KALOJI NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES versus SRIKEERTI REDDI PINGLE & ORS. on 16 February 2021

[2021] 1 S.C.R. 935

KALOJI NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OFHEALTH SCIENCES

v.

SRIKEERTI REDDI PINGLE & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 390 of 2021)

FEBRUARY 16, 2021

[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]

Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate MedicalEducation, 1997 – Regn.4(2) – Admission to MBBS course – NRIcandidate – Eligibility criteria – University treated the respondent-candidate as ineligible for admission to MBBS course – High Courtallowed the writ petition filed by candidate – On appeal, held: Asper Regn.4(2), the candidate should have undergone study at the10+2 stage, (or in the intermediate course) in the specified subjectsof Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology – The certificaterelied upon by the candidate merely clarifies that she undertook acourse whilst in the 10[th] grade – That, by no means, is sufficient tofall within the description of “equivalent” qualification under Regn.4(2)(f) – Nor can it be deemed adequate having regard to the letterof the Assistant Principal of Conrad High School that the AP coursein Biological Sciences is of college standard – There is a rationaleand compelling logic on the part of the University to say that thecandidate should have studied biology or biological sciences (apartfrom the other two science subjects, along with the furtherrequirement of having studied English) in all the relevant yearsduring the intermediate or at 10+2 level – Further, the reference tohaving studied in the first year in a degree course, at the collegelevel with the said subject, carries with it, the implication that thestudent would have necessarily undergone academic study andtraining in the said three subjects at the 10+2 or intermediate level(without which, admission in a degree course is inconceivable inIndia) – The further emphasis on having attended or undertakenpractical lessons, (again at that level, in each of the concernedyears) clearly signifies that a candidate should have undergonestudy in those subjects for the last two years at school or intermediatecollege level – High Court did not closely scrutinize the equivalencecertificate or the subject stipulations – The stipulation of equivalence

A

B

C

DE

FG

H

Ain Regn. 4(2)(f) is not merely a formal one – The provision must beread in the context of the consistent conditions of eligibilityprescribed in Regns. 4(2)(a) to (e) – Regn. 4(2)(f) explicitly refersto the subject matter requirement reiterated in all the eligibilityconditions from (a) to (e); the substance of the eligibility requirementindeed, is that the candidate should have qualified an intermediateBlevel examination or first year of a graduate course, and studiedthe subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology at this level, alongwith practical testing in these subject areas, and the Englishlanguage – This subject matter requirement is at the heart of eligibilityto be admitted into the medical course - There was no error on partCof University in treating candidate ineligible.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

Conclusion

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 A plain reading of Regulation 4(2) of the MedicalCouncil of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education,1997 shows that the MCI visualized five different situations,Dhaving regard to the nature and structure of high school educationin India, and provided for equivalence in respect of other variantsof similar examinations, possibly even overseas qualifications.In all, the MCI regulations contemplate six qualifications foreligibility - (i) higher secondary examinations conducted by oneEof the several boards (of secondary and senior secondary schoolexaminations) or the Indian School Certificate Examination [Reg.4(2)(a)]; (ii) the intermediate examination in science of an IndianUniversity/Board or other recognised examining body [Reg.4(2)(b)]; (iii) “Pre-professional/pre-medical examination” withPhysics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology, after passingFeither the higher secondary school examination, or the pre-university or an equivalent examination, with further stipulationthat the pre-professional examination should have a practical testin Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology [Reg. 4(2)(c)];(iv) the first year examination of the three years degree courseGof a recognized university, with Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology, with a further stipulation that the candidateshould have passed the 10+2 examination with English at a levelnot less than the “core course” [Reg. 4(2)(d)]; (v) the B.Sc.examination of an Indian University, only if the candidate “haspassed the B.Sc. examination with not less than two of theH

following subjects Physics, Chemistry, Biology (Botany, Zoology)/Bio-technology and further that he/she has passed the earlierqualifying examination with the following subjects – Physics,Chemistry, Biology and English” [Reg. 4(2)(e)]; and lastly, (vi)any examination found to be equivalent to the intermediate scienceexamination of an Indian University/Board, taking Physics,Chemistry and Biology including practical test in each of thesesubjects and English[Reg. 4(2)(f)]. [Para 11][946-F-G; 947-A-C]

2. Each variant of what is acceptable, lays stress on certaincommon features: (a) that the candidate should have passed theexamination with Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology;(b) the candidate should have undergone practical tests in thosescience subjects (c) the candidate should have studied Englishand, lastly, (d) that marks obtained in Mathematics would not betaken into consideration for deciding admission to the MBBScourse. [Para 12][947-D-E]

3. The respondent-student’s argument is twofold: one, thatthe letters of Conrad High School and the West Hartford ScienceDepartment Supervisor together with the certificate of theTelangana Intermediate Education Board, establish that she hadsuccessfully undergone a school certificate program, equivalentto the 10+2 qualification in India, and second, that the AdvancedPlacement (AP) course undertaken by her is equivalent to a first-year degree qualification in Biology. This court finds thesubmission insubstantial. While the court cannot claim expertiseand pronounce upon the curriculum and pedagogy of any course,much less the academic course which the student (in this case)qualified, what it can certainly do is examine whether theUniversity’s stand that she does not hold a qualification equivalentto any of the five categories of qualifications spelt out [i.e.,Regulation 4(2)(a) to (e)], or the sixth category [Regulation 4(2)(f)]is correct. [Para 13][947-F-G; 948-A]

4. A careful reading of the said provision discloses that theMCI emphasized that the candidate should have undergone studyat the 10+2 stage, (or in the intermediate course) in the specifiedsubjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology. Inthis case, the certificate relied upon by the student merely clarifies A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athat she undertook a course whilst in the 10[th] grade. That, by nomeans, is sufficient to fall within the description of “equivalent”qualification under Regulation 4(2)(f). Nor, in the opinion of thiscourt, can it be deemed adequate having regard to the letter ofthe Assistant Principal of Conrad High School that the AP coursein Biological Sciences is of college standard. [Para 14][948-B-C]B

5. There is a rationale and compelling logic on the part ofthe University to say that the candidate should have studiedbiology or biological sciences (apart from the other two sciencesubjects, along with the further requirement of having studiedEnglish) in all the relevant years during the intermediate or atC10+2 level. Further, the reference to having studied in the firstyear in a degree course, at the college level with the said subject,carries with it, the implication that the student would havenecessarily undergone academic study and training in the saidthree subjects at the 10+2 or intermediate level (without which,Dadmission in a degree course is inconceivable in India). Thefurther emphasis on having attended or undertaken practicallessons, (again at that level, in each of the concerned years) clearlysignifies that a candidate should have undergone study in thosesubjects for the last two years at school or intermediate collegelevel. The regulation is further clear that the examination scoreE(marks) in Mathematics shall not be taken into consideration forthe purpose of admission to a medical course, in reckoningmerit or performance in the qualifying examination. [Para 15][948-D-F]

6. It is apparent that the High Court did not closelyFscrutinize the equivalence certificate or the subject stipulations.It also appears to have been largely influenced by the fact thatthe candidate was in fact admitted by the University. In the opinionof this court, the construction placed on Regulation 4(2), i.e.,that each of the sub clauses (a) to (f) prescribes independentGqualifications which should be deemed essential, is rathersimplistic. That interpretation ignores the fact that each of thesub-clauses insists that certain subjects should have been studied,and practical examinations attempted at the 10+2 or equivalentlevel. Secondly, the college or intermediate examination [orequivalent qualifications under Regulation 4(2)(f)] cannot be readH

KALOJI NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES v.SRIKEERTI REDDI PINGLE

in isolation, having regard to the circumstances. The provisionmust be read in the context of the requirements for eligibilityunder Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e). The equivalence in qualificationis not merely at the level of a 10+2 requirement, i.e., that thecandidate should have passed an examination equivalent to theintermediate science examination at an Indian University/ Board.Additional to this requirement, Regulation 4(2)(f) requiresequivalence in ‘standard and scope’ in an examination where thecandidate is tested in Physics, Chemistry and Biology includingpractical testing in these subjects, along with English. Thesesubject matter requirements are consistent across Regulations4(2)(a) to (e) and (f). [Para 19][950-F-H; 951-A-B]

7. The approach and construction placed by the High Courtundermines the intent behind the MCI’s insistence that a certainkind of education should be undergone, which is that eachcandidate for the MBBS course should have undergone study inPhysics, Chemistry and Biology, in each of the levels (i.e. thetwo years of 10+2 board examination, or the concernedintermediate examination) with practical exams, in each of thoseyears; that he or she should also have had English as a subject,and that the score in Mathematics would be ignored and not takeninto consideration. The equivalence relied on by the TelanganaIntermediate Board in this case, merely alluded to the generalequivalence in terms of education at the intermediate level,without stipulating whether the qualifications were equivalent interms of the subjects in which she undertook courses for therelevant years. [Para 20][951-C-E]

8. The stipulation of equivalence in Regulation 4(2)(f) isnot merely a formal one. The provision must be read in the contextof the consistent conditions of eligibility prescribed in Regulations4(2)(a) to (e). Regulation 4(2)(f) explicitly refers to the subjectmatter requirement reiterated in all the eligibility conditions from(a) to (e); the substance of the eligibility requirement indeed, isthat the candidate should have qualified an intermediate levelexamination or first year of a graduate course, and studied thesubjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology at this level, alongwith practical testing in these subject areas, and the English AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Alanguage. This subject matter requirement is at the heartof eligibility to be admitted into the medical course. [Para 21][951-F-G; 952-A-C]

State of Bombay v. R.M.D Chamarbaugwala 1957 SCR930 – relied on.

BSharanya Balaji Nadar v. The Dental Council of IndiaW.P.Nos.32099/2019 & WMP 32352 & 32353/2019dated 14.07.2020; Kashvi Udhayakumar v. Union ofIndia WP Nos. 16529 & 16534/2020 & WMP 20510,20512, 20517 and 20515/2020 dated 01.12.2020 –

referred to.C

Case Law Reference

[1957] SCR 930relied onPara 21

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 390of 2021.D

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12.2020 of the High Courtfor the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WP 23953 of 2020.

Ms. Madhavi diwan, Rana Mukherjee, Sr.Adv., P. Venkat Reddy,Prashant Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy, Aishani Narain, M/S. Venkat PalwaiELaw Associates, Ankolekar Gurudatta, Sumanth Nookala, MrigankPrabhakar, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan,Ms. Alankrita Sinha, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

F

1. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal washeard finally.

2. The Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences(hereafter variously referred to as “the University” or “the appellant”)appeals a decision of the Telangana High Court[1] in W.P. No.23953/2020Gwhich had allowed a writ petition preferred by the respondent (hereafterreferred to as “the student”). The respondent student had sought adirection declaring the action of the University in treating her as ineligiblefor admission to the MBBS Course for the academic year 2020-21, as

illegal. The facts necessary for decision are few; the student had applied,pursuant to a notification issued by the University on 30.11.2020 foradmission into the management quota for NRI candidates for the MBBS/BDS course during the academic year (AY) 2020-21. The student hadapplied for admission to the MBBS course. The University published alist on 12.12.2020 containing the respondent student’s name, clarifyingthat she had not furnished proof of study of Biological Science subject inthe qualifying examination (10+2 or equivalent). The respondent studentthen secured a letter from the Consulate General of India in New York,stating that she had successfully completed the 12[th] grade from oneConrad High School, West Hartford, Connecticut and that it wasequivalent to the Pre-University (Two Year Course) New IntermediateUniversity and the 12-year Senior Secondary Board ExaminationCertificate of India. On 23.12.2020, the University issued a notificationseeking web option for the second round of online counselling foradmission to the MBBS/BDS seats in the management quota for AY2020-21.

3. The student approached the High Court on 24.12.2020 andbesides relying upon the certificate/letter issued by Conrad High School,she also relied upon a certificate issued by the Telangana State Board ofIntermediate Education dated 23.12.2020, which declared the equivalenceand informed that the 12[th] class/senior secondary examination of theWest Hartford Board of Education, Connecticut USA was equivalent tothe Intermediate Examination conducted by the Telangana State Boardof Intermediate Education. The student applied for an interim order andwas permitted to participate in the counselling process conducted forthe remaining seats without prejudice to the parties’ rights. Thereafter,the University filed an application for vacation of the interim order, madeits position clear and spelt out why according to it, the respondent studentwas ineligible.

4. The High Court, by its impugned order, relied upon the certificateof the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education, as well as theletter dated 11.12.2020 of Conrad High School, and the certificate of14.12.2020 issued by the West Hartford Science Department Supervisor.The High Court declared that she had completed her 12[th] grade withBiological Sciences as required by the concerned regulations framed bythe erstwhile MCI – which continued to govern and regulate admissionsto various classes of medical courses. The High Court also held erroneous,the University’s position that there was no proof of her studying Biological AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ASciences in the qualifying examination. The Court took note of theequivalence certificate issued by the Telangana State Board ofIntermediate Education, and was of the opinion that the University couldnot, therefore, approve and add new grounds in respect of the student’sapplication for admission. It concluded that the University acted arbitrarilyin treating the student ineligible.

B

5. Ms. Madhavi Divan, Additional Solicitor General for India(ASG), relied upon Regulation 4(1) of the Medical Council of IndiaRegulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, as amended fromtime to time, particularly on 23.01.2018 (hereafter called “the MCIRegulations”). The relevant part of the Regulation is extracted below:

C

“4. Admission to the Medical Course - Eligibility Criteria:

XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX

4(2)He/She has passed qualifying examination asunder:- D

(a) The higher secondary examination or the Indian SchoolCertificate Examination which is equivalent to 10+2 HigherSecondary Examination after a period of 12 years study, thelast two years of study comprising of Physics, Chemistry,Biology/Biotechnology and Mathematics or any other electivesubjects with English at a level not less than core course ofEnglish as prescribed by the National Council of EducationalResearch and Training after the introduction of the 10+2+3years educational structure as recommended by the NationalCommittee on education; E

Note: Where the course content is not as prescribed for 10+2education structure of the National Committee, the candidateswill have to undergo a period of one year pre-professionaltraining before admission to the Medical colleges; Or G

(b) The intermediate examination in science of an IndianUniversity/Board or other recognised examining body withPhysics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology which shallinclude a practical test in these subjects and also English asa compulsory subject; H

Or

(c) The pre-professional/pre-medical examination with Physics,Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology, after passing eitherthe higher secondary school examination, or the pre-universityor an equivalent Examination. The pre-professional/pre-medical examination shall include a practical test in Physics,Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology and also English as acompulsory subject; Or (d) The first year of the three years degree course of arecognized university, with Physics, chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology including a practical test in three subjectsprovided the examination is a “University Examination” andcandidate has passed 10+2 with English at a level not lessthan a core course; Or (e) B.Sc. examination of an Indian University, provided thathe/she has passed the B.Sc. examination with not less thantwo of the following subjects Physics, Chemistry, Biology(Botany, Zoology)/Bio-technology and further that he/she haspassed the earlier qualifying examination with the followingsubjects – Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English.

Or

(f) Any other examination which, in scope and standard isfound to be equivalent to the intermediate science examinationof an Indian University/Board, taking Physics, Chemistry andBiology including practical test in each of these subjects andEnglish.

Note:

The pre-medical course may be conducted either at MedicalCollege, or a science College.

Marks obtained in Mathematics are not to be considered foradmission to MBBS Course.

After the 10+2 course is introduced, the integrated coursesshould be abolished.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A6. It is submitted that the University was justified in rejecting thestudent’s candidature because there was no material furnished for it toconclude that she had undergone a complete course in Biological Sciencesand that consequently, the qualifications held by her were equivalent tothe 10+2 qualification required by the Regulations. The ASG highlightedin this regard that Conrad High School’s letter dated 11.12.2020 statedBthat the student undertook a rigorous course of study of AdvancedPlacement (“AP”) Biology during her 10[th] grade year. It is submittedthat according to the letter issued by Conrad High School, the coursewas an introductory biology course which examines in an acceleratedand in-depth manner, topics in biochemistry, cellular biology, organismalCbiology, population biology, evolution, genetics and ecology and that itprepares students for the SAT Biology E/M subject test.

7. The learned ASG further pointed out that according to the letterdated 14.12.2020 relied on by the student, the AP Biology course atConrad High School was designed to be equivalent to a first-year collegeDlevel Biology course and was also aligned to the two courses offered atthe University of Connecticut. The letter further clarified that “in mosthigh schools across the US, this Course is offered during Grade 11or 12 to students as a second year Biology course”. The ASG pointedout that as a consequence, the University acted correctly and was withinits rights in refusing admission on the ground of lack of equivalence inEthe qualification held by the student. Even in terms of the materialsubmitted by her, as far as the letter issued by the Consulate General ofIndia dated 22.12.2020 is concerned, the learned ASG emphasized thatit merely certified that according to the Resolution adopted at the meetingsof the Equivalency Committee and the Standing Committee of theFAssociation of Indian Universities, New Delhi, the 12 Year High SchoolDiploma of the United States of America is recognized in India asequivalent to 12 years senior secondary board examination certificate ofIndia. However, significantly, it does not and cannot be construed asequivalent to a 10+2 qualification with Biological Sciences. Likewise, itis stated that the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education’sGcertificate merely declared equivalence to the intermediate examinationconducted by the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education.This too omitted the equivalence of the qualification held by the studentsin terms of the Regulation, i.e., that the candidate had to complete 2years scholastic training in Biological Sciences, which is essential.H

8. It was emphasised that the entire structure of Regulation 4(2)lays emphasis not only on the equivalence of the qualification with respectto 10+2 or intermediate sciences examination in the Indian University/Board but that the student should have complete schooling in thosesubjects in each of the concerned years, i.e. 11[th] and 12[th] and shouldhave passed 10+2 with English as a subject as well. It was submittedlastly that by all indications, the qualification held by the student in thiscase is equivalent to 10+2 of any Board in India with English as one ofthe subjects but there is no further proof that she had undergone study inBiology or Biological Sciences in each of the concerned years at the10+2 stage. In these circumstances, the learned ASG urged that thisCourt should reverse the impugned judgment.

9. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing for thestudent argued that the impugned judgment has correctly reasoned thatthe candidate held equivalent qualifications and was eligible forconsideration for a medical UG/MBBS course offered by the Universityas an NRI candidate, but submitted that a close look at Regulation 4(2),particularly Regulation 4(2)(f) clarifies that nowhere is it expresslystipulated that an eligible candidate has to undergo schooling in everyyear in the concerned subjects – in the present case, that subject beingBiology/Biological Sciences. Learned counsel placed reliance upon thetwo letters of Conrad High School dated 11[th] and 14[th] December 2020,and the equivalence certificate issued by the Telangana State Board ofIntermediate Education. He further placed reliance upon the letter writtenby the Assistant Principal of Conrad High School on 29.01.2021, whichsought to clarify the structure of pre-school through 12[th] grade in theUS, especially in the state of Connecticut. The relevant part of the letterreads as follows:

“High school in the United States is not specialized for aspecific career path; as a result, in addition to the core classesthat students can choose to take (English, Math, Science,World Language, and Social Studies), students can choose totake elective courses in Business, Art, Theatre, Music,Technology and Engineering, etc. While there is an expectedorder of specific courses within each field, for example all9[th] grade students take Earth Science, a student in 10[th] gradein West Hartford has the option of taking an AdvancedPlacement Biology course, which is challenging and at a AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Acollege level. Students can earn college credit for thesecourses. Students can take courses based on their interests,but they still must take a certain number of courses in eachdiscipline. Our expectation at Conard High School is thatstudents WILL challenge themselves with difficult andadvanced courses to prepare them for college and to determineBtheir future interests and possible pathways to careers. Thestate of Connecticut does not have a 10+2 system as manyother countries do. However, students in grades 9-12 havethe opportunity to take college level courses through thecollege Board’s Advanced Placement Program (recognizedCinternationally) and Early College Experience courses(recognized by the University of Connecticut).”

10. Learned senior counsel also relied upon the two judgments ofthe Madras High Court in Sharanya Balaji Nadar v. The DentalCouncil of India[2] and Kashvi Udhayakumar v. Union of India[3] inDsupport of the submission that the interpretation placed by the High Courton Regulation 4(2) is correct. He emphasised that each of the sub-clauses,i.e. (a) to (f) of Clause 4(2) are independent of each other and in thepresent cases, the declaration of equivalence established by the certificateof 23.12.2020 by the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Educationcould not have been discredited as was done by the University.E

Analysis and Conclusions

11. A plain reading of Regulation 4(2) shows that the MCI visualizedfive different situations, having regard to the nature and structure ofhigh school education in India, and provided for equivalence in respectFof other variants of similar examinations, possibly even overseasqualifications. In all, the MCI regulations contemplate six qualificationsfor eligibility - (i) higher secondary examinations conducted by one ofthe several boards (of secondary and senior secondary schoolexaminations) or the Indian School Certificate Examination [Reg. 4(2)(a)];(ii) the intermediate examination in science of an Indian University/BoardGor other recognised examining body [Reg. 4(2)(b)]; (iii) “Pre-professional/pre-medical examination” with Physics, Chemistry andBiology/Bio-technology, after passing either the higher secondary school 2 W.P.Nos.32099/2019 & WMP 32352 & 32353/2019 dated 14.07.2020

3WP Nos. 16529 & 16534/2020 & WMP 20510, 20512, 20517 and 20515/2020Hdated01.12.2020

examination, or the pre-university or an equivalent examination, withfurther stipulation that the pre-professional examination should have apractical test in Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology [Reg.4(2)(c)]; (iv) the first year examination of the three years degree courseof a recognized university, with Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology, with a further stipulation that the candidate should have passedthe 10+2 examination with English at a level not less than the “corecourse” [Reg. 4(2)(d)]; (v) the B.Sc. examination of an Indian University,only if the candidate “has passed the B.Sc. examination with not lessthan two of the following subjects Physics, Chemistry, Biology(Botany, Zoology)/Bio-technology and further that he/she has passedthe earlier qualifying examination with the following subjects –Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English” [Reg. 4(2)(e)]; and lastly,(vi) any examination found to be equivalent to the intermediate scienceexamination of an Indian University/Board, taking Physics, Chemistryand Biology including practical test in each of these subjects andEnglish[Reg. 4(2)(f)].

12. It is noticeable that each variant of what is acceptable, laysstress on certain common features: (a) that the candidate should havepassed the examination with Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology; (b) the candidate should have undergone practical tests inthose science subjects (c) the candidate should have studied Englishand, lastly, (d) that marks obtained in Mathematics would not be takeninto consideration for deciding admission to the MBBS course.

13. The respondent-student’s argument is twofold: one, that theletters of Conrad High School[4] and the West Hartford ScienceDepartment Supervisor[5] together with the certificate of the TelanganaIntermediate Education Board[6], establish that she had successfullyundergone a school certificate program, equivalent to the 10+2qualification in India, and second, that the Advanced Placement (AP)course undertaken by her is equivalent to a first-year degree qualificationin Biology. This court finds the submission insubstantial. While the courtcannot claim expertise and pronounce upon the curriculum and pedagogyof any course, much less the academic course which the student (in thiscase) qualified, what it can certainly do is examine whether the 4Dated 11.12.2020 and 29.01.2020

5Dated 14.12.2020

6Dated 23.12.2020

A

B

D

G

H

AUniversity’s stand that she does not hold a qualification equivalent toany of the five categories of qualifications spelt out [i.e., Regulation4(2)(a) to (e)], or the sixth category [Regulation 4(2)(f)] is correct.

14. A careful reading of the said provision discloses that the MCIemphasized that the candidate should have undergone study at the 10+2Bstage, (or in the intermediate course) in the specified subjects of Physics,Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology. In this case, the certificate reliedupon by the student[7] merely clarifies that she undertook a course whilstin the 10[th] grade. That, by no means, is sufficient to fall within thedescription of “equivalent” qualification under Regulation 4(2)(f). Nor,in the opinion of this court, can it be deemed adequate having regard toCthe letter of the Assistant Principal of Conrad High School[8] that the APcourse in Biological Sciences is of college standard.

15. In the opinion of this court, there is a rationale and compellinglogic on the part of the University to say that the candidate should havestudied biology or biological sciences (apart from the other two scienceDsubjects, along with the further requirement of having studied English) inall the relevant years during the intermediate or at 10+2 level. Further,the reference to having studied in the first year in a degree course, at thecollege level with the said subject, carries with it, the implication that thestudent would have necessarily undergone academic study and trainingEin the said three subjects at the 10+2 or intermediate level (without which,admission in a degree course is inconceivable in India). The furtheremphasis on having attended or undertaken practical lessons, (again atthat level, in each of the concerned years) clearly signifies that a candidateshould have undergone study in those subjects for the last two years atschool or intermediate college level. The regulation is further clear thatFthe examination score (marks) in Mathematics shall not be taken intoconsideration for the purpose of admission to a medical course, inreckoning merit or performance in the qualifying examination.

16. So far as the judgment of the Madras High Court in SharanyaBalaji Nadar (supra) is concerned, the candidate there had applied forGadmission, and was permitted to appear in the common entranceexamination. The structure of the concerned regulations of the DentalCouncil of India, in that case, were closely similar to Regulation 4(2) of 7Issued by the West Hartford Science Department Supervisor.8Dated 29.01.2021H

KALOJI NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES v.SRIKEERTI REDDI PINGLE [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

the MCI Regulations in the present case. The High Court accepted thecandidates’ submissions, and held as follows:

“14. A careful reading of the above regulations makes it clearthat a candidate even at the time of taking NEET examinationmust fulfil the eligibility criteria that is prescribed in Clause 3which is extracted supra. Clause 3 contains six sub clausesfrom (a) to (f). Each sub-clause is independent of the otherand none of the sub-clauses can be read together. For thepurposes of this case, sub-clause (a) and sub-clause (f)requires consideration.

15. The case of the petitioner is that she falls under sub-clause (f) of the regulations. Any candidate who falls undersub-clause (f) of the regulations, has to obtain an equivalencecertificate from the concerned authority. The concernedauthority is the Association of the Indian Universities. Thisauthority considered the degree/diploma obtained by thepetitioner in as educational institution at USA. The concernedauthority found that the qualification of the petitioner isequivalent to the senior school certificate of CBSE/otherboards in India. The evaluation of the educational credentialshas been extracted supra.

16. It is based on this equivalence certificate, the petitionerwas allowed to write the NEET examination and the petitionersecured 258 marks and she was allotted a seat in the fourthrespondent college by the allotment order passed by the thirdrespondent, dated 24.07.2019. The petitioner is undergoingthe course.”

17. In Kashvi Udhayakumar (supra) the relevant facts werenoted by the court, in the following terms:

“The petitioners got the confirmation from the EquivalenceCommittee and the Standing Committee of the Association ofIndian Universities that the high school diploma underwentby the petitioners in USA is equivalent to 12-year senior schoolCertificate of Central Board of Secondary Education.”

18. The High Court then cited and relied on Sharanya BalajiNadar (supra) to hold that each sub-clause of Regulation 4(2) wasindependent, and that the qualification held by the candidate, an NRI

AB

CD

E

F

G

H

[2021] 1 S.C.R.

Awho had studied in the USA, was deemed to be equivalent to theprescribed eligibility conditions:

“13. It was categorically held by this Court that each Clauseis independent of the other and none of the sub-clauses canbe read together.

B

If the candidate has fulfilled the requirements of any one ofthe Clause, he or she will be entitled for admission to theMedical Course. The petitioners in the present case will fallwithin Regulation 4 (f) and once the petitioners have producedthe Equivalence Certificate issued by the 5th Respondent,Cthere is no more requirement to again subject the petitionersfor one more scrutiny on their eligibility. It will be toofarfetched to declare that a candidate who fulfils therequirements for NEET Examination, will not fulfil thequalification when it comes to joining the MBBS Course. Suchan interpretation will lead to illogical consequences. TheDpetitioners who were living in USA have come to this countryto undergo the Medical Course and they were found to beeligible by the Equivalence Committee to write the NEETExamination.

After having been given an allotment in the 4th RespondentEInstitution, the 4th Respondent Institution cannot nowundertake one more exercise and come to a completelydifferent conclusion by reading Regulation 4 (a) intoRegulation 4 (f) and thereby render the effect of Regulation4 (f) completely nugatory and redundant.”F19. It is apparent that the High Court followed its previous judgment,and did not closely scrutinize the equivalence certificate or the subjectstipulations. It also appears to have been largely influenced by the factthat the candidate was in fact admitted by the University. In the opinionof this court, the construction placed on Regulation 4(2), i.e., that eachGof the sub clauses (a) to (f) prescribes independent qualifications whichshould be deemed essential, is rather simplistic. That interpretation ignoresthe fact that each of the sub-clauses insists that certain subjects shouldhave been studied, and practical examinations attempted at the 10+2 orequivalent level. Secondly, the college or intermediate examination [orequivalent qualifications under Regulation 4(2)(f)] cannot be read inH

isolation, having regard to the circumstances. The provision must beread in the context of the requirements for eligibility under Regulations4(2)(a) to (e). The equivalence in qualification is not merely at the levelof a 10+2 requirement, i.e., that the candidate should have passed anexamination equivalent to the intermediate science examination at anIndian University/ Board. Additional to this requirement, Regulation 4(2)(f)requires equivalence in ‘standard and scope’ in an examination wherethe candidate is tested in Physics, Chemistry and Biology includingpractical testing in these subjects, along with English. These subjectmatter requirements are consistent across Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e)and (f).

20. The approach and construction placed by the High Court, inthis court’s opinion, undermines the intent behind the MCI’s insistencethat a certain kind of education should be undergone, which is that eachcandidate for the MBBS course should have undergone study in Physics,Chemistry and Biology, in each of the levels (i.e. the two years of 10+2board examination, or the concerned intermediate examination) withpractical exams, in each of those years; that he or she should also havehad English as a subject, and that the score in Mathematics would beignored and not taken into consideration[9]. It would be, in this context,necessary to clarify that the equivalence relied on by the TelanganaIntermediate Board in this case, merely alluded to the general equivalencein terms of education at the intermediate level, without stipulating whetherthe qualifications were equivalent in terms of the subjects in which sheundertook courses for the relevant years.

21. The stipulation of equivalence in Regulation 4(2)(f) is not merelya formal one. The provision must be read in the context of the consistentconditions of eligibility prescribed in Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e), as notedabove. This court, in State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala[10]interpreted the definition of a ‘prize competition’[11]. A prize competitionwas defined as including crossword prize competitions, picture prizecompetitions, etc., and finally, any other prize competition, for whichsolution is or is not prepared beforehand by the promotors, or forwhich the solution is determined by lot or chance. This last9 The last negative stipulation, by a note, applicable to all the sub-clauses of Regulation4(2).

101957 SCR 930.11 Under s. 2(1)(d) of the Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competitions Control and TaxAct, 1948.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aqualification was appended only to the last sub-clause on ‘any othercompetition’. The court held that the qualification should be equallyapplicable to the other sub-clauses too, and that there was no difficultyin reading the qualifying clause as lending colour to each of those items.In the present case, Regulation 4(2)(f) explicitly refers to the subjectmatter requirement reiterated in all the eligibility conditions from (a) toB(e); the substance of the eligibility requirement indeed, is that the candidateshould have qualified an intermediate level examination or first year of agraduate course, and studied the subjects of Physics, Chemistry andBiology at this level, along with practical testing in these subject areas,and the English language. This subject matter requirement is at the heartCof eligibility to be admitted into the medical course.

22. For these reasons, this court is of the opinion that theinterpretation placed upon the regulations in both the cited cases, by theMadras High Court, do not reflect the correct position. To be eligible,the candidate should produce clear and categorical material to showDthat she underwent the necessary years of study in all the stipulatedsubjects. This court is of the opinion that such stipulations are to beregarded as essential, given that the course in question, i.e., MBBSprimarily if not predominantly, involves prior knowledge - both theoreticaland practical, of senior secondary level in biology or biological sciences.

E23. For the above reasons, this court is of the opinion that theimpugned order cannot be sustained; it is, therefore, set aside. The appealis allowed without order on costs.

F

Devika Gujral

Appeal allowed.

G

H