Pandipati Vamseedhar Reddy v. Medical Council of India

1. The captioned writ petitions bear facts which are almost identical. There is an insignificant difference qua some dates, to which a reference is made hereinafter. The substantive reliefs, sought are, however, identical. These being: "i. To recognize/confirm the Provisional Certificate issued to the petitioner; ii. To give Permanent Registration Certificate to the Petitioner, for practicing as a Doctor in India or in alternative to give Provisional Certificate afresh to the Petitioner, in the interest ofjustice...." W.P.(C) 650/2013 & 651/2103 2013:DHC:7127

2. Therefore,forthesakeofconvenience,Iwouldberefenii^tothetwo petitioners in the captioned writ petition by their respective names, while collectively they will be referred to as petitioners.

3. The petitioners claim that they obtained a decree in medicine from Lugansk State Medical University situate in Ukraine in June, 1999. On completion of their studies in Ukraine they approached the Medical Council of India (in short MCI), in 2000, for grant of registration. In so far as Mr. Reddy is concerned, he claims to have obtained a provisional registration from MCI, in July, 2000, whereas Mr. Gopal Ki-ishna claims that the provisional registration was granted to him, by MCI, in November, 2000.

4. Consequently, both the petitioners took up internship. While Mr. Reddy took up internship with Osmania General Hospital, Afzal Gunj, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, in September, 2000; Mr. Gopal Krishna joined

5. V.R.G. Government General Hospital, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, in February, 2001. 4.[1] Both petitioners claim that they successfully completed their internship. Mr. Reddy, apparently, completed his internship in October, 2001, while Mr. Gopal Krishna completed his internship in February, 2002.

5. What is not disputed, though is that, in 2002, a FIR was lodged against both the petitioners based on the allegation that they had tampered with their school leaving marksheets, i.e., 10+2 marksheets, while seeking to obtain registration with the MCI.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners admits that the trial with respect to the charge levelled against the petitioners is presently on-going. She submits, though, that since, the trial is likely to take some time, the relief W.P.(C) 650/2013 & 651/2103 Page 2 of[3] sought for m the petitions ougiitto be granted to the two petitioners. ^

7. Given the aforesaid circumstance, which is that the trial against the petitioners has commenced, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution, in favour of the petitioners, at this stage. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

8. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioners are exonerated in the criminal case pending against them, they would be at liberty to approach MCI for requisite relief in accordance with law.

FEBRUARY 06, 2013 Idc \/\J RjdrV SHSiaSHER, J