CW/11790/2026 of ZAINAB NASIR D/O DR. NASIR HASAN Vs UNION OF INDIA on 22 July 2026

1. Union Of India, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011 Through Its Secretary.

2. National Medical Commission, Pocket-14, Sector 8, Dwarka Phase-1, New Delhi Through Its Secretary General.

3. Deputy Director (Medical), Department Of Examination Conduct, National Board Of Examinations In Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110029. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Choudhary, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order(Oral) Reportable 22/07/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J.

1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the notification dated 01.03.2018, whereby Regulation 2(A) was introduced into the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 [Screening Test Regulations (Amendment), 2018], as also the consequent action of the respondents in declaring the petitioner ineligible to appear in the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) December-2025. 1.1 It would be apposite, at the very threshold to see the notification, ibid, which reads as below: "MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 1st March, 2018

(2 of 5) [CW-11790/2026] No. MCI-201/2017-Eligi./Gen./176484- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1955), the Medical Council of India with the previous sanction of the Central Government hereby makes the following regulations to further amend the "Screening Test Regulations, 2002" namely:-

1. These regulations may be called the "Screening Test Regulations (Amendment), 2018".

2. In the "Screening Test Regulations, 2002", the following additions/modifications/deletions substitutions shall be, as indicated therein.

3. In regulation 4 under heading "Eligibility Criteria", the following Clause 2(A) shall be added after Clause 4(2) of the Screening Test Regulation, 2002: 2(A) Indian Citizens/Overseas Citizen of India intending to obtain primary medical qualification from any medical institution outside India, on or after May 2018, shall have to mandatorily qualify the 'National-Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Admission to MBBS course'. The result of the 'National-Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Admission to MBBS course' shall deem to be treated as the Eligibility Certificate for such persons, provided that such persons fulfils the Eligibility Criteria for admission to the MBBS course prescribed in the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997."

2. Adverting now to the facts as stated in the petition, which are that the petitioner appeared in the NEET (UG)-2020 examination and secured 71 marks out of 720, with an All India Rank of 10,46,577 in the Unreserved Category. Thereafter, on 28.10.2020, the petitioner secured admission to the MBBS course at Asfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University pursuant to an admission offer issued by the Head of the Admission Committee of the said University. The petitioner completed the course on 16.07.2025 and was awarded the MBBS degree. On 19.11.2025, the petitioner applied online for FMGE December-2025 by submitting the prescribed application, the requisite fee, and all particulars required by the respondents. 2.1 By e-mail dated 15.01.2026, the petitioner was informed that the admit card for FMGE December-2025 would not be issued, as the petitioner had been declared ineligible by the competent authority. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by way of an earlier writ petition, which was disposed of on 27.05.2026 with a direction to

(3 of 5) [CW-11790/2026] the petitioner to submit a representation before respondent No. 3 and to the said respondent to decide it in accordance with law. The petitioner submitted a representation on 01.06.2026; it was rejected on 23.06.2026 on the ground that the petitioner had neither qualified NEET (UG) nor obtained the mandatory Eligibility Certificate required for appearing in the FMGE. 2.2 The petitioner also applied for FMGE June-2026, held on 28.06.2026, but was again not permitted to appear for want of an Eligibility Certificate. The petitioner thus stands deprived of the opportunity to undertake the mandatory Screening Test for registration as a medical practitioner in India, and now apprehends exclusion from the ensuing FMGE December-2026 session scheduled for 09.01.2027. The petitioner's grievance is that the respondents have denied him permission solely by invoking Regulation 2(A) of the Screening Test Regulations (Amendment), 2018, notwithstanding that he has successfully completed the MBBS course from a recognised foreign medical institution. 2.3 Hence this writ petition.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned ASG appearing for the respondents, who opposes the petition, and have perused the record.

4. Two questions arise: first, whether the petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria prescribed for appearing in the FMGE; and second, whether the notification dated 01.03.2018 prescribing those criteria is valid.

5. On the first question, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly admitted during the course of hearing that the petitioner secured only 71 marks out of 720 in NEET (UG)-2020, against the stated qualifying

(4 of 5) [CW-11790/2026] cut-off of 146 marks, and therefore never qualified the NEET. Qualifying the NEET is, under the amended regulatory scheme, a mandatory precondition — both for the grant of an Eligibility Certificate under Section 13(4B) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 for pursuing medicine abroad, and consequently for appearing in the Screening Test. The petitioner admittedly holds neither a NEET qualification nor an Eligibility Certificate. The subsequent completion of the MBBS course abroad cannot cure an ineligibility that attached at the very threshold of admission; to hold otherwise would permit a candidate to circumvent a statutory precondition by presenting the Court with a fait accompli. The rejection of the petitioner's candidature, therefore, flows directly from the regulations and cannot be said to be without reason or arbitrary.

6. On the second question, the challenge to the vires of the notification dated 01.03.2018, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Sahil v. Medical Council of India1. The relevant extract reads as under: “29. This court is of the opinion that the MCI's amended regulations, mandating that those desirous of studying abroad, had to appear and qualify in NEET has direct nexus with the quality of professionals who or many of who would wish to practise the medical profession and seek enrolment in the State register, for that purpose. It is now essential that every candidate wishing to secure admission to any medical college in India, has to appear and clear the NEET. Though at the first blush, those wishing to study abroad are a separate class, nevertheless, after the amendment of 2001 (to the IMC Act) and introduction of Section 13 (4B) every Indian citizen wishing to study abroad has to secure an eligibility certificate from the Central Government. Now, that provision is not under challenge; even an attack to it is of no avail, given the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjeev Gupta (supra). Therefore, it is now no longer open to challenge the authority of the MCI to insist that an eligibility certificate is a precondition for admission abroad. Such being the case, the MCI's amendment of the eligibility regulations to require every candidate (wishing such a certificate) to also qualify in the NEET as a precondition to apply for eligibility certificate cannot be faulted. Such a requirement is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. As held in Principal, Patna College, Patna v. Kalyan Srinivas Raman, AIR 1966 SC 707; State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana, (1979) 1 SCC 572; Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka, (1998) 6 SCC 131 and Dr. Preethi Srivastava v. State of M.P., (1999) 7 SCC 120, the primary decision of an academic regulatory authority, if made within bounds of statute with the object of 1 W.P.(C) No. 8091/2018

(5 of 5) [CW-11790/2026] achieving academic or professional excellence, cannot in the absence of palpable or manifest arbitrariness, be interfered with by courts in judicial review. Consequently, the challenge on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness fails."

7. We respectfully adopt the above reasoning. The requirement of qualifying the NEET as a precondition for pursuing medicine abroad, and thereafter for appearing in the Screening Test, bears a direct nexus with the object of ensuring the quality of professionals who seek enrolment on the State register to practice medicine in India, and is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. Being a considered prescription of the academic regulatory authority made within the bounds of the statute, it does not warrant interference in judicial review absent manifest arbitrariness, of which we find none. The petitioner, moreover, took admission abroad on 28.10.2020, well after the amended regulations of 2018 came into force and after having failed to qualify NEET (UG)-2020 and can claim the benefit of neither exemption circular, both of which were confined to the transitional period of 2018-19.

8. No ground for interference is, therefore, made out on either count. The writ petition stands dismissed.

9. All pending application(s), stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN MONGA),J 2/Mohita/Prashant