1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI **** WRIT PETITION NO: 22690 of 2024 Between: 1. DR PEDAMALLU BABU SRINIVAS, S/O ANJANEYULU, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC-DOCTOR, R/O FLAT 103, RAKESH GRAND, VIDYANAGAR 1ST LANE, GUNTUR-522007, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NIRMAN BHAWAN, MOTILAL NEHRU MARG AREA, NEW DELHI-110 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION, POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 3. ETHICS AND MEDICAL REGISTRATION BOARD, NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ...RESPONDENTS DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 02.03.2026 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes / No 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes / No 3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes / No ________________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J 2 * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD + WRIT PETITION NO: 22690 OF 2024 % 02.03.2026 1. DR PEDAMALLU BABU SRINIVAS, S/O ANJANEYULU, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC-DOCTOR, R/O FLAT 103, RAKESH GRAND, VIDYANAGAR 1ST LANE, GUNTUR-522007, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NIRMAN BHAWAN, MOTILAL NEHRU MARG AREA, NEW DELHI-110 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION, POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 3. ETHICS AND MEDICAL REGISTRATION BOARD, NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ...RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for Petitioner/s : Party-in-Person ^ Counsel for Respondent/s : Sri S.Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1) (2008) 3 SCC 432 2) (2024) 8 SCC 309 3) (1924) 1 KB 171 (CA) 3 Judgment reserved on 17.11.2025 Judgment pronounced on 02.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on 11.03.2026 APHC010429822024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 22690 OF 2024 Between: 1. DR PEDAMALLU BABU SRINIVAS, S/O ANJANEYULU, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC-DOCTOR, R/O FLAT 103, RAKESH GRAND, VIDYANAGAR 1ST LANE, GUNTUR-522007, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NIRMAN BHAWAN, MOTILAL NEHRU MARG AREA, NEW DELHI-110 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION, POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 3. ETHICS AND MEDICAL REGISTRATION BOARD, NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PARTY-IN-PERSON 4 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S 2. ALEKHYA TADASINA(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Dr. Pedamallu Babu Srinivas, Party-in-Person (Writ Petitioner) and Sri S.Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. 2. The Prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under: “For the reasons stated above, It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ. Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 and No.3 rejecting my application for additional qualifications registration of FRCS in General Surgery Degree (Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh) and FRCS in General Surgery Degree (Royal College of Surgeons of England) on the grounds that my name is not entered in the UK GMC Specialist register which is a totally unfair requirement to practice in Republic of India, where as other doctors with lower degree (MRCS) were registered (Dr.D.MuthuKumaran vs Government of Tamil Nadu and ORS, W.P.No.17882 of 2013) under the same IMC Act and 2008 notification without specialist register entry requirement and rejection of registration of my M.S Oncoplastic Breast Surgery degree, European board surgical qualification in Breast Surgery, European Board certification in Breast Surgical oncology degrees on grounds of not stated in IMC Act & not covered under 2008 notification, as arbitrary and contrary to the well established legal principles, apart from being violative of fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to register my FRCS in General Surgery Degree (Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh), FRCS in General Surgery Degree (Royal College of Surgeons of England), M.S Oncoplastic Breast Surgery degree, European board 5 surgical qualification in Breast Surgery, European Board certification In Breast Surgical oncology degrees as Additional Qualifications, also allow new application for registration of my MRCS in General Surgery Degree (Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh) and refund any excess money paid towards registration fee in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. Although, the extract of the above „prayer‟ would indicate that the Writ Petitioner has sought registration of all the qualifications/certificates mentioned in the prayer, during the course of the submissions, the Party-in- Person (Writ Petitioner) has confined his prayer only with respect to the one qualification i.e., FRCS General Surgery qualification acquired by him at the Royal College of Surgeons of England. At the outset 4. The Writ Petitioner has relied on a Judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in Dr. D. Muthu Kumaran vs Government of Tamil Nadu and ORS: (in W.P.No.17882 of 2013 dated 30.08.2019) in support of his contention. He would submit that the lower degree called the MRCS was recognized by the Official Respondents. This Court, after having perused the ratio in Dr.D.Muthu Kumaran‟s case, would hold that the intent of the Writ Petitioner herein to take support of the decision in Dr.D.Muthu Kumaran‟s case is misplaced inasmuch as the ratio in the said case would indicate clearly that MRCS acquired by Dr. D. Muthu Kumaran has not been recognized in India as post-graduate qualification. Finding of the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras at Para-34 is as under : “34. This Court is of the view that the MRCS degree from Royal College of Surgeon, Edinburgh, which the petitioner holds is not equivalent to a M.S. Degree given by an institute which is recognized by the Medical Council of India” 6 FACTS: 5. The facts as projected by the Writ Petitioner/Party-in-Person are that the Writ Petitioner has completed his MBBS Degree in Guntur Medical College in the year 1998; that the Writ Petitioner has completed Master of Surgery (MS-Ophthalmology) from Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada in 2003; that thereafter, the Writ Petitioner had pursued several other medical courses in United Kingdom and other parts of the Europe; that the Writ Petitioner seeks to register those Degrees/Qualifications acquired by him in England and Edinburgh and also in other parts of Europe with the Medical Council of India/National Medical Commission; that the Writ Petitioner had made an Application to the National Medical Commission (Respondent No.2) on 24.11.2020 (Ex.P7) for registration of his Degrees/Qualifications (FRCS-England, FRCS-Edinburgh, MS Oncoplastic Breast Surgery, European Board Surgical qualification in Breast Surgery, European Board Certification in Breast Surgical Oncology degrees); and that vide e-mail proceeding dated 01.02.2021 the National Medical Commission had rejected the Application of the Writ Petitioner (Ex.P.9) which is now under challenge. Therefore, the proceeding, which is impugned herein, is usefully extracted hereunder: “Dear Applicant, we regret to inform you that we are rejecting your application, as reason is mentioned below:- With reference to your PG degree I) FRCS in General Surgery Degree (Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh), II) FRCS in General Surgery Degree (Royal College of Surgeons of England), These qualifications, were a recognized qualification when granted on or before 11/11/1978 you have acquired this qualification in 2019. Since 2008 (07/03/2008) the PG qualification awarded in UK must be recognized for enrollment as medic practitioner in the concerned specialties in "UK". But your name 7 does not appear on the GMC Specialist register & hence does not fulfill the notification III) With reference III) MS Oncoplastic Breast Surgery degree, this is not a recognized qualification in schedule of IMC act & also not in specialist register of GMC UK. With reference to (IV) European board surgical qualification in Breast Surgery. (V) European Board certification in Breast Surgical oncology degrees, these are not recognized qualification in the Schedule of IMC Act & not covered by the notification Thank you” (emphasis supplied) 6A. The Writ Petitioner/Party-in-Person had further submitted that he had preferred an Appeal to the Appellate Authority on 10.02.2021; and had also addressed a Complaint to the Hon‟ble Prime Minister on 08.06.2021 due to the non-response from the Appellate Authority; that vide Order dated 11.12.2021, the Appeal preferred by the Writ Petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Authority and the same was finally communicated to the Writ Petitioner. As the so called Rejection Order allegedly passed by the Appellate Authority is not on record, this Court had enquired with both the parties. In response, Respondent No.2 filed Clarification Affidavit dated 14.11.2025 to the effect: “9. It is respectfully…………………………………. ……………………………………….the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 does not contemplate or provide any statutory remedy of appeal against the rejection of applications for registration of additional medical qualifications, Respondent No.2 rightly declined to entertain or act upon the said appeal, the same being not maintainable under law.” 6B. In response to the Clarification Affidavit, the Party-in-Person filed his Response on 15.11.2025 contending that the Writ Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Respondent No.2 on 10.02.2021 through e-mail and the 8 said Appeal is clearly addressed to the Appellate Authority to the given e-mail in the Appeals Section and that the Respondent No.2 did not reject the Appeal of the Writ Petitioner at that stage on the ground of non-maintainability. Gross Delay & Laches: 7. The Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.2 raised the issue of maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that filing of the Writ Petition is hit by delay and laches. While the Impugned Order was passed by the National Medical Commission on 01.02.2021 rejecting the Application of the Writ Petitioner, the Writ Petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition only on 27.09.2024 i.e., with a gross delay and laches of more than 3 ½ years. In Para No.28 of the Affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, the Writ Petitioner has stated that he had joined the three years LL.B Degree Course at KL University on 13.09.2021 to acquire legal knowledge to plead his own case as Party-in-Person and that his LL.B Degree was conferred in May-2024. But after conclusion of the arguments, the Writ Petitioner filed Additional Affidavit to justify the delay and laches on other grounds which were not initially stated. 8. In these circumstances, this Court would be required to consider whether pursuing of LL.B Degree for arguing his own case can be a reason for approaching this Court so belatedly thereby resulting in the present Writ Petition hopelessly being hit by delay and laches? This would be examined by this Court at a later stage. However, this conduct of the Writ Petitioner itself would indicate that the Writ Petitioner has showed „no hurry‟ to get his grievance redressed at the earliest so that he could commence his practice as Doctor/Surgeon with additional medical qualifications, as the case may be. 9 SUBMISSION OF THE WRIT PETITIONER (PARTY-IN-PERSON): 9. The Party-in-Person (the Petitioner), during the course of his submissions, has raised several issues. The Party-in-Person has submitted that he has acquired the following qualifications (in chronology): (i) 05.10.2007 : MRCS in General Surgery Degree from Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. (ii) 12.10.2015 : European Board Surgical Qualification in Breast Surgery Degree from European Union of Medical Specialists, European Board of Surgery. (iii) 19.07.2018 : MS in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Degree from East Anglia University, U.K. (iv) 13.03.2019 : FRCS in General Surgery Degree from Royal College of Surgeons of England. (v) 11.10.2019 : FRCS in General Surgery Degree from Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. (vi) 24.11.2020 : European Certification in Breast Surgical Oncology Degree from European Union of Medical Specialists, European Board of Surgery. 10. The Party-in-Person has also filed list of medical qualifications recognized for registration in India which were introduced by making amendments to Part-II of Schedule-III of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Act 102 of 1956) on 10.03.2008. The Impugned Proceeding of the National medical Commission (Respondent No.2) dated 01.02.2021 (Ex.P.9) would indicate that the name of the Writ Petitioner does not appear in the Specialty Medical Practitioners Register of the General Medical Council of United Kingdom (GMC) as a „registered specialist‟ and therefore the same does not satisfy the requirement in the Gazette Notification dated 10.03.2008. 10 11. The Party-in-Person would submit that he has acquired the qualification of FRCS in General Surgery, England by successfully completing the examination conducted by the Intercollegiate Board in the specialty of General Surgery on 13.03.2019. The Party-in-Person has taken this Court through various documents including the acceptable Post Graduate qualifications issued by the General Medical Council of United Kingdom. He has taken this Court through the Reply received by the Party- in-Person from the General Medical Council of United Kingdom (GMC) dated 20.11.2020 (Ex.P.14) for a query posed by him, which states that: “RE: Locum consultant after passing JCIE FRCS General Surgery Yahoo Mail/Inbox Nov 20, 2020 at 9:06 PM gmc@gmc-uk.org To: phs6vas@yahoo.com Your GMC reference number: 6066998 Dear Dr. Pedmallu Thank you for your email, Typically for locum or private consultant work, a doctor would only need full registration and a license to practice as well as the experience. This would be at the employers discretion. Specialist registration is usually required when signing an honorary, fixed-term, substantive contract with the NHS to work as a consultant. I’d advise you to discuss with your employer whether they require you to hold specialist registration for your locum post. If you would like to discuss this further, please call us using the number below or reply to this email. Yours sincerely Prianka Lalli Senior Registration Consultant Registration and Revalidation Directorate Telephone : 0161 923 6602 (+44 161 923 6602 from outside the UK) Website: www.gmc-uk.org” 11 12. The Party-in-Person would, therefore, submit that specialist registration is required only if the qualified Doctor/Surgeon is signing an honorary, fixed-term or substantive contract with the employer. He would also submit that for locum consultants, a full Registration and license to practice is required and specialist registration is not required. He has also taken this Court through the Proceeding issued by the General Medical Council of United Kingdom (GMC) which indicates that the Writ Petitioner has full registration with a license to practice from 16.11.2009 (Ex.P.15). 13. The Party-in-Person has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Reply given by the Hon‟ble Minister in the Rajya Sabha on 09.08.2016 (filed as additional documents), wherein, the Hon‟ble Minister has answered a query “whether it is a fact that Government is permitting the doctors, who have pursued their PG only from certain countries to practice?” For this, the Hon‟ble Minister has answered to the effect that: “(a) to (c): It is submitted that …………..………… …………………Further, as per the Notification dated 07.03.2008 issued by this Ministry, all Post Graduate medical qualifications awarded in US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are recognized for enrollment as medical practitioners in the specialty concerned in that country have also been included in Part-2 of the Schedule-III to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.” SUBMISSIONS OF MCI/NMC (Respondent No.2): 14. The National Medical Commission, represented by Sri S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, Ld. Standing Counsel has filed Counter-Affidavit on behalf of the National Medical Commission on 07.01.2025. At the outset, he had submitted that the Writ Petition is hit by delay and laches because the Writ Petition is filed in September, 2024 with a delay of more than 3 ½ years from the date of the Impugned Order which is passed on 01.02.2021. He would submit that the Writ Petitioner has not fulfilled the required criteria for the purpose of recognition of his Degrees/Certificates in accordance with the 12 Notification dated 07.03.2008 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India (hereinafter referred to as „Notification dated 07.03.2008‟). The Official Gazette dated 10.03.2008 has been issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare exercising its powers under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The „Annexure‟ to the Gazette Notification dated 10.03.2008 relating to the medical qualifications awarded in United Kingdom reads as under: “All post graduate medical qualifications awarded in United Kingdom and recognized for enrolment as medical practitioners in the concerned specialties in that country.” (emphasis supplied) 15. Sri Vivek Chandra Sekhar, Ld. Counsel representing the National Medical Commission (Respondent No.2) has taken this Court through Part-II of Schedule-III of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 which recognizes the FRCS conferred by the Royal College of Surgeons, England. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the acceptable Post Graduate qualifications issued by the General Medical Council, United Kingdom (Ex.P.12) and would submit that insofar as the FRCS qualifications conferred by the Royal College of Surgeons of England, and the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, such qualifications would be conferred by the respective institutions after passing in an examination. He would submit that insofar as the qualification of the Writ Petitioner herein with regard to the FRCS acquired from Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh is concerned, the Certificate produced by the Writ Petitioner does not reflect that such qualification has been conferred on the Writ Petitioner after passing in an examination (Ex.P.2). On perusal by this Court, it is noticed that the qualification has been conferred: “in token of his experience and qualifications”. This Court has also perused the FRCS qualification conferred by the Royal College of Surgeons of England which indicates that the same is conferred “following successful completion of the examination conducted 13 by the Intercollegiate Board in the specialty of General Surgery’(Ex.P.1). Ld. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Gazette of India Publication dated 10.03.2008 regarding the Notification dated 07.03.2008 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare thereby amending Part–II of Schedule III of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. ANALYSIS: 16A. This Court was compelled to list the matter for clarifications on several dates. During the course of hearing in November-2025, the Writ Petitioner has stated that he is confining his prayer limiting to the registration of FRCS in General Surgery Degree acquired by him from Royal College of Surgeons, England. To this effect, the Writ Petitioner has filed an Affidavit on 15.11.2025. In Para-IV of the Affidavit, the Writ Petitioner has limited his prayer to the following: “directing the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 to register my FRCS in General Surgery Degree (Royal College of Surgeons, England) within four weeks from the date of Hon’ble Court Order”. 16B. In view of the above submission of the Writ Petitioner confining the inquiry only in respect of his qualification FRCS England, this Court would henceforth deal with the same. (i) Gross Delay and Laches : 17. The facts in this case would indicate that the Impugned Order (Ex.P.9) was passed by the Official Respondent way back on 01.02.2021, while the Writ Petitioner approached this Court in the month of September, 2024. It is noticed earlier in this Order that the Writ Petitioner has explained the delay in approaching this Court in Para No.28 of the Affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, which is usefully extracted hereunder : “I respectfully submit that I joined 3 years LLB course at KL University, Vaddeswaram, Guntur on 13.09.2021 to acquire 14 legal knowledge to plead my own case as party-in- person and my LLB degree was conferred in May, 2024”. (emphasis supplied) 18. While the Writ Petitioner is essentially a Medical Doctor/Surgeon who is trying to get the additional qualifications acquired by him (FRCS in England) registered with the National Medical Commission (Respondent No.2), the Court would reasonably assume that, if the additional medical qualification acquired by the Writ Petitioner in England is registered in India, he would be able to perform specialty professional work as a surgeon for the benefit of people in India. Rejection of such request by the Respondent No.2 would naturally affect his desire and aspirations in holding out to the public with regard to his acquired foreign post graduate specialty medical qualifications. 19. While such being the case, the Writ Petitioner has side-tracked himself to pursue and complete a three year LL.B course for the purpose of acquiring legal knowledge in order to plead his own case. This Court fails to countenance whether this „misadventure‟ of putting his urge to fight his case in-person in the Court of law over and above his professional responsibility for serving the public as a medical doctor/surgeon would be justifiable or perverse. In this process, admittedly, the Writ Petitioner has lost precious time of more than 3 ½ years for pursuing and completing the LL.B course. Mere study of a law course, per se, does not confer legal capabilities on an individual, for, such qualities are acquired by an advocate only after undergoing clinical training in a professional office and in the Court of law for several years and the industry that is put-in by the said professional. Due to lack of this training, this shortcoming of raising appropriate legal contentions on the part of the Writ Petitioner is „so apparent‟ in this case, when this Court has sifted through the pleadings and heard the submissions of the Party-in- Person. 15 20. Had he approached any legal practitioner, the Writ Petitioner would have been informed and advised that the Impugned Order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and erroneous understanding of the Notification issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India dated 07.03.2008 by Respondent No.2 and would have made-out such legal contentions. In fact, these essential grounds are missing in the present pleadings. 21. After conclusion of the submissions, when this case was again listed for seeking clarification with regard to the alleged „Rejection Order‟ by the Appellate Authority, the Party-in-Person had filed additional Affidavit for giving some other reasons for approaching this Court with gross delay and laches. He tried to take advantage of the Order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court enlarging the „limitation‟ due to COVID-19 and the pendency of his Appeal. Having considered the same, this Court rejects the justification given by the Writ Petitioner by holding that the justification is nothing but an after-thought with a view to get over the effect of delay and laches. 22. Explanation given by the Writ Petitioner in Para No.28 of the Affidavit cannot be accepted as a „reasonable explanation‟ for approaching this Court with „substantial delay and laches’. However, since the Writ Petitioner possess the qualification of FRCS (England), which is a coveted one, and that his service to the society as a medical doctor/surgeon are required, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view in condoning the delay and laches. Accordingly, the delay and laches in approaching this Court by the Writ Petitioner is hereby condoned. (ii) On Merits: 23. For the purpose of dealing with the issue on merits, it would be appropriate to delineate the Amendment made to the Medical Council Act, 1956 and consequential Notification issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, dated 07.03.2008 (published in the Gazette by the Union of 16 India on 10.03.2008); the qualification of FRCS, England acquired by the Writ Petitioner and the Response of Respondent No.2 (impugned herein) dated 01.02.2021 are juxtaposed in the „Table‟ given below: AMENDMENT TO INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT, 1956 (102 OF 1956) QUALIFICATI ON OF PETITIONER UNDER SCRUTINY RESPONSE OF NATIOINAL MEDICAL COMMISSION (IMPUGNED HEREIN) DATED 01.02.2021 MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health and Family Welfare) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 7th March, 2008 S.O. 459(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of the Section 13 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consultation with the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in Part II of the Third Schedule to the said Act, namely :- In the said Schedule under the heading "Part II Recognized Medical Qualifications Granted by Medical Institutions outside India not included in the Second Schedule", after the entries relating to the qualification Doctor of Philosophy (Ph. D.) in Medical Sciences (Dagastan Medical Institute), U.S.S.R.* and below the explanation of the asterisk (*), the following shall be added, namely:- "All post graduate medical qualifications awarded in Australia and recognized for enrolment as medical practitioners in the concerned specialties in that country; All post graduate medical qualifications awarded in Canada 17 and recognized for enrolment as medical practitioners in the concerned specialties in that country; All post graduate medical qualifications awarded in New Zealand and recognized for enrolment as medical practitioners in the concerned specialties in that country; All post graduate medical qualifications awarded in United Kingdom and recognized for enrolment as medical practitioners in the concerned specialties in that country; All post graduate medical qualifications awarded in United States of America and recognized for enrolment as medical practitioners in the concerned specialties in that country." FRCS in General Surgery Degree (Royal College of Surgeons of England) FRCS in General Surgery Degree (Royal College of Surgeons of England), These qualifications, were a recognized qualification when granted on or before 11/11/1978 you have acquired this qualification in 2019. Since 2008 (07/03/2008) the PG qualification awarded in UK must be recognized for enrollment as medic practitioner in the concerned specialties in "UK". But your name does not appear on the GMC Specialist register & hence does not fulfill the notification 18 24. The Writ Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to Respondent No.2 to register the additional post graduate qualification despite the fact that his name is not entered in the „Specialist Register‟ maintained by the General Medical Council, United Kingdom. This Court has perused the Impugned Order passed by Respondent No.2 on 01.02.2021. On the face of it, this Court is constrained to observe that the said Order of Rejection dated 01.02.2021 (Ex.P.9) is a cryptic and a Non-Speaking order. The statutory requirement as per the Notification dated 07.03.2008 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India and published in the Gazette on 10.03.2008 is as follows: “all post graduate medical qualifications awarded in United Kingdom and recognized for enrollment as medical practitioners in the concerned specialties in that country, are eligible for registration in India under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.” (emphasis supplied) 25. The above Notification of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India dated 07.03.2008 would indicate that the medical qualifications acquired by the medical professionals are required to be recognized for enrollment for medical practitioners in the concerned specialties in that country. The said Notification does not make it mandatory that the medical practitioners with certain medical qualifications „shall‟ enroll/register themselves with General Medical Council of United Kingdom as medical practitioners in the concerned specialties. If a medical qualification is recognized as being fit for enrollment as medical practitioner, it should be sufficient but there is no requirement that one should have been enrolled or registered with the General Medical Council in the concerned specialties in United Kingdom and that his/her name shall appear in the „Speciality Register‟. 26. The Writ Petitioner has also placed on record (Ex.P.14) the letter of GMC dated 20.11.2020 addressed to the Writ Petitioner to the effect that it is the discretion of employer to insist on specialist registration and such insistence for specialist registration is usually mandated while signing an 19 honorary or fixed-term or substantive contract which is also at the discretion of the employer. It appears that Respondent No.2, while passing the impugned Order dated 01.02.2021, has not called for any material from the Writ Petitioner. Had the Writ Petitioner been directed to place on record the material, certainly the Writ Petitioner would have placed the material available with him on record to justify his case. It is trite law that it is the domain of the expert body to undertake the exercise for determination of equivalence with regard to any educational qualification. The National Medical Commission is an expert body to rule on such issues relating the medical qualifications. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Basic Education Board, U.P. v. UpendraRai : (2008) 3 SCC 432 held in Para No.15 as under: “15. Grant of equivalence and/or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in the sole discretion of the authority concerned, and the court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the Government, and the court does not have expertise in such matters. Hence it should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it.” 27. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Shifana P.S. v. State of Kerala: (2024) 8 SCC 309 held in para Nos. 13 and 14 as under. “13. This Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sk. Imtiyaz Ahmad [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sk. Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 353] held that judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Therefore, the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in the exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. (emphasis supplied) 14. In Unnikrishnan CV v. Union of India [Unnikrishnan CV v. Union of India, (2023) 18 SCC 546 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 343] , a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while relying upon the earlier judgment in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal [Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, (2009) 1 SCC 610 : 3 SCEC 452] held that equivalence is a technical academic 20 matter, it cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the University relating to equivalence should be by specific order or resolution, duly published.” 28. Coming to the facts of the instant case, the amendment made to the Act of 1956, has conferred the power on Respondent No.2 to decide on the Applications which are submitted before it for registration of foreign qualifications for being recognized in India. This power that is conferred to the Respondent No.2 namely the Indian Medical Council/National Medical Commission is a quasi-judicial power inasmuch as the decision rendered by the Respondent No.2 would have a bearing on the rights of the Applicants concerning their professional practice. When the statute has conferred such power on the Respondent No.2, the said Respondent No.2, as a quasi judicial Authority, is required to act judiciously, within the four corners of the statute. Duty to act judiciously was spelt out in R. vs. Electricity Commissioners : (1924) 1 KB 171 (CA) by Lord Atkins thus: “Whenever any body of persons having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of the subjects, and having the duty to act judicially, acts in excess of its legal authority, they are subject to the controlling jurisdiction of the King’s Bench Division.” 29. This power that is conferred on the expert body must be exercised rationally and sensibly and not arbitrarily and capriciously. At the same time, the National Medical Commission shall perform its functions strictly in terms of the legislative intent and the aims and objectives of the Act with proper application of mind. The back ground to the Notification dated 07.03.2008 issued by the Union of India, which is in the form of „Preface‟, is in an affirmative form to the effect that it intends to recognize the foreign medical qualifications for the purpose of augmenting the medical services through medical professionals. The said „Preface‟ (on the website) would also indicate that there is acute shortage of medical professionals in India. It has been succinctly stated in the „Preface‟ as under: 21 “This recognition would not only facilitate Indian students to pursue their post graduate medical studies in these foreign countries but will also make them eligible to practice medicine in specialist fields back in India. In addition, there are many Indian citizens who are living abroad, possessing many foreign post graduate medical degrees and are willing to return to India. Recognition of these degrees have now cleared the way for these Indian citizens to come back to India and pursue their medical profession. Non- resident Indians and overseas citizens of India in medical teaching profession can also come on sabbatical or as visiting faculty in medical colleges in India.” 30. The Respondent No.2 ought to have understood the spirit of the „Preface‟ to the Gazette Notification dated 07.03.2008 and rose to the occasion. The Impugned Order herein dated 01.02.2021 (Ex.P9) would indicate that Respondent No.2 has not done the required exercise in verifying the claim of the Writ Petitioner. This apart, it appears to the Court that Respondent No.2 has not properly understood the import of the phrase: “all post graduate medical qualifications awarded in United Kingdom and recognized for enrollment as medical practitioners in the concerned specialties in that country are eligible for registration in India under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956” (emphasis supplied). It is evident from the record that Respondent No.2 has only verified the „Specialist Register‟ issued by the General Medical Council of United Kingdom by ignoring the fact that the enrollment in the General Medical Council (GMC) is not mandatory as per the Notification dated 07.03.2008, but one should have such qualification which is „recognized as being fit for enrollment‟. In other words, a medical qualification possessed by a Medical Practitioner should be recognized as being fit for enrollment but such enrollment or registration, per se, is not mandatory as per the Notification dated 07.03.2008. 31. As stated earlier, Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Act 102 of 1956) was amended, vide Notification dated 07.03.2008. By this Notification, the Government of India made amendments in Part-II of Schedule III of the Act, 1956. The Amendment which is relevant to the Writ Petitioner‟s case is 22 already displayed in the „Table‟ above. This Court is of the opinion that the text of the Amendment is clear in its words to the effect that all post graduate medical qualifications awarded in United Kingdom which are „recognized for enrollment as medical practitioners in the concerned specialties in that Country would be accepted by Respondent No.2‟. The Amendment contemplates that such of those medical qualifications awarded in the United Kingdom which are recognized for enrollment as medical practitioners in the concerned specialties in that Country are sufficient. It does not impose a mandate that the medical practitioner must enroll with General Medical Council of United Kingdom and the name of such professional should appear in the „Specialist Register‟. As stated earlier, the impugned proceeding is completely contrary to the letter and spirit of this Amendment through Notification dated 07.03.2008. If it was the intent of the Parliament to make enrollment or registration mandatory and that the professional‟s name should find place in the „Specialist Register‟, it would have stated so in the Amendment. In the absence of any such imposition of making enrollment or registration mandatory, the Respondent No.2 is estopped from reading something more into the Amendment which the legislature did not contemplate. 32. All that the Respondent No.2 was required to do is to address proper correspondence to the General Medical Council of United Kingdom and also any other Body or Institution to verify whether the medical qualification acquired by the Writ Petitioner is recognized as sufficient qualification for enrollment as medical practitioner in the concerned specialty in that Country. In other words, the Respondent No.2 ought to have ascertained by addressing correspondence as stated above to find out whether the medical qualification of the Writ Petitioner is fit or eligible for enrollment as medical practitioner in the concerned specialty in that Country. 33. Instead of doing this exercise of corresponding with the concerned Institution, the Respondent No.2 has devised a shortcut method by simply 23 verifying from the „Specialist Register‟ of General Medical Council of United Kingdom whether the Writ Petitioner‟s name is found in the „Specialist Register‟ or not. Whether this has been done by the Respondent No.2 due to non-application of mind or whether it has been done in a mechanical process, the effect is that the Writ Petitioner is deprived of being considered for registration of his foreign medical qualification in India. The exercise of simply verifying from the „Specialist Register‟ of the GMC suffers not only from the vice of non-application of mind but is also irrational and perverse. This Court would not hesitate in holding that Respondent No.2 has rendered the impugned decision by complete „misreading‟ of the relevant content of amended statute vide Notification dated 07.03.2008. Therefore, the impugned executive action is completely contrary to the amended statute. 34. At this stage, it is once again clarified that the phrase in the Notification dated 07.03.2008 “recognized for enrollment” does not contemplate that the name of the medical practitioner should be found in the „Specialist Register‟ of GMC, United Kingdom. 35. The Respondent No.2 ought to have undertaken one simple exercise of addressing a query to the General Medical Council (GMC) of United Kingdom as well as the respective Colleges/Institutions to find out whether the Applicant‟s medical qualification is „recognized for enrollment‟ as specialist in the General Medical Council, United Kingdom 36. Admittedly, the Respondent No.2 has not undertaken this exercise. On the other hand, the Writ Petitioner also had his own idiosyncrasies that caused humongous delay in approaching this Court for the reasons indicated herein above to the effect that he wanted to acquire legal knowledge by pursuing LL.B course to argue his own case and this caused him a colossal loss of precious time of about 3 ½ years. 37. This Court is of the view that the Respondent No.2 is required to have a „fresh look‟ into the case of the Writ Petitioner. The „fresh look‟ as indicated by 24 this Court contemplates proper enquiry through correspondence with GMC, United Kingdom and also with the appropriate Foreign Institutions/Authorities in seeking the information that is required only to find out whether the medical qualification possessed by the Writ Petitioner „is recognized for enrollment‟ as medical practitioner in United Kingdom or not without insisting on the actual registration or enrollment, in consonance with the requirement prescribed as per the Amendment of the Act in the Gazette Notification dated 10.03.2008 by which Part-II of Schedule-III of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 stood amended. 38. In the backdrop of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the quasi judicial Authority like that of the Respondent No.2 has rendered the impugned decision in a manner that is not contemplated by the statute. Therefore, this Court would hold that the impugned order is contrary to the statute and therefore, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The impugned Order has also violated the fundamental right of the Writ Petitioner under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. FINDINGS 39. In the above premise, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Impugned Order is unsustainable in law for the following reasons: a) The Impugned Order suffers from the vice of misreading of Notification dated 07.03.2008. b) The Impugned Order suffers from the vice of irrationality and opposed to the aims and objectives spelt out in the Notification dated 07.03.2008 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India. c) The Impugned Order suffers from the vice of non- application of mind on the part of Respondent No.2. 25 40. For the aforesaid reasons, the Impugned Order is set aside. It is clarified that since this Court has found that the Impugned Order suffers from the above vices, this Court opines that it need not labour on the issue whether it was appropriate for the Writ Petitioner to have filed statutory appeal or not or about its maintainability. 41. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed with a direction to the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 to address communications to the General Medical Council, United Kingdom and also any other body and seek clarification whether the post graduate medical qualification, awarded to the Writ Petitioner in United Kingdom „is recognized for enrollment‟ as medical practitioner in the concerned specialty in that Country or not?. Since the Writ Petitioner has lost precious time due to his own idiosyncrasies, this Court is inclined to direct the Respondents to complete the entire enquiry within a reasonable time which shall be 08 (eight) weeks from the date of uploading this Order on the Website of this Court. Needless to state that the Respondents are obligated to adhere to the Principles of Natural Justice by sharing the information procured by it as a result of the correspondence between the Respondent No.2 and the concerned Bodies in United Kingdom as well as the General Medical Council (GMC) of United Kingdom and seek response from the Writ Petitioner in respect of the same, if any need arises. No Order as to Costs. 42. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of in terms of this Order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Date: 02.03.2026 L.R copy to be marked B/o. MNR/JKS 26 01 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.22690 OF 2024 02.03.2026 Date: 02.03.2026 L.R copy to be marked B/o. MNR/JKS