CWP 8794/06 Page 1 of 4 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on: 02.02.2009 + W.P. (C) 8794/2006 RITA SIKKA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Tikku, Advocate. versus UOI THR.SECY. MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Monica Garg, Advocate. Mr. Maninder Singh with Mr. Kirtiman Singh and Mr. T. Singhdev, Advocates for Resp-4/DCI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (ORAL) % The petitioner seeks a direction or a writ to the respondents to issue a license of practice under the Dentist Act, 1948 after recognizing the medical degree issued to her by the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 2. The detailed facts are not necessary; in view of the order proposed. The petitioner completed graduation in Dental Sciences from the University CWP 8794/06 Page 2 of 4 of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada in 1999. She claims to have practiced as Dental Surgeon till 2005 when she got married to an Indian Passport holder. She applied for registration in India under the Dentists Act, 1948; the respondents were of the opinion that even though she holds passport as an Indian Overseas Citizen, she was not entitled to a registration in accordance with the prevalent Policies. 3. It is contended that on 5.1.2009, Central Government has published a Notification vis-à-vis the rights that can be enjoyed by such overseas citizens. The said Notification reads as follows: - “MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS INDIAN AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 5th January, 2009 S.O.36 (E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 7B of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (57 of 1955), and in continuation of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs number S.O.542 (E), dated the 11th April, 2005 and in the Ministry of Overseas Affairs S.O. 12(E), dated the 6th January, 2007, the Central Government hereby specifies the following rights to which the persons registered as the overseas citizen of India under Section 7A of the said Act, shall be entitled, namely: - (a) Parity with non-resident Indian in respect of, - (i) Entry fees to be charged for visiting the national monuments, historical sites and museums in India; (ii) pursuing the following professions in India, in pursuance of the provisions contained in the relevant Act, namely: - (i) doctors, dentists, nurses and pharmacists; (ii) advocates; (iii) architects; (iv) chartered accountants; CWP 8794/06 Page 3 of 4 (b) to appear for the All India Pre-Medical Test or such other tests to make them eligible for admission in pursuance of the provisions contained in the relevant Acts. [F.No.01-15013/13/2008-DS] D.N. SRIVASTAVA, JT. SECY.” 4. Learned counsel contends that in view of the above development, the petitioner’s application cannot be now rejected. 5. Counsel for the respondents submit that the application pending consideration with the authorities is under Section 10 (4) (b) and was premised upon the petitioner’s status as an Overseas Citizen in the absence of any clarification. It is submitted that since the Institution i.e. University of British Columbia did not approach the Dental Council, a fresh application, therefore, should be made by the petitioner, on which the orders would be issued by the Central Government after recommendations from the Dental Council of India. 6. In view of the statements made, it is evident that the petitioner is now eligible to be considered and registered subject to the Dental Council’s recommendations regarding recognition of the educational qualifications issued by the concerned University in Canada. 7. In the circumstances, in the event, petitioner applies afresh under Section 10 (4), her application shall be forwarded to the Dental Council by the Central Government which shall make its recommendations as expeditiously as possible. The entire process shall be completed within eight CWP 8794/06 Page 4 of 4 weeks of the Central Gover nment receiving the fresh application and its outcome communicated to the petitioner directly. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Order dasti. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 02, 2009 /vd/