Partly allowed

Dr. Amrutha K Sadasivan v. National Medical Commission

Kerala HC8 Sept 2021WP(C)/2369/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order excluding MD/DNB Anesthesiology from eligibility for Medical Super Specialty courses. The Court remitted the matter for reconsideration, emphasising the need for a proper hearing to the affected society and a mutual discussion among experts.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P2 set aside; 1st and 4th respondents directed to reconsider matter after hearing ISA representatives within two months.

Dr. Amrutha K Sadasivan Vs National Medical Commission — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2369 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 DR. AMRUTHA K SADASIVAN NAVAMI, NEAR LPS, CHITTAZHA, VATTAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN-695 028.

¶8

2 DR.ASHA K.SADASIVAN, SAKETAM, VILLA NO.1, SKYLINE PALM MEADOWS, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN-686 004. BY ADVS. B.SATHIQ SRI.LIJIN THAMBAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, POCKET-14, SECTOR8, DWARKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110 077, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS, MEDICAL ENCLAVE, ANSARI NAGAR, MAHATMA GANDHI MARG (RING ROAD), NEW DELHI-110 029. 3 INDIAN SOCIETY OF ANESTHESIOLOGISTS (ISA), NO.5, SAMBANTHAM STREET, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-670 017, REPRESENTED BY ITS HONORARY SECRETARY.

¶11

4 ADDL.R4. POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD, POCKET14, SECTOR-8, DWARAKA PHASE – 1, NEWDELHI (ADDL.R4 IS SUOMOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08.09.2021 IN W.P. (C) NO.2369/2021) BY ADVS. SRI.TITUS MANI, SC, MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SRI.SABU GEORGE

¶12

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶13

¶14

SMT.T.J.SEEMA SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).17032/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶21

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA,

¶22

1943

¶23

WP(C) NO. 17032 OF 2020

¶24

PETITIONERS:

¶25

1 DR. AMRUTHA K.SADASIVAN NAVAMI, NEAR LPS, CHITTAZHA , VATTAPPARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA PIN 695 028

¶26

2 DR. ASHA K SADASIVAN, SAKETAM, VILLA NO. 1, SKYLINE PALM MEADOWS, MUTTAMBALAM P.O, KOTTAYAM , KERALA PIN 686 004

BY ADVS. M.HEMALATHA

SRI.LIJIN THAMBAN

RESPONDENTS:

1 THE CHAIRMAN NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS, MEDICAL ENCLAVE, ANSARI NAGAR, MAHATMA GANDHI MARG (RING ROAD), NEW DELHI 110 029

¶31

2 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL, SECTOR-8, DWARKA PHASE-1 NEW DELHI 110 014

¶32

3 ADDL.R.3.INDIAN SOCIETY OF ANESTHESIOLOGISTS (IAS)

¶33

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.5,SAMBANTHAM STREET, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-670017 REPRESENTED BY ITS HONORARY SECRETARY DR.NAVEEN MALHOTRA. (ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED

¶34

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶35

¶36

10.11.2020 IN IA NO.1/2020).

¶37

4 ADDL.R4. POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD, POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, DWARAKA PHASE – 1, NEWDELHI (IS SUOMOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08.09.2021 in W.P.(C)NO.17032/2020).

¶38

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SRI.TITUS MANI VETTOM, SC, MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SMT.T.J.SEEMA SMT.B.ANUSREE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).2369/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

¶41

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶42

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶43

W.P.(C)Nos.2369 of 2021 and 17032 of 2020 -----------------------------------------

¶44

Dated this the 08^th day of September 2021

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

These two writ petitions are connected and therefore I am disposing these two writ petitions by a common judgment.

¶47

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the non

¶48

inclusion of the MD/DNB Anesthesiology as eligibility to apply for DM/DNB courses of Medical Super Specialties like DM/DNB Cardiology,

¶49

Neurology, Nephrology, Gastro Enterology (except DM/DNB-Cardiac Anesthesia, Neuro Anesthesia & Critical care). NEET-SS is an eligibility cum ranking examination prescribed by the single entrance examination for admission to various DM/MCh/DNB Super Specialties courses as per the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2016. No

¶50

other entrance examination either at the state or

¶51

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶52

¶53

the Institution level shall be valid for entry to DM/MCh/DNB courses as per the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2016 with effect from 2017 admission session. Qualifying NEET-SS is mandatory for entry to DM/MCh/DNB Super Specialty courses under various Universities/Institutions in

¶54

the country. The petitioners are desirous of pursuing higher education and as such getting higher qualification so that they can serve in the Super Specialty hospitals. According to the 1^st petitioner, she is working as Junior ConsultantAnesthesiology in Kerala Health Service Department. She completed her MBBS degree from the Kerala University in the year 2011. She has also obtained Post Graduate degree in Anesthesiology from ACME, Pariyaram under KUHS, in the year 2017, which is recognised by Medical Council of India. The 2^nd petitioner is working as Junior Consultant – Anesthesiology in Kerala Health Service Department. She completed her MBBS

¶55

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶56

¶57

degree from the Kannur University and she obtained Post Graduate degree in Anesthesiology from Sri.Gokulam Medical College, Venjaramoodu, under KUHS, in the year 2014, which is recognized by Medical Council of India.

¶58

3. The 1^st respondent (earlier Medical Council of India) had planned to conduct NEET Super Specialty Examination 2020 for the post graduate courses in Medical/Surgical Super Specialties. Since MD/DNB Anesthesiology is not included as eligibility to apply for DM/DNB courses of Medical Super Specialties (except DM/DNB – Cardiac Anesthesia, Neuro Anesthesia & Critical care), the petitioners filed a representation before the MCI to include them also in the NEET-SS Examination. Since there was delay

¶59

in disposing the representation, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P. (C)No.1387/2020. This Court as per Ext.P1 judgment directed the 1^st respondent in that writ

¶60

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶61

¶62

petition to take up and consider Ext.P2 representation produced in that writ petition within two months. When the representation was not disposed of and when the Information Bulletin for NEET-SS 2020 was published, the petitioners approached this Court by filing one of the above captioned Writ petition No.17032/2020 with the following prayers:

¶63

“i) To declare that the petitioners satisfy all the conditions and directions as per Exhibit-P3 and are eligible to apply for Medical Super Specialties (DM/DNB Cardiology, Neurology, Nephrology, Gastro Enterology) in NEET – 2020 Examinations as per Exhibit-P3;

¶64

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to allow the petitioners to submit their applications on line through the 1^st respondent – National Board Examinations for appearing in NEET -SS 2020 for Medical Super Specialties (DM/DNB Cardiology, Neurology, Nephrology, Gastro Enterology) as well;

¶65

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to appear for the NEET – SS 2020 Examinations for

¶66

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶67

¶68

Medical Super Specialties (DM/DNB Cardiology, Neurology, Nephrology, Gastro Enterology) as well as per Exhibit-P3.

¶69

iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to include MD/DNB Anesthesiology as eligibility criteria for DM/ DNB Super Specialty Courses from 2020 onwards;

¶70

v) To grant such other reliefs which this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

¶71

4. Thereafter the petitioners received a

¶72

communication dated 14.08.2020 from the 1^st respondent (then MCI) intimating that the petitioners case can not be considered for various

¶73

reasons. Ext.P2 produced in W.P.(C) No.2369/2021 is the proceedings received by the petitioners. Therefore W.P.(C)No.2369/2021 is filed challenging Ext.P2. The prayers in W.P.(C)No.2369/2021 is

¶74

extracted hereunder:

¶75

“i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P2 and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit-P2 decision of the then Medical Council of India as not sustainable;

¶76

¶77

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶78

ii) To declare that the petitioners satisfy all the conditions and directions for appearing in NEET-SS Examination and are eligible to apply for Medical Super Specialties (DM/DNB Cardiology, Neurology, Nephrology, Gastro Enterology) in NEET -2021 Examinations;

¶79

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to include MD/DNB Anesthesiology as eligibility criteria for DM/DNB Super Specialty Courses from 2021 onwards;

¶80

iv) To grant such other reliefs which this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

¶81

5. In W.P.(C)No.17032/2020, a statement was filed by the 2^nd respondent. Thereafter in W.P. (C)No.2369/2021 also, a statement dated 26.03.2021

¶82

was filed. Subsequently an additional statement dated 06.09.2021 was also filed in W.P. (C)No.2369/2021.

¶83

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing counsel for the 1^st respondent in W.P.(C)No.2369/2021 and the learned counsel who appeared for the 2^nd

¶84

¶85

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶86

respondent. I also heard Sri.P.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent in both the writ petitions.

¶87

7. Since W.P.(C)No.2369/2021 is the 2^nd writ petition, I will refer the exhibits in that writ petition.

¶88

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated their contentions in these writ petitions and submitted that Ext.P2 decision is unsustainable for the reason stated in these two writ petitions. The learned counsel takes me through paragraph No.11 in W.P.(C)No.2369/2021, in which about 9 grounds are mentioned challenging the validity of Ext.P2. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submitted that the decision taken by the authority as evident by Ext.P2 is

¶89

without application of mind and without considering the contentions of the petitioners. The learned counsel takes me through paragraph

¶90

No.8 of the statement filed in W.P.

¶91

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶92

¶93

(C)No.17032/2020. Paragraph No.8 of the statement is extracted hereunder:

¶94

“8. it is submitted that the contention of the petitioners that MCI did not comply with Ext.P2 judgment is not true. On receipt of the copy of the judgment, a committee of experts was constituted by MCI and the committee after considering the theoretical & clinical training and curricula of MD/DNB (Anesthesiology) vis a vis MD/DNB in Medicine was of the considered opinion that MD (Anesthesiology) cannot be considered eligible for DM in Medical Super Specialties in Cardiology, Nephrology, Neurology and Gastroenterology)”

¶95

9. Thereafter the learned counsel takes me through Annexure R2(b) produced along with the statement. Annexure R2(b) is dated 15.07.2020. The learned counsel submitted that Annexure R2(b)is a communication issued by the Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India to the Joint Director(Medical), Department of Examination. In that letter it is stated by the authority that the matter was considered by the Board of experts of Medical Super Specialties and is of the considered opinion that the training

¶96

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶97

¶98

and skills acquired during MD(Anaesthesiology) and the outcome expectations of Medical Super Specialists that MD(Anaesthesiology) can not be considered eligible for DM in Medical Super Specialties. This communication was sent on 15.07.2020. Thereafter the learned counsel takes me through Annexure R2(a). Annexure R2(a) is dated 14.08.2020 (Ext.R2(a) is Ext.P2 in W.P. (C)No.2369/2021). The learned counsel submitted that after sending Annexure R2(b) on 15.07.2020, the petitioners were intimated about the decision as per Annexure R2(a) on 14.08.2020. Thereafter the learned counsel takes me through the minutes of the committee referred in Ext.R2(b), which is produced as Annexure R1(a) in W.P.(C)No.2369/2021. The minutes is dated 28.07.2020. The learned

¶99

counsel submitted that Annexure R2(b) is dated 15.07.2020 and Annexure R2(a) is dated 14.08.2020. The minutes of the meeting is dated 28.07.2020.

¶100

That itself shows that there is no proper

¶101

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶102

¶103

consideration of the issue by the expert committee itself. The learned counsel also submitted that a perusal of the minutes produced as Annexure R1(a) will show that no expert from Anesthesia department is included in it. The learned counsel also submitted that the 3^rd respondent is a society

¶104

which represents about 34,000 members. The 3^rd respondent also was not consulted. The learned counsel submitted that the process of decision making which leads to Ext.P2 is not proper and transparent.

¶105

10. The learned Standing counsel for the 1^st respondent seriously objected the contentions of the petitioners and the 3^rd respondent. The learned Standing counsel takes me through the relevant exhibits and also the additional statement filed on 06.09.2021. The learned Standing counsel takes me through paragraph No.2 of the statement dated 06.09.2021, in which the

¶106

facts are narrated in detail. The learned

¶107

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶108

¶109

Standing counsel also takes me through Annexure R1(b) to R1(g) which are the emails received by the experts who are the members of the Committee. The learned Standing counsel submitted that Ext.P2 decision is taken after getting report from the expert in this field. This Court may not sit in

¶110

appeal to a decision taken by an expert in this case is the submission. The learned Standing counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in University Grants Commission and another v. Neha Anil Bobde(Gadekar), [(2013)10 SCC 519] and the decision in Basavaiah (Dr) v. Dr.H L Ramesh & Others [(2010)8 SCC 372].

¶111

11. The learned Standing counsel for the 1^st respondent submitted that there is nothing to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities who are experts in this field. The contention of the petitioners and the 3^rd respondent that an Anesthesiologist is not included in the expert committee is also

¶112

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶113

¶114

unsustainable. The learned Standing counsel submitted that they are interested parties and they need not be a member of the committee. There is no challenge of the qualification and expertise

¶115

of the members of the committee by the petitioners or the 3^rd respondent. In such circumstances, the

¶116

learned Standing counsel submitted that there is nothing to interfere with the decisions taken by the expert body. The learned Standing counsel reiterated that this Court is not an appellate body to examine the validity of Ext.P2, which is a decision taken by the experts in this field.

¶117

12. The learned counsel who appeared for the 2^nd respondent also supported the contentions of the 1^st respondent. The learned counsel also relied the judgment of the Apex court in Visveswaraiah Technological University and another v. Krishnendu Halder and others[(2011) 4 SCC 606] and submitted that there is nothing to interfere with the orders passed by the expert body.

¶118

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶119

¶120

13. I considered the contentions of the petitioners and the respondents. The validity of the decisions taken by the experts, as evident by Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.2369/2021, can not be examined by this Court while invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to me, this Court can only consider the process or the procedures which leads to the decision making and if there is any flaw, this Court can interfere and that also if there is a failure of justice. I also rely on the judgment of the Apex Court which is cited by the learned Standing counsel for the 1^st respondent in University Grants Commission's case(supra). The Apex court observed like this:

¶121

“31. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D.Govinda Rao, Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University and Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University, has taken the

¶122

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶123

¶124

view that the court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by the expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of the academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the university. For attaining the said standards, it is open to UGC to lay down any “qualifying criteria”, which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is, for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research. The candidates declared eligible for lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in universities and colleges and the standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only implemented the opinion of the experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

¶125

14. Similarly in Basavaiah's case (supra),

¶126

the Apex Court observed like this:

¶127

“38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the

¶128

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶129

¶130

courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavor to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.”

¶131

15. In Visveswaraiah's case (supra) , the Apex

¶132

Court observed like this:

¶133

“17. No student or college, in the teeth of the existing and prevalent rules of the State and the University can say that such rules should be ignored, whenever there are unfilled vacancies in colleges. In fact the State/University, may, in spite of vacancies, continue with the higher eligibility criteria to maintain better standards of higher education in the State or in the colleges affiliated to the University. Determination of such standards, being part of the academic policy of the University are beyond the purview of judicial review, unless it established that such standards are arbitrary or “adversely affect” the standards, if any, fixed by the central body under a Central enactment. The order of the Division Bench is therefore unsustainable.”

¶134

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶135

¶136

16. Therefore the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in a decision taken by an expert body in academic matters is very limited. This Court cannot examine the validity of the decision taken by the experts which is narrated in detail in Ext.P2. But one aspect is to be noted. I perused Annexure R2(b). It will be better to extract Annexure R2(b) in W.P.(C)No.17032/2020.

¶137

“Please refer to your letter No.NBE/DoEC/51006/I/14/2020/19844, dated 02.03.2020, on the subject noted above.

¶138

I am to state that the matter was considered by the Board of experts of Medical Super Specialties. It is the considered opinion of the Expert Group, after considering the training and skills acquired during MD ( Anesthesiology) and the outcome expectations of Medical Super Specialties that MD ( Anesthesiology) can not be considered eligible for DM in Medical Super Specialties.”

¶139

17. This letter is dated 15.07.2020.

¶140

Thereafter I perused Annexure R1(a) produced in W.P.(C)No.2369/2021 which is the minutes of the expert committee referred in Annexure R2(b). That

¶141

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶142

¶143

is dated 28.07.2020. A perusal of Annexure R2(b) dated 15.07.2020 will show that the Medical Council of India already intimated the Joint Director of Medical Department of Examinations that MD(Anesthesiology) need not be considered eligible for DM in Medical super specialty in the

¶144

light of the opinions of the experts. After intimating the same on 15.07.2020, the minutes of experts as evident by Annexure R1(a) dated 28.07.2020 came in to picture. When a doubt was raised about the same by this Court, the learned Standing counsel for the 1^st respondent submitted

¶145

that he will get further instructions and thereafter an additional statement was filed on 06.09.2021. It will be better to extract paragraph No.2 of the additional statement dated 06.09.2021.

¶146

“ 2. It is submitted that as the COVID -19 pandemic situation in the country was at an alarming level and all expert doctors were leading the battle against pandemic and as there was a time limit prescribed by the Court to take

¶147

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶148

¶149

a decision in the matter, an expert committee of 6 doctors were formed, the issue was presented by circulation and opinion gathered online. All the members were unanimous in their opinion not to include MD (Anesthesiology) as eligible prior qualification (PG degree) for DM in Medical Super Specialties in Cardiology, Nephrology, Neurology and Gastroentorology. As such, all the expert opinions was gathered by 1^st and 2^nd of July, 2020 the proceedings of the experts committee could be minuted only on 28-7-2020 ; that is why R-1 (a) is dated 28.7.2020. As NBE was progressing with the schedule of examination of NEET -SS 2020 and there was a great urgency, the decision was informed to them on 15-7-2020 itself. As per the Schedule of NEET -SS 2020 they had to publish the Information Bulletin on 3-8-2020. True copy of the e-mail received from the 6 experts communicating their expert opinion is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R-1(b), R-1(c),R1(d),R-1(e),R-1(f),R-1(g)”

¶150

18. In the statement it is stated that the proceedings of the expert committee could be minuted only on 28.07.2020 and that is why Annexure R1(a) is dated 28.07.2020. I perused Annexure R1(a). I can not see anything in Annexure R1(a) to show that it was a minutes of a meeting which was held prior to 28.07.2020. The

¶151

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶152

¶153

learned counsel for the petitioners takes me through the contents in Annexure R1(a). The opinion of the members of the expert committee is extracted in the minutes. Thereafter, a decision is taken. In the additional statement filed on 06.09.2021, Annexures R1(b) to R1(g), the e-mails received from the experts are produced. From the minutes it is clear that the authority concerned requested the experts about their opinion through e-mail and the opinions were collected through email and thereafter a decision is taken. There is nothing to show that, it is a collective decision after a mutual discussion between the committee members. Moreover, when Annexure R2(b) is dated 15.07.2020, how the meeting minutes which leads to the decision came on 28.07.2020 is not

¶154

clear. I am not in a position to accept the contentions of the 1^st respondent in the additional statement dated 06.09.2021 that the proceedings of

¶155

the expert committee could be minuted only on

¶156

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶157

¶158

28.07.2020 and that is why Annexure R1(a) is dated 28.07.2020. I do not want to make any further opinion. Admittedly, the 1^st respondent also stated that the decision was taken during the pandemic situation and that is why the opinions were obtained from the experts through email. Now there is a change in the situation. According to me, the experts can meet, if necessary through video conference and after collecting their opinion and after a mutual discussion by the experts in a meeting, there can be a further decision. I reiterate that I have not considered the opinions already made by the experts which is extracted in Annexure R1(a). According to me, a further consultation and proper decision making is necessary. In such situation, according to me, an opportunity of hearing also can be given to the 3^rd respondent who is a society representing the aggrieved party in this case. One or two of the members of the 3^rd respondent can be invited and

¶159

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶160

¶161

their grievance also can be heard by the competent authority who decide the same. On this simple reason, Ext.P2 can be set aside and the matter can be remitted back to the 1^st and 4^th respondents for reconsideration. I once again make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit and the

¶162

expert body of the 1^st respondent can decide the matter in accordance to law untrammeled by any observations in this judgment. I set aside the order and send it back to the authority only for reconsideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the 3^rd respondent and to felicitate a discussion among experts in the light of the version from the 3^rd respondent.

¶163

Therefore, these writ petitions are allowed in the following manner:

¶164

i) Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No. 2369/2021 is set

¶165

aside.

¶166

ii) The 1^st and 4^th respondents are

¶167

directed to reconsider the matter in accordance to

¶168

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶169

¶170

law after giving an opportunity of hearing to one

¶171

or two representatives of the 3^rd respondent

¶172

society.

¶173

iii) The above exercise should be

¶174

completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt

¶175

of a copy of this judgment.

¶176

iv) The hearing can be held through

¶177

virtually or physically.

¶178

v) All other contentions of the

¶179

petitioners are left open.

¶180

Sd/-

¶181

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶182

¶183

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶184

¶185

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17032/2020

¶186

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶187

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CURRICULUM COMPARING SYLLABUS OF GENERAL MEDICINE AND ANAESTHESIOLOGY EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-012020 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTIFICATION INFORMATION BULLETIN DATED 03-08-2020 FOR NEET-SS-2020

¶188

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

¶189

ANNEXURE R-2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER MCI NO.23(1)MED/114194-97 DATED 14-8-2020 ANNEXURE R-2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER MCINO.23(1)/2020/MED/109074-75 DATED 15-7-2020.

¶190

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 & 17032/2020

¶191

¶192

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2369/2021

¶193

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶194

EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.01.2020 IN WPC NO.1387 OF 2020.
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2020 OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PG CURRICULUM OF COMPARISON OF GENERAL MEDICINE AND ANESTHESIA.
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE PG CURRICULUM OF COMPARISON OF GENERAL MEDICINE, ANESTHESIA AND PULMONARY MEDICINE SYLLABUS.
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR COMPETENCY BASED POSTGRADUATE TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR MD IN ANAESTHESIOLOGY.
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR COMPETENCY BASED POST GRADUATE TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR MD IN PULMONARY MEDICINE.
EXHIBIT	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR COMPETENCY BASED POST GRADUATE TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR MD IN GENERAL MEDICINE.
EXHIBIT	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SUPERINDENT, GENERAL HOSPITAL, ALAPPUZHA DATED 23-07-2021.
RESPONDE	NTS EXHIB	ITS
ANNEXURE	R-1(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF EXPERT COMMITTEE DATED 28- 7-2020.
ANNEXURE	R-1(B)	TRUE COPY OF E-MAIL DATED 1-7-2020 SENT

¶195

¶196

WP(C) Nos. 2369/2021 &

¶197

17032/2020

¶198

BY DR.ASHUTOSH AGGARWAL.

¶199

ANNEXURE R-1(C)	TRUE COPY BY DR.DEBA	OF SH	E-MAIL DATED 1-7-2020 SENT ISH CHOUDHARY.
ANNEXURE R-1(D)	TRUE COPY BY DR.NIKH	OF IL	E-MAIL DATED 1-7-2020 SENT TANDON.
ANNEXURE R-1(E)	TRUE COPY BY DR.SANJ	OF AY	E-MAIL DATED 1-7-2020 SENT TYAGI.
ANNEXURE R-1(F)	TRUE COPY BY DR.PRAM	OF OD	E-MAIL DATED 1-7-2020 SENT GARG.
ANNEXURE R-1(G)	TRUE COPY BY DR.K L	OF GU	E-MAIL DATED 2-7-2020 SENT PTA.

¶200

//TRUE COPY//

¶201

PA TO JUDGE

Dr. Amrutha K Sadasivan v. National Medical Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Amrutha K Sadasivan v. National Medical Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.M.George Vs State of Kerala

Bindu a Joy Vs LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Mathunni E.I. Vs State of Kerala

Beaulah Grace Albert Vs Rose Jose

Ashraf C.A. Vs the Secretary

Rds Project Ltd. Vs Central Public Works Department(Cpwd)