Case: KALOJI NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES Vs. SRIKEERTI REDDI PINGLE &amp; ORS

qualification held by the candidate, an NRI who had studied in the USA, was deemed to be equivalent to the prescribed eligibility conditions: 13. It was categorically held by this Court that each Clause is inde- pendent of the other and none of the sub-clauses can be read together. If the candidate has fulfilled the requirements of any one of the Clause, he or she will be entitled for admission to the Medical Course. The petitioners in the present case will fall within Regulation 4 (f) and once the petitioners have produced the Equivalence Certificate issued by the 5th Respondent, there is no more requirement to again subject the petitioners for one more scrutiny on their eligibility. It will be too farfetched to declare that a candidate who fulfils the requirements for NEET Examination, will not fulfil the qualification when it comes to joining the MBBS Course. Such an interpretation will lead to illogical consequences. The petitioners who were living in USA have come to this country to undergo the Medical Course and they were found to be eligible by the Equivalence Committee to write the NEET Examina- tion. After having been given an allotment in the 4th Respondent Institu- tion, the 4th Respondent Institution cannot now undertake one more exercise and come to a completely different conclusion by reading Regulation 4 (a) into Regulation 4 (f) and thereby render the effect of Regulation 4 (f) completely nugatory and redundant. 19. It is apparent that the High Court followed its previous judgment, and did not closely scrutinize the equivalence certificate or the subject stipulations. It also appears to have been largely influenced by the fact that the candidate was in fact admitted by the University. In the opinion of this court, the construction placed on Regulation 4(2), i.e., that each of the sub clauses (a) to (f) prescribes independent qualifications which should be deemed essential, is rather simplistic. That interpretation ignores the fact that each of the sub-clauses insists that certain subjects should have been studied, and practical examinations attempted at the 10+2 or equiv- alent level. Secondly, the college or intermediate examination [or equivalent qualifi- cations under Regulation 4(2)(f)] cannot be read in isolation, having regard to the cir- cumstances. The provision must be read in the context of the requirements for eligi- bility under Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e). The equivalence in qualification is not merely at the level of a 10+2 requirement, i.e., that the candidate should have passed an ex- amination equivalent to the intermediate science examination at an Indian Uni- versity/ Board. Additional to this requirement, Regulation 4(2)(f) requires equiva- lence in standard and scope in an examination where the candidate is tested in Phys- ics, Chemistry and Biology including practical testing in these subjects, along with English. These subject matter requirements are consistent across Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e) and (f). 20. The approach and construction placed by the High Court, in this courts opinion, undermines the intent behind the MCIs insistence that a certain kind of education should be undergone, which is that each candidate 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+2 board examination, or the concerned intermediate examination) with practical exams, in each of those years; that he or she should also have had English as a subject, and that the score in Mathematics would be ignored and not taken into consideration(The last negative stipulation, by a note, applicable to all the sub-clauses of Regulation 4(2).). It would be, in this context, necessary to clarify that the equivalence relied on by the Telangana Intermediate Board in this case, merely alluded to the general equivalence in terms of education at the intermediate level, without stipulating whether the qualifications were equivalent in terms of the subjects in which she undertook courses for the relevant years. 21. The stipulation of equivalence in Regulation 4(2)(f) is not merely a formal one. The provision must be read in the context of the consistent conditions of eligibility prescribed in Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e), as noted above. This court, in State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala(1957 SCR 930.) interpreted the definition of a prize competition(Under s. 2(1)(d) of the Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competitions Control and Tax Act, 1948.). A prize competition was defined as including crossword prize competitions, picture prize competitions, etc., and finally, any other prize competition, for which solution is or is not prepared beforehand by the promotors, or for which the solution is determined by lot or chance. This last qualification was appended only to the last sub-clause on any other competition. The court held that the qualification should be equally applicable to the other sub-clauses too, and that there was no difficulty in reading the qualifying clause as lending colour to each of those items. In the present case, Regulation 4(2)(f) explicitly refers to the subject matter requirement reiterated in all the eligibility conditions from (a) to (e); the substance of the eligibility requirement indeed, is that the candidate should have qual- ified an intermediate level examination or first year of a graduate course, and studied the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology at this level, along with practical testing in these subject areas, and the English language. This subject matter requirement is at the heart of eligibility to be admitted into the medical course. 22. For these reasons, this court is of the opinion that the interpretation placed up- on the regulations in both the cited cases, by the Madras High Court, do not reflect the correct position. To be eligible, the candidate should produce clear and categorical material to show that she underwent the necessary years of study in all the stipulated subjects. This court is of the opinion that such stipulations are to be regarded as essential, given that the course in question, i.e., MBBS primarily if not predominantly, involves prior knowledge - both theoretical and practical, of senior secondary level in biology or biological sciences.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. A plain reading of Regulation 4(2) shows that the MCI visualized five different situations, having regard to the nature and structure of high school education in India, and provided for equivalence in respect of other variants of similar examinations, possibly even overseas qualifications. In all, the MCI regulations contemplate six qualifications for eligibility - (i) higher secondary examinations conducted by one of the several boards (of secondary and senior secondary school examinations) or the Indian School Certificate Examination [Reg. 4(2)(a)]; (ii) the intermediate examination in science of an Indian University/Board or other recognised examining body [Reg. 4(2)(b)]; (iii) Pre-professional/pre-medical examination with Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology, after passing either the higher secondary school examination, or the pre-university or an equivalent examination, with further stipulation that the pre-professional examination should have a practical test in Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology [Reg. 4(2)(c)]; (iv) the first year examination of the three years degree course of a recognized university, with Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology, with a further stipulation that the candidate should have passed the 10+2 examination with English at a level not less than the core course [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 less than two of the following subjects Physics, Chemistry, Biology (Botany, Zoology)/Bio- technology and further that he/she has passed the 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 science examination of an Indian University/Board, taking Physics, Chemistry and Biology including practical test in each of these subjects and English[Reg. 4(2)(f)].12. It is noticeable that each variant of what is acceptable, lays stress on certain common features: (a) that the candidate should have passed the examination with Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology; (b) the candidate should have undergone practical tests in those science subjects (c) the candidate should have studied English and, lastly, (d) that marks obtained in Mathematics would not be tak- en into consideration for deciding admission to the MBBS course.This court finds the submission insubstantial. While the court cannot claim expertise and 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 the Universitys stand that she does not hold a qualification equivalent to 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.14. A careful reading of the said provision discloses that the MCI emphasized that the candidate should have undergone study at the 10+2 stage, (or in the intermediate course) in the specified subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology. In this case, the certificate relied upon by the student(Issued by the West Hartford Science Department Supervisor.) merely clarifies that she undertook a course whilst in the 10th grade. That, by no means, is sufficient to fall within the description of equivalent qualification under Regulation 4(2)(f). Nor, in the opinion of this court, can it be deemed adequate having regard to the letter of the Assistant Principal of Conrad High School(Dated 29.01.2021) that the AP course in Biological Sciences is of college standard.15. In the opinion of this court, there is a rationale and compelling logic on the part of the University to say that the candidate should have studied biology or biological sciences (apart from the other two science subjects, along with the further requirement of having studied English) in all 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 the college level with the said subject, carries with it, the implication that the student would have necessarily undergone academic study and training in the said three subjects at the 10+2 or intermediate level (without which, admission in a degree course is inconceivable in India). The further emphasis on having attended or undertaken practical lessons, (again at that level, in each of the concerned years) clearly signifies that a candidate should have undergone study in those subjects for the last two years at school or intermediate college level. The regulation is further clear that the examination score (marks) in Mathematics shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of admission to a medical course, in reckoning merit or performance in the qualifying examination.16. So far as the judgment of the Madras High Court in Sharanya Balaji Nadar (supra) is concerned, the candidate there had applied for admission, and was permitted to appear in the common entrance examination. The structure of the concerned regulations of the Dental Council of India, in that case, were closely similar to Regulation 4(2) of the MCI Regulations in the present case. The High Court accepted the candidates submissions, and held as follows:14. A careful reading of the above regulations makes it clear that a candidate even at the time of taking NEET examination must fulfil the eligibility criteria that is prescribed in Clause 3 which is extracted supra. Clause 3 contains six sub clauses from (a) to (f). Each sub- clause is independent of the other and none of the sub-clauses can be read together. For the purposes 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 under sub-clause (f) of the regulations, has to obtain an equivalence certificate from the concerned authority. The concerned authority is the Association of the Indian Universities. This authority considered the degree/diploma ob- tained by the petitioner in as educational institution at USA. The con- cerned authority found that the qualification of the petitioner is equiv- alent to the senior school certificate of CBSE/other boards in India. The evaluation of the educational credentials has been extracted su- pra.16. It is based on this equivalence certificate, the petitioner was allowed to write the NEET examination and the petitioner se- cured 258 marks and she was allotted a seat in the fourth respondent college by the allotment order passed by the third respondent, dated 24.07.2019. The petitioner is undergoing the course.19. It is apparent that the High Court followed its previous judgment, and did not closely scrutinize the equivalence certificate or the subject stipulations. It also appears to have been largely influenced by the fact that the candidate was in fact admitted by the University. In the opinion of this court, the construction placed on Regulation 4(2), i.e., that each of the sub clauses (a) to (f) prescribes independent qualifications which should be deemed essential, is rather simplistic. That interpretation ignores the fact that each of the sub-clauses insists that certain subjects should have been studied, and practical examinations attempted at the 10+2 or equiv- alent level. Secondly, the college or intermediate examination [or equivalent qualifi- cations under Regulation 4(2)(f)] cannot be read in isolation, having regard to the cir- cumstances. The provision must be read in the context of the requirements for eligi- bility under Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e). The equivalence in qualification is not merely at the level of a 10+2 requirement, i.e., that the candidate should have passed an ex- amination equivalent to the intermediate science examination at an Indian Uni- versity/ Board. Additional to this requirement, Regulation 4(2)(f) requires equiva- lence in standard and scope in an examination where the candidate is tested in Phys- ics, Chemistry and Biology including practical testing in these subjects, along with English. These subject matter requirements are consistent across Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e) and (f).20. The approach and construction placed by the High Court, in this courts opinion, undermines the intent behind the MCIs insistence that a certain kind of education should be undergone, which is that each candidate 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+2 board examination, or the concerned intermediate examination) with practical exams, in each of those years; that he or she should also have had English as a subject, and that the score in Mathematics would be ignored and not taken into consideration(The last negative stipulation, by a note, applicable to all the sub-clauses of Regulation 4(2).). It would be, in this context, necessary to clarify that the equivalence relied on by the Telangana Intermediate Board in this case, merely alluded to the general equivalence in terms of education at the intermediate level, without stipulating whether the qualifications were equivalent in terms of the subjects in which she undertook courses for the relevant years.21. The stipulation of equivalence in Regulation 4(2)(f) is not merely a formal one. The provision must be read in the context of the consistent conditions of eligibility prescribed in Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e), as noted above. This court, in State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala(1957 SCR 930.)  interpreted the definition of a prize competition(Under s. 2(1)(d) of the Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competitions Control and Tax Act, 1948.). A prize competition was defined as including crossword prize competitions, picture prize competitions, etc., and finally, any other prize competition, for which solution is or is not prepared beforehand by the promotors, or for which the solution is determined by lot or chance. This last qualification was appended only to the last sub-clause on any other competition. The court held that the qualification should be equally applicable to the other sub-clauses too, and that there was no difficulty in reading the qualifying clause as lending colour to each of those items. In the present case, Regulation 4(2)(f) explicitly refers to the subject matter requirement reiterated in all the eligibility conditions from (a) to (e); the substance of the eligibility requirement indeed, is that the candidate should have qual- ified an intermediate level examination or first year of a graduate course, and studied the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology at this level, along with practical testing in these subject areas, and the English language. This subject matter requirement is at the heart of eligibility to be admitted into the medical course.22. For these reasons, this court is of the opinion that the interpretation placed up- on the regulations in both the cited cases, by the Madras High Court, do not reflect the correct position. To be eligible, the candidate should produce clear and categorical material to show that she underwent the necessary years of study in all the stipulated subjects. This court is of the opinion that such stipulations are to be regarded as essential, given that the course in question, i.e., MBBS primarily if not predominantly, involves prior knowledge - both theoretical and practical, of senior secondary level in biology or biological sciences.