WP/5784/2014 of Dr. P. HarshaVardhan, S/o. P. Yadigiri, Vs Government of India, Ministry of Health AND Family Welfare, on 31 December 2014

1) AIR 1956 SC 4792)(1999) 7 SCC 1203)(2003) 8 SCC 694)[(1981) 4 SCC 512]5)AIR 1958 SC 5386)(1994) 6 SCC 3497)(1974) 1 SCC 19 = AIR 1974 SC 18)AIR 1967 SC 8399)AIR 1968 SC 109910)AIR 1955 SC 19111)1952 SCR 28412)(2002) 3 SCC 30213)(2002) 4 SCC 53914)(2014) 8 SCC 39015)(1974) 4 SCC 42816)1989 Suppl. (1) SCC 11617)(1994) 3 SCC 56918)(2004) 3 SCC 60919)(2010) 3 SCC 31420)(2011) 2 SCC 57521)(2011) 9 SCC 122)(2002) 2 SCC 723)(2002) 8 SCC 715

24) (2004) 10 SCC 796

25) (2009) 5 SCC 641

26) (2011) 4 SCC 606

27) (1980) 3 SCC 97

28) (2011) 8 SCC 737

29) AIR 1965 SC 491

30) AIR 1990 SC 1402

31) AIR 2010 SC 1285

32) (2010) 8 SCC 372

33) (2011) 6 SCC 597

34) (1984) 4 SCC 27

35) AIR 1974 SC 1631

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITION No.5784 OF 2014

ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the MedicalCouncil of India (“MCI” for short) in exercising its powers under Section 33of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the “Act”) andamending the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000(hereinafter called the “Regulations”) by notification dated 17.04.2013, andthereby deleting M.D (Biochemistry) discipline from the eligibility criteria foradmission to the super-specialty course of Doctor of Medicine (DM) inEndocrinology, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article 14 of theConstitution of India.

The petitioners have all either completed their post graduate degree(MD) in Bio-chemistry or are undergoing the said course. By notificationdated 17.04.2013, the MCI amended the Regulations deleting M.D(Biochemistry) from among the prescribed eligibility criteria for admissionto DM (Endocrinology) super specialty course. It is the petitioner’s casethat they opted for M.D (Bio-chemistry) having regard to their futureprospects of becoming an Endocrinologist by pursuing DM(Endocrinology) as a super specialty subject; prior to its amendment, theRegulations prescribed M.D (Biochemistry), M.D (Pediatrics) and M.D(General Medicine) as the minimum educational qualifications required foradmission to DM (Endocrinology); these Regulations were in existence formore than 13 years till they were amended in the year 2013; in its 33[rd]meeting held on 03.10.2013, the Board of Governors of MCI resolved thatMD (Biochemistry) be deleted as the entry qualification for admission toD.M. (Endocrinology), as M.D (Biochemistry) was a preclinical disciplinewherein candidates were not exposed to clinical practice; extensiveclinical knowledge was necessary to pursue DM (Endocrinology) whichdealt with the endocrine system of the body; they had retained the othertwo disciplines i.e., M.D (General Medicine) and M.D (Pediatrics) on theground that these two disciplines were essentially clinical subjects, whichdealt with the clinical aspects of the endocrine system in adults and

children; this finding of the Board of Governors is incorrect; while clinicalpractice is necessary for pursuing endocrinology, it cannot be said thatM.D (Biochemistry) course does not have any clinical subjects or thatcandidates possessing a post-graduate degree in Biochemistry are notexposed to clinical subjects at all; the very fact that the candidates,possessing M.D (Biochemistry), were allowed to pursue D.M(Endocrinology) for the past 13 years shows that they were also exposedto clinical subjects during their MBBS programme; if M.D (Biochemistry) isdeleted as one of the eligible qualifications, for admission into DM(Endocrinology), Post-Graduates in Biochemistry would be unable toundergo any other super- specialty course except in Immunology andGenetics for which no seats are available in the State of Andhra Pradesh;though these two disciplines are being taught in other States, candidatesbelonging to the State of Andhra Pradesh are not eligible to undergo thesaid course; consequently, all candidates who possess the qualification ofM.D (Biochemistry) would be required to stop further education inmedicine, and rest content only with a post graduate degree; candidatesare being eliminated from appearing in the entrance examination, foradmission into D.M (Endocrinology), in the midst of their M.D(Biochemistry) course; they cannot even stop pursuing the MD(Biochemistry) course, as they have to lose their Rupees 20 lakhs bondwhich they gave at the time of admission; even if they were to completeMD (Biochemistry), they cannot pursue another Post Graduation coursethereafter to seek admission into DM (Endocrinology), as it is notpermissible in law to have two Post-Graduate Degrees/Diplomas; theM.C.I cannot exclude M.D (Biochemistry) abruptly without prior intimationto the student community; before taking a decision to delete MD(Biochemistry), as one of the eligible subjects for admission into DM(Endocrinology), MCI has not examined the repercussions and the plight ofstudents who are either pursuing M.D. (Biochemistry) or have completedthe said course; earlier MCI and various universities had allowed studentswith M.D (Biochemistry) to seek admission to D.M (Endocrinology); evenduring their MBBS and Post Graduate programme in Biochemistry withrotatory internship, students are given adequate exposure in clinical subjects; the student logbook itself substantiates that M.D (Biochemistry)students are posted in areas where they are given adequate clinicalexposure; while undergoing the post graduate degree course inBiochemistry, students are required to examine patients, undertakelaboratory diagnosis and treatment etc; the impugned amendment is anabuse of the power vested in the MCI under Section 33 of the Act; beforeamending the regulations, by deleting M.D (Biochemistry) from the eligiblepost-graduate courses necessary for admission into DM (Endocrinology),the M.C.I. has neither undertaken any scientific study nor has it consideredthe adverse impact their decision would have on students pursuing M.D(Biochemistry); having permitted students with M.D (Biochemistry) topursue DM (Endocrinology) for the past 13 years, M.C.I. has actedarbitrarily in deleting/eliminating them from the stream of students eligibleto appear for the entrance examination for admission into DM(Endocrinology) course; and this action of the respondent is arbitrary andillegal.

In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent it isstated that M.C.I, constituted under the provisions of Indian MedicalCounsel Act, has been entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining thehighest standards of medical education through out the country; in thedischarge of these statutory obligations, M.C.I. has been empowered, withthe prior approval of the Central Government, to frame regulations forlaying down the minimum standards of infrastructure, teaching and otherrequirements for conducting medical courses; the M.C.I. lays down indetail the course content, the duration, distribution of teaching and trainingon various subjects, and the manner in which examinations should beconducted etc; the Regulations framed by M.C.I are statutory in character,and have the force of law; the Post-Graduate Medical EducationRegulations, 2000 were approved by the Government of India on22.05.2000, and were published in the official gazette on 07.10.2000, withthe prior approval of the Central Government; these regulations wereamended whereby the procedure for admission in post graduate courseshas been prescribed in detail; these regulations provide that admission, in post graduate medical courses, must be on the basis of merit, and meritalone; the mandatory and binding character of the statutory regulationshave been upheld by Courts; the Courts would not, normally, interfere withthe qualifications prescribed by expert bodies like the M.C.I, especially foradmission into super-specialty medical courses; the M.C.I was supersededby the Board of Governors, nominated by the Central Government, in May,2010; the entire work of M.C.I was carried out thereafter by the Board ofGovernors, who later demitted office in November, 2013; the Board ofGovernors, nominated by the Central Government, constituted a SpecialityBoard to re-examine the eligibility criteria for admission into various super-specialty courses including D.M (Endocrinology) as provided under thePost Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000; the three membersof the Speciality Board, who are eminent specialists in the field ofmedicine and in the concerned super-specialty of Endocrinology, were (i)DR. Nalini Sameer Shah, Professor & Head of the Department ofEndocrinology, Seth G.S. Medical College, K.E.M. Hospital, Parel,Mumbai; (ii) Dr. Krishna G. Sheshadri, Professor and Head ofEndocrinology and Diabetes at Sri Ramachandra University, Chennai and(iii) Dr. Nikhil Tandon, Professor & Head of the Department ofEndocrinology, AIIMS, New Delhi; the members of the Specialty Board,after detailed discussion and due deliberations with regards the eligibilitycriteria for admission into the D.M. (Endocrinology) super specialty course,unanimously agreed that prior experience as a clinician is required forpursuing the D.M (Endocrinology) course which is a clinical discipline; therecommendations of the specialty board was placed before the Board ofGovernors, nominated by the Central Government, in their meeting held on11.06.2012; after due deliberations, with regards the eligibility criteria foradmission into D.M. (Endocrinology) course, the Board of Governorsagreed with the recommendations of the Specialty Board; a draftnotification was sent to the Central Government on 29.06.2012 for itsapproval; after scrutinizing the proposed amendment in the Schedule tothe Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, the CentralGovernment duly approved the same; thereafter the notification was sentfor publication in the gazette; the M.C.I. has amended the regulations with

the prior approval of the Central Government; the amendment to theregulations dated 17.04.2013 was notified in the gazette on 15.05.2013;after the amendment, all candidates desirous of admission in the super-specialty D.M (Endocrinology) course must have obtained a post-graduatedegree, from a recognized medical college, either in Medicine or inPediatrics; candidates possessing the post-graduate medical qualificationin Biochemistry are eligible for admission into other super-specialtymedical course such as D.M (Clinical Hematology), D.M. (Immunology)and D.M. (Medical Genetics); the petitioner’s contention that, after theamendment dated 17.04.2013, they cannot pursue a super specialtycourse is misconceived; the amendment dated 17.04.2013 is notunreasonable, discriminatory or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitutionof India; with a view to discharge its statutory responsibilities under the Act,the M.C.I. has, from time to time, framed and amended various regulationswith the prior approval of the Central Government for laying the minimumnorms and requirements; and the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefsought for.

Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, wouldsubmit that, ever since the Regulations were made in the year 2000 till theyear 2013 when the amended Regulations came into force, M.D.(Biochemistry) was among the prescribed educational qualifications foradmission into the DM (Endocrinology) super speciality course; the MCIhas not assigned any reasons for deleting M.D. (Biochemistry) from theprescribed eligibility criteria for admission into D.M. (Endocrinology); thedeletion of M.D. (Biochemistry) is discriminatory, and in violation of Article14 of the Constitution of India; the report of the Specialty Board does notdisclose any valid reasons for deletion of the M.D. (Biochemistry) course;the averment in the counter-affidavit that students undergoing a postgraduate course in Biochemistry are not exposed to clinical subjects iserroneous; a perusal of the syllabus, enclosed along with the Writ Petition,shows that students undergoing M.D. (Biochemistry) course are exposedto clinical subjects also; students who possess M.D. (Biochemistry)qualification are similarly situated to those who have completed apostgraduate degree course in Medicine or Pediatrics; students who possess postgraduate qualification in these three courses are similarlysituated; retention of M.D. (medicine) and M.D. (Pediatrics), while deletingM.D. (Biochemistry), as the eligible qualification for admission into D.M.(Endocrinology) does not satisfy the test of a valid classification; and it isarbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. Learned Counsel would rely on Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India[[1]]in this regard.

The Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 weremade by the Medical Council of India in the exercise of its powers underSection 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. In the Schedulethereto, the eligibility criteria stipulated for admission in D.M.(Endocrinology) course was that the candidate must possess a recogniseddegree (or its recognised equivalent degree) in M.D. (medicine), M.D.(Pediatrics), and M.D. (Biochemistry). The Regulations were amended bythe Postgraduate Educational Amendment Regulation 2012 and, in theschedule to the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 underthe head D.M (doctor of medicine) for “endocrinology” at serial No.4, M.D.(Biochemistry) was deleted. Consequent thereto, it is only students, whopossess a Post-graduate degree in Medicine or Pediatrics, who areeligible to seek admission into D.M (Endocrinology) super specialtycourse. The aforesaid amendment to the Regulations were made, with theapproval of the Central Government, on 17.04.2013 and were published inthe Gazette of India dated 15.05.2013. For admission into the D.M(Endocrinology) course, after the amendment was published in the gazetteon 15.05.2013, candidates, who possess a postgraduate degree inBiochemistry, are no longer eligible.

The MCI has been set up as an expert body, under the IndianMedical Council Act, 1956, to control the minimum standards of medicaleducation and to regulate their observance. The Act empowers the MCI toprescribe the minimum standards of postgraduate medical education; andit has implicit power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standardsfor admission to medical institutions. The universities are guided by thestandards prescribed by the Medical Council. The Medical CouncilRegulations have statutory force and are mandatory. (Dr.Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P.[[2]]; Harish Verma v. Ajay Srivastava[[3]]; State of Kerala v. T.P. Roshana[[4]])[.][The validity of these statutory regulations]can only be impeached on the ground that it falls foul of the parent Act or it is in violationof the constitutional provisions, more particularly Part III of the Constitution of India. It isnot even the case of the petitioners that the amended Regulation is in violation of theprovisions of the Act. The challenge thereto is limited to its being discriminatory andultravires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

It must be presumed that the Legislature understands and correctlyappreciates the need of its own people, that its laws are directed toproblems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations arebased on adequate grounds. There is always a presumption in favour ofthe constitutionality of an enactment, and the burden is upon him whoattacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of theconstitutional principles. (Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R.Tendolkar[[5]]; Gauri Shanker v. Union of India[[6]]). There is always apresumption in favour of the constitutionality of anenactment/rule/regulation and the burden is upon him who attacks it toshow that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutionalprinciples. A rule cannot be struck down as discriminatory on any a priorireasoning. Where a party seeks to impeach the validity of a rule made bya competent authority on the ground that the Rules offend Article 14, theburden is on him to plead and prove the infirmity. The burden is on thepetitioner to set out facts necessary to sustain the plea of discriminationand to adduce “cogent and convincing evidence” to prove those facts for“there is a presumption that every factor which is relevant or material hasbeen taken into account in formulating the classification. Unless theclassification is unjust on the face of it, the onus lies upon the partyattacking the classification to show, by pleading and placing the necessarymaterial before the Court, that the said classification is unreasonable andviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution.(State of J & K v. Triloki NathKhosa[[7]];G.D. Kelkar v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports[[8]]). Itis no part of the respondent’s burden to justify the classification or to establish its constitutionality. (Triloki Nath Khosa[7]).

In order to establish that the protection of the equal opportunityclause has been denied to them, it is not enough for the petitioners to saythat they have been treated differently from others, not even enough that adifferential treatment has been accorded to them in comparison with otherssimilarly circumstanced. Discrimination is the essence of classification anddoes violence to the constitutional guarantee of equality only if it rests onan unreasonable basis. It is, therefore, incumbent on the petitioners toshow that the classification of students into those who hold a postgraduatemedical degree either in Medicine or Pediatrics, and those who hold apostgraduate medical degree in Biochemistry, is unreasonable and bearsno rational nexus with its purported object. (Triloki Nath Khosa[7]).Thesubmission, urged on behalf of the petitioners in this regard, is only that theMCI had erred in holding that post graduates in Biochemistry, unlike postgraduates in Medicine and Pediatrics, do not have clinical experience.

In examining this contention, it must be borne in mind that Article 14forbids discrimination, and its gravamen is equality of treatment. A personsetting up a grievance of denial of equal treatment by the law mustestablish that, between persons similarly circumstanced, some weretreated to their prejudice and the differential treatment has no reasonablerelation to the object sought to be achieved by the law. (Gauri Shanker[6]; Western U.P. Electric Power & Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P.[[9]]). While Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonableclassification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass thetest of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i)that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia whichdistinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others leftout of the group, and (ii) that the differentia must have a rational relation tothe object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. Theclassification may be founded on different basis. What is necessary is thatthere must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object ofthe Act/Regulation under consideration. (Gauri Shanker[6]; Ram Krishna Dalmia[5]; Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar[[10]]). The classificationmust rest upon a real and substantial distinction bearing a reasonable andjust relation to the thing in respect to which the classification is made; andclassification made without any reasonable basis should be regarded asinvalid. (Bidi Supply Co.[1]; State of West Bengal v. Anwar AliSarkar[[11]]).

The complaint, of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, cannotbe judged by adopting a doctrinaire approach. It is not prudent orpragmatic to insist on a mathematically accurate classification coveringdiverse situations and all possible contingencies in view of the inherentcomplexities involved. (State of Karnataka v. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees Association[[12]]). The legislature enjoysconsiderable latitude, and exercises its power of classification enriched byits experience and taking into consideration myriad circumstances. (Ombalika Das v. Hulisa Shaw[[13]]). Precision and arithmetical accuracywill not exist in any categorisation, and such precision and accuracy is notwhat Article 14 contemplates. As long as the broad features of thecategorisation are identifiable and distinguishable, and the categorisationis reasonably connected with the object targeted, Article 14 does not forbidsuch a course of action. (Subramanian Swamy v. Raju[[14]];MurthyMatch Works v. CCE[[15]]; Roop Chand Adlakha v. DDA[[16]]; KartarSingh v. State of Punjab[[17]]; Basheer v. State of Kerala[[18]]; B.Manmad Reddy v. Chandra Prakash Reddy[[19]]and Transport and Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust[[20]]).

The object sought to be achieved by the classification, in theamended Regulations, is to further excellence in higher MedicalEducation. The basis of classification of students, between those whohave a post graudate degree in medicine and pediatrics on the one hand,and those having a post graduate degree in Biochemistry on the other, foradmission in D.M. (Endocrinology) is their clinical experience. While the former group are said to have the requisite clinical experience, the latterare said not to. As the classification of post-graduate Medical students,between those who have the required clinical experience and those whodo not, has a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved i.e.,maintenance of high standards of Medical Education by restrictingadmission to DM (Endocrinology) course only to those students who havethe required clinical exposure, the test of a valid classification is satisfied,and the petitioners plea of discrimination must fail.

The contention, that no reasons are assigned for amending theregulations, is also devoid of merit. Delegated legislation cannot bequestioned on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice,especially in the absence of any such statutory requirement. Neither theLegislature nor its delegate are legally obliged to give any reasons for theiraction while discharging their legislative function. (K.T. Plantation Pvt.Ltd. v. State of Karnataka[[21]]; State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh[[22]]; W.B.Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd.[[23]]; Pune MunicipalCorpn. v. Promoters and Builders Assn.[[24]]and Bihar SEB v. PulakEnterprises[[25]]). The basis of the classification of persons or things mayappear on the face of the statute or may be gathered from the surroundingcircumstances known to or brought to the notice of the Court. (RamKrishna Dalmia[5]; Gauri Shanker[6]).

Relevant material is always admissible to show the reason and thejustification for the classification. Such reasons need not appear on theface of the Rule or the law which effects the classification. (T.N. Khosa[7]). The reasons, which necessitated amendment of the Regulations, aredetailed in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of MCI, and are evident fromthe record placed for our perusal, which include the report of the specialityboard consisting of three eminent Endocrinologists in the country. In theabsence of any such requirement, either in the parent Act or in theRegulations themselves, the reasons which necessitated amendment ofthe Regulations need not be reflected in the Regulations itself and can begathered from the surrounding circumstances or, for that matter, can be stated in the counter-affidavit filed before this Court.

The mere fact that M.D. (Biochemistry) was among the prescribedqualifications for admission into D.M. (Endocrinology) for thirteen years,from when the Regulations were made in the year 2000 till they wereamended in the year 2013, is of no avail. The eligibility criteria foradmissions in super-speciality medical courses must be periodicallyreviewed by the MCI keeping in mind the need to maintain excellence andhigh standards in higher medical education. Determination of suchstandards is part of the academic policy of the MCI. (Visveswaraiah Technological University v. Krishnendu Halder[[26]]). Revision ofstandards, for admission into super-speciality courses in Medicine, arematters of policy. The Court cannot strike down a policy merely becausethere is a variation. Consistency is not always a virtue. What is important isto know whether irrational and extraneous factor foul. (Tamil NaduEducation Deptt. Ministerial & General Subordinate Services Assn. v.State of T.N.[[27]]).There can be no quarrel if a policy is revised. Thewisdom of yesterday may obsolesce into the folly of today, even as thescience of old may sour into the superstition now, and vice versa. (TamilNadu Education Deptt. Ministerial & General Subordinate ServicesAssn.[27]).Reform must begin somewhere if it has to begin at all and,therefore, the administrator who has complex problems to solve must beallowed the freedom to proceed tentatively, step by step. (T.N. Khosa[7]). The petitioners cannot be heard to contend that qualifications, onceprescribed, must continue forever and not be subjected to change at all.

The records placed before this Court by Sri D. Srinivas, LearnedStanding Counsel for MCI, reveal that a Board of Experts was constitutedto examine the course content for D.M. (Endocrinology). In its reportsubmitted to the Board of Governors of MCI, the expert committee opinedthat the goals of the D.M programme, in Endocrinology, Diabetes andMetabolism, was to provide comprehensive knowledge, clinical skills,professional attributes and values to prepare trainees to care for patientssuffering from diseases of the endocrine system; to ensure clinical careexperience to a variety of patients suffering from diverse endocrine problems, and in diagnosing and managing such patients; and to provide adiverse learning experience to trainees in allied areas as they relate toendocrinology, diabetes and metabolism. The expert body suggested thatthe name of the course be renamed as Doctor of Medicine (D.M) inEndocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism and the eligibility therefor beprescribed as a post-graduate degree in M.D (Internal Medicine) or M.D(Pediatrics) in three years.

While recommending the competence standards for undergoing theDM (Endocrinology) course, the Board of experts opined that thepostgraduate must demonstrate competence in clinical care includingevaluation and management of horomonal problems, acute life threateningcomplications of hyper and hypo – glycemia; metabolism in adults andchildren, and other aspects of Endocrinology and Metabolism. Theemphasis placed by the expert body was on competence in clinical care invarious areas/aspects. As the expert body was of the view that suchclinical exposure is given only to those students who undergo a post-graduate degree course in internal Medicine or in Pediatrics, the eligibilitycriteria for admission into D.M (Endocrinology) was restricted only to thesecourses. On receipt of the recommendations of the expert body the M.C.I,after complying with the requirements of Section 33 of the Act, deleted M.D(Biochemistry) from among the educational qualifications prescribed as theeligibility criteria for admission into the D.M (Endocrinology) superspecialty course.

The contention that Medical post-graduates in Biochemistry havethe required clinical exposure cannot be examined in writ proceedingsunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court lacks theexpertise to examine academic policies and would, ordinarily, abide by theopinion of experts. Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinionsexpressed by experts, and must leave such decisions to those who aremore familiar with such problems, than the Courts generally can be. (Stateof T.N. v. K. Shyam Sunder[[28]];University of Mysore v. C.D. GovindaRao[[29]];Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal[[30]]; Victoria MemorialHall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity[[31]]; Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr.

H.L. Ramesh[[32]]and State of H.P. v. H.P. Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh[[33]]). Whether or not students who have undergone M.D.(Biochemistry) course have been given clinical exposure on par with thosewho have undergone M.D. (Medicine) or M.D (Pediatrics) courses, arematters of expertise which this Court lacks, and are technical questionsnot, ordinarily, amenable to judicial review.

Conclusion

The Court would not substitute its opinion for that of the Legislatureor its delegate as to what policy would best serve the objects andpurposes of the Act or sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness orotherwise of the policy laid down by the regulation-making body, anddeclare a regulation to be ultravires merely on the ground that, in the viewof the Court, the impugned provisions will not help to serve the object. Aslong as the body, entrusted with the task of framing the rules or regulations,acts within the scope of the authority conferred on it, in the sense that therules or regulations made by it have a rational nexus with the object, thecourt would not concern itself with the wisdom or efficaciousness of suchrules or regulations. It is exclusively within the province of the Legislatureand its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, what measures wouldhave to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficaciousachievement of the objects.

It is not for the Court to examine the merits or demerits of a policy.(Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth[[34]]). It may be a wisepolicy which will effectuate the purpose of its enactment or it may lackeffectiveness calling for its revision and improvement. Any drawbacks inthe policy, incorporated in a rule or regulation, will not render it ultra viresand the Court would not strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, itis not a wise or prudent policy. The Legislature and its delegate are thesole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued inrelation to matters covered by the Act.(Maharashtra State Board ofSecondary and Higher Secondary Education[34]).

Equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question based on a proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academicstandards and practical attainments of such qualifications, and where thedecision is based on the recommendation of an expert body whichpossesses the requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for adequatelydischarging such functions, the Court, uninformed of relevant data andunaided by the technical insights necessary for the purpose of determiningequivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision. It is only where thedecision is shown to be based on extraneous or irrelevant considerationsor is actuated by malafides or is irrational and perverse or is manifestlywrong that the Court would reach out its lethal arm and strike down the decision. (Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India[[35]]). The Court would notsit in appeal over the legislative judgment to find out whether, on acomparative evaluation of the rival theories touching upon the question ofequivalence in educational qualifications, the theory advocated by thepetitioners is not to be preferred. Classification is primarily for thelegislature or for the statutory authority charged with the duty of framing theeligibility criteria and if, looked at from the standpoint of the authoritymaking it, the classification is found to rest on a reasonable basis, it has tobe upheld. (Triloki Nath Khosa[7]). This Court would defer to the wisdomof the Speciality Board whose members are experts in the field ofEndocrinology, more so as no malafides are attributed to them, and theirexpertise in this regard is not in doubt.

The contention that deletion of M.D. (Biochemistry), from the list ofeligible educational qualifications required for admission into D.M(Endocrinology) course, would deny the petitioners the opportunity ofundergoing any super speciality course, does not also merit acceptance. Itis evident, from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the MCI, that M.D(Biochemistry) is among the prescribed educational qualifications foradmission into the super speciality courses of D.M (clinical Hematology),DM (Immunology) and D.M (Medical genetics). The M.C.I. lays downuniform standards for medical education applicable to all the universitiesthroughout the country and the petitioners, some of whom are undergoingtheir post graduation in Biochemistry in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, cannot claim to stand on a different footing. While theamendment to the Regulations has resulted in their being denied theopportunity of undergoing the D.M (Endocrinology) course, that, by itself,would not justify striking down the statutory regulations, which areotherwise valid.

Viewed from any angle, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefsought for. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Themiscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. Nocosts.

_____________________________

RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J

Date: 31-12-2014.

___________________________________

M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

Note: L.R. copy to be marked. B/o MRKR/CS

[1]AIR 1956 SC 479[2](1999) 7 SCC 120[3](2003) 8 SCC 69[4][(1981) 4 SCC 512][5]AIR 1958 SC 538[6](1994) 6 SCC 349[7](1974) 1 SCC 19 = AIR 1974 SC 1[8]AIR 1967 SC 839[9]AIR 1968 SC 1099[10]AIR 1955 SC 191[11]1952 SCR 284[12](2002) 3 SCC 302[13](2002) 4 SCC 539[14](2014) 8 SCC 390[15](1974) 4 SCC 428[16]1989 Suppl. (1) SCC 116

[17](1994) 3 SCC 569[18](2004) 3 SCC 609[19](2010) 3 SCC 314[20](2011) 2 SCC 575[21](2011) 9 SCC 1[22](2002) 2 SCC 7[23](2002) 8 SCC 715[24](2004) 10 SCC 796[25](2009) 5 SCC 641[26](2011) 4 SCC 606[27](1980) 3 SCC 97[28](2011) 8 SCC 737[29]AIR 1965 SC 491[30]AIR 1990 SC 1402[31]AIR 2010 SC 1285[32](2010) 8 SCC 372[33](2011) 6 SCC 597[34](1984) 4 SCC 27[35]AIR 1974 SC 1631