same was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 11.11.2016. Later, the appeal was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 24.09.2024 holding that the issues raised in the said writ appeal shall remain open to be decided in an appropriate case. 39. The order of learned Single Judge of the Madrash High Court in D. Sasirekha v. The Assistant Secretary , W.P. No.27709 of 2018, decided on 13.03.2020 is also not on consideration of the aforesaid orders passed by the Apex Court. Therefore, respondent No.1 - writ petitioner cannot claim discrimination and equity. 40. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 also contended that the appellants herein obtained interim order dated 09.11.2017 in W.A.M.P. No.3117 of 2017 in W.A. No.1637 of 2017 by way of suppression of orders of Division Bench and the Apex Court in SLP. The said contention of learned counsel is also contrary to record and the aforesaid discussion. 41. As observed by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court that it is not the function of the Courts to go into the question of prescription of age, unless, it seems to be so absurd and unreasonable that a man of ordinary prudence would not accept such a prescription. Even otherwise, the Courts are not equipped with any expertise to come to a conclusion as to what would be the proper age for a student to enter the M.B.B.S. Course. It is for the policy makers to consider the various factors which are relevant to the issue, before fixing the age limit for admission to the medical courses. The said principle was also laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.31337 of 2016 & batch (decided on 21.09.2016) and Tekula Samhitha Reddy. 42. It is also relevant to note that the provisions of the Regulations fell for consideration before the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Gautam Kapoor v. State of Rajasthan , AIR 1987 Raj. 174 The issue before the said Court was whether the prescription of a minimum age limit of 17 years was unreasonable or arbitrary, with no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the provision. 174 The issue before the said Court was whether the prescription of a minimum age limit of 17 years was unreasonable or arbitrary, with no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the provision. The Full Bench held thus: “It cannot be doubted that a certain degree of maturity of body and mind is essential in a student joining the medical course and it is not unusual to reckon the same with reference to the age of the person. Undoubtedly there may be exception to the general rule, but a general rule is not to be based on exceptions. The Medical Council of India, which is constituted under the Medical Council Act, 1956 and is a body of experts in the field, is also required to prescribe the minimum standards of medical education. It is also empowered by the Act to make Regulations generally to carry out the purpose of the Act and particularly for the matters specified expressly in S. 33 of the Act. One of the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India in exercise of its statutory power is that the minimum age limit of 17 years at the time of entry into a Medical College should be prescribed. There is no dispute that this minimum age limit is being followed throughout the country and for a long time.” i) The Rajasthan High Court further that having due regard to the minimum age of a candidate, ordinarily, at the time of passing the qualifying examination, the age requirement specified by MCI was not unreasonable or arbitrary. ii) The same view was adopted in Akshanjali Morya . The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that prescribing a minimum age for admission was a matter of policy on which the Court would not interfere. It also further observed as under: “9. By now it is well settled that it is not the function of the Courts to go into the question of prescription of age, unless, it seems to be so absurd and unreasonable that a man of ordinary prudence would not accept such a prescription. Even otherwise, the Courts are not equipped with any expertise to come to a conclusion as to what would be the proper age for a student to enter the M.B.B.S. Course. Even otherwise, the Courts are not equipped with any expertise to come to a conclusion as to what would be the proper age for a student to enter the M.B.B.S. Course. It is for the policy makers to consider the various factors which are relevant to the issue, before fixing the age limit for admission to the medical courses.” iii) The Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court also further held that since qualifying examinations are conducted by various Boards and Universities at different points of time and entrance examinations for admission to the MBBS Course are conducted on different dates, MCI, with a view to ensure uniformity, had chosen 31 st December as a date on which a candidate should attain the age of 17 years with reference to the year in which admission to the MBBS Course is made. In that regard, the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court also observed thus: “In the existing pattern of education in the country, normally, a candidate passes the qualifying the examination at the age of 16 or 17 years of age. The Medical Council in its wisdom had come to the conclusion that, for proper understanding and comprehension of medical education, a candidate must possess certain level of maturity, which comes with age. The prescription of the minimum age is on account of studied deliberations made by the Medical Council and is a manifestation of an informed decision taken by the Medical Council in association with the Central Government, for prescribing the minimum standards and qualifications. The said decision has been taken in pursuance of the discussions, consultations and deliberations, made by an expert academic body and is made for the furtherance and maintenance of minimum standards for medical education. Therefore, such a regulation cannot be characterised as arbitrary.” 43. In Mohit Kumar Arora v. University of Delhi , Civil W.P.No.4353 of 2003, decided on 11.07.2003 , a Division Bench of Delhi High Court observing that such requirement was held to be based on a rational foundation held as under: “The requirement of age, both minimum and maximum, is mandatory and not directory. In professional courses the authorities thought it proper to have proper maturity and understanding of the course by the candidate and have the requirement to prescribe the age and it is based on intelligible differentia. There is an objective to be achieved. In professional courses the authorities thought it proper to have proper maturity and understanding of the course by the candidate and have the requirement to prescribe the age and it is based on intelligible differentia. There is an objective to be achieved. This classification of 17 years is based on rational aspect.” 44. The aforesaid view was also taken by a learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in U. Anveshini v. Convenor, EAMCET-2000 , 2001 (6) ALD 180 . 45. The decision of the Apex Court in Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya v. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2013) 15 SCC 677 involved a challenge to an amendment in the provisions of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1995. The following observations contained in paragraph No.23 of the decision have been emphasised in the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel: “…It is needless to state that education, a constitutional right, has been explained as an essential part in every one's life…” 46. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, in the present case, the daughter of respondent No.1 is seeking relaxation of age to pursue MBBS Course in Kazakhstan. Her contention is that she was permitted by concerned authorities to appear for SSC Examination and Intermediate Examination though she was below the required age. On the said grounds, she cannot seek relaxation of the age fixed by the MCI i.e., 17 years. She is pursuing MBBS Course. It is a professional Course. On consideration of the said aspects only, the MCI fixed the eligibility as 17 years as on 31 st December of the said admission year. Admittedly, the daughter of respondent No.1 does not possess such age as on 31 st December of the said academic year i.e., 2016-17. Respondent No.1 has submitted application on 13.10.2016 on behalf of his daughter to issue eligibility certificate. Therefore, as on 31.12.2016, she was 16 years, 9 months and 27 days. Thus, she is less than 17 years. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order dated 26.12.2016, the MCI rejected the request made by respondent No.1. The said regulations are statutory. Therefore, respondent No.1 cannot seek relaxation of the said age fixed by the MCI, an Expert Body. 47. Thus, she is less than 17 years. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order dated 26.12.2016, the MCI rejected the request made by respondent No.1. The said regulations are statutory. Therefore, respondent No.1 cannot seek relaxation of the said age fixed by the MCI, an Expert Body. 47. As discussed supra, despite interim suspension of the impugned order by a Division Bench and despite making it clear that the daughter of respondent No.1 cannot claim equities and that if she continues to pursue MBBS in Kazakhstan, it shall be at her own risk, she is claiming equities contending that she has completed MBBS Course. She cannot claim equities. 48. Without considering the said aspects and the principle laid down by the Apex Court, Division Benches of the aforesaid judgments, vide impugned order dated 23.08.2017, learned Single Judge allowed W.P. No.11819 of 2017 directing the MCI to issue eligibility certificate to the daughter of respondent No.1. As discussed above, learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition relying on the order dated 22.08.2016 in W.P. No.36316 of 2015, which is not on consideration of the aforesaid principle and provisions of the Act, 1956 and the Regulations. Thus, the impugned order dated 23.08.2017 in W.P. No.11819 of 2017 passed by learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. 49. The present Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.