Unrecognized medical degrees (M.S./M.D./Diploma): A critical review case report
Dr. Mukesh Yadav, B.Sc., M.B.B.S., M.D., LL.B., PGDHR
Prof. & HOD, Forensic Medicine & Toxicology
Muzaffarnagar Medical College, Muzaffarnagar, U.P.
The thing which should be done in about three years in ordinary course of time has been done in about six years (course started in year 1979, first batch passed out in year 1981 diploma cases, 1982, 1983 degree cases, writ filed in the year 2002, first hearing on August 16, 2002, finally disposed off on March 12, 2008) that to with the intervention of the Hon’ble High Court, Delhi. Is this called justice? Answer lies in famous proverb which reads: justice delayed means justice denied. Justice should not only be done but it should appear to be done. Is it not violation of fundamental right to speedy trial enshrined in Indian Constitution?
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi went on to the extent of issuing non-bailable warrant against some of the insensitive and irresponsible government authorities in addition to their appearance in person for not responding to the important public interest issue.
This paper deals with critical review of various court cases dealing with the problem of unrecognized P.G. Degrees and diplomas awarded by the Government Medical Colleges through out the India in extreme violation of the MCI Act, 1956, Rules and Regulations and Directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India along with reasons and suggestions to solve this problem and improve the quality of medical education in India.
Key Words: Affidavit, Adjournment, Amended Memo, Dasti Order, Reply, Reminder, Rejoinder, Re-notice, Petitioner, Respondent, Medical Council, Recognition of Degree, Medical College.
The issue before hand is affecting common man’s right to health by availing services of doctors with unrecognized degrees. This is also related to compromising on quality of medical education and health care, thus plying with the life of common man.
This leads to damage not only to innocent, poor but intelligent and talented doctors in the form of loss of job, denial of job, denial of promotion, etc., but also misrepresentation to general public by allowing practice by these doctors.
More surprisingly the protector of law and justice i.e. State Instrumentalities / authorities doing illegality and even patronizing these illegalities to perpetuate in the future with no end. Not taking it seriously but producing more and more criminals (innocent doctor specialists) to do crime against the common men.
Material & Methods:
Material and methods for this paper comprises critical review of some of the landmark judgments of Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court along with other statutory provisions, MCI Acts, Rules and Regulations.
Importance of recognition:
An educational institution may survive without aid but would still stand in need of recognition because in the absence of recognition, education imparted therein may not really serve the purpose as for want of recognition the students passing out from such educational institutions may not be entitled to admission in other educational institutions for higher studies and may also not be eligible for securing jobs.
Once an educational institution is granted aid or aspires for recognition, the State may grant aid or recognition accompanied by certain restrictions or conditions which must be followed as essential to the grant of such aid or recognition.
Main question is who is at fault?
Petitioners exhausted all the domestic remedies available to solve the problem of unrecognized medical degrees. Problem of opting unrecognized degrees after a hard labour of years together at the time of counseling because candidates left with no option but to opt for them in the hope that they may be recognized in the mean time when they complete their course of studies (three years time is more than enough for getting recognition), because in the present scenario plain M.B.B.S. without specialization is no more.
On one hand government is allowing other countries doctors to come and practice in India in the name of acute shortage of specialists but doing nothing for Indian doctors. Private medical colleges which start working very recently and getting their degrees recognized, then why not government, which is the statutory duty of the Government.
In the name of acute shortage of faculty, MCI / Central Government allows non medical persons with degrees beyond the purview of MCI to be appointed and even promoted to higher post as faculty members. Many doctor with unrecognized degrees occupying the topmost posts of health department of the Government and not doing anything to solve this problem.
Many States and medical colleges, both private and government appointing same unrecognized degree holders as faculty, but not allowing to join others with same qualifications, which is a discrimination under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
No right to practice due to non registration and unrecognized degrees which is violation of Article 19(1) (g) of the Indian Constitution. If these doctors are not eligible to hold faculty post they are also not eligible to practice medicine confirmed by the MCI in its response to a letter under Right to Information Act-2005.
This writ petition was filed by five medical doctors who pursued P.G. Courses (M.D./M.S./Diploma) from one of the Government Medical College, B.R.D. Medical College, affiliated to D.D.U. University, Gorakhpur, U.P. [Order dated Jan. 20, 2005] 
All the petitioners had completed their courses in M.S. (General Surgery), M.D. (Paediatrics), M.D. (Anaestesia), M.D. (Obst. & Gynae.) and M.D. (Skin & V.D.) respectively way back in 1996-97. [Order dated Jan. 18, 2008]  M.D. Medicine is still not recognized.
Admission against unrecognized courses:
Lucknow Bench, Allahabad High Court, comprising Chief Justice, Ajoy Nath Roy and Justice Jagdish Bhalla observed “So far as the admissions to unrecognized medical seats are concerned, we have, although prima facie, a very strong view. The Medical Council is the overall supervisor of Medical Education in India. Whether an institution is fit to admit students for the purpose of study ultimately with the aim of receiving medical degrees from that institution, is a matter, which is in the sole decision of Medical Council. If the Medical Council de-recognizes institutions, courses or seats, then and in that event it means that those institutions, those courses or those seats, as the case might be, are not fit for producing qualified doctors of that level or that specialty”. 
Over 6000 students and resident doctors in state-run hospitals were on strike protesting the reduction in seats of P.G. Courses by the Medical Council of India. “The government was making all efforts to resolve the issue with the Centre and the MCI” - Sursh Shetty, Minister of State, Medical Education, Maharastra. The Medical Teachers Association which is supporting the resident doctors and students strike by wearing black badges will also hold a General Body Meeting and decide the future course of their action”- Shailendra Mohite, General Secretary, Teachers’ Welfare Association. 
“The government would apply for recognition of seats belonging to 76 post-graduate medical courses not recognized by the Medical Council of India”. The government had decided to exclude seats belonging to courses recognized by the State but not by the MCI. The State Government would invite MCI team to carry out inspection in colleges to see if they fulfill the criteria prescribed to offer courses so that the same are recognized. The last such audit was carried out in 1993. In a week we will know how many courses MCI will consider for recognition next month (May 2008). We will ask for the remainder during the October (2008) exams. - Amitabh Chandra, Principal Secretary, Medical Education, Government of Maharashtra. 
“The State Government said it did not fill all the seats this year (2008) because the Bombay High Court has asked why students were being admitted to courses not recognized by the Medical Council of India. All post graduate courses in Maharashtra are recognized by the State and the Maharashtra Medical Council”. 
Resident Doctors of 13 Government Medical Colleges across Maharashtra had struck work protesting the reduction in post-graduate seats from 663 last year (2007) to 411 this year (2008) - a cut of 242 seats. The seats have been reduced because the Directorate of Medical Education & Research (DMRE) failed to get the mandatory recognition for the seats from the Medical Council of India. 
The Supreme Court on April 15, 2008 issued notice to Centre, all States, and Medical Council of India on plea seeking directions to the authorities to ensure that the medical institutes do not admit students or grant specialized post graduate degrees which are not recognized by the MCI and other government bodies. It challenged non-recognition of the specialized post-graduate courses in M.D./M.S./Diplomas despite the fact that government medical colleges through affiliated universities award such degrees.  
Who is at danger?
Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court observed “……In such an event, it is the job of every public authority in India to see to it that these deficient institutions do not admit students or grant them degree which would have inbuilt and hidden incapacity and inadequacy, and which would forever in future be of definite danger to the citizen of India at large. Just as an unqualified man practicing medicine is a threat to public health, so also is a half qualified or badly qualified person is a similar danger to the public. If anything the danger in the second case is more. Also, a degree from an unrecognized institution, course or seat is a misrepresentation. It is a misrepresentation of a permanent nature which is likely to mislead many an unknowing patient”. 
A case is also pending in the Hon’ble High Court, Mumbai in W.P. No. 41/2008 regarding admission against MCI Un-recognized seats. Candidate has to submit an undertaking if a MCI non-recognized seat is allotted to him/her as per choice and merit, stating that he is aware about the status of the seat and its consequences. [Point C: Procedure and Selection sub-point 5] Notification is issued by Competent Authority & Director Medical Education & Research, Mumbai. 
Similar procedure is adopted by the U.P. Government for filling MCI unrecognized seats in spite of warning for not admitting on these seats was issued by the MCI. Is this all the duty of Government authorities to get in writing that they are informed about the status of unrecognized seats and they cannot claim damages? 
Guidelines / statutory duties for getting recognition:
Insertion of new sections 10A, 10B and 10C:
After Section 10 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), [102 of 1956] the following sections shall be inserted namely:
Time for seeking permission for certain existing medical colleges, etc.
If, after the 1st day of June, 1992 and on and before the commencement of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993 any person has established a medical college or any medical college has opened a new or higher course of study or training or increased the admission capacity, such person or medical college, as the case may be, shall seek, within a period of one year from the commencement of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993, the permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of section 10A.
If any person or medical college, as the case may be fails to seek the permission under sub-section (1), the provisions of section 10B shall apply, so far as may be as if, permission of the Central Government under section 10A has been refused. 
It is important to mention here that in whole scheme of recognition of medical degree no apparent role of students, only Medical College / University / State Government / Central Government and MCI are involved. Then why due to fault of any of these authorities students left to suffer.
A Post-graduate medical degree granted by a University duly established by statute in this country which has also recognized by the Indian Medical Council – Ipso facto to be regarded, accepted and treated as valid throughout our country. 
In the case of a post-graduate degree in the concerned subject awarded by a Statutory Indian University, no recognition or declaration of equivalence by any other University is called for. This is all the more so in the case of a medical degree – basic as well as post-graduate – that is awarded by a statutory Indian University and which has been specially recognized by the Indian Medical Council. [para11]
Perusal of Schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 clearly indicates that the medical qualifications which are recognized by the Universities and Medical Institutions in India have been mentioned. According to the First Schedule qualification Doctor of Medicine in Pathology in abbreviation from M.D. (Path.) has been recognized in the Rani Durgavati Vishwa Vidhyalya, Jabalpur. Thus, it was incumbent upon the respondent No. 1 University to have awarded only that degree which is recognized one and to amend the degree from that of M.D. (Pathology and Microbiology) to M.D. (Pathology) as this is the only change in nomenclature of the degree.
For the fault of University, the students cannot be made to suffer. Since they have acquired qualifications, degrees in M.D. (Pathology and Microbiology) should be amended as the Schedule to Act of 1956 does not recognize the degree in M.D (Pathology and Microbiology). The petitioner and such other similar students are being deprived of their right to education and other fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, and 21 of the Constitution of India which make it clear that the petitioner and such other students cannot be dealt with in such an arbitrary manner. [para 8] 
The Supreme Court observed “It is the Medical Council / Dental Council which can prescribe the number of students to be admitted in medical courses / dental courses in a medical college or institution. It is the Central Government, alone which can direct increase in the number of admissions but only on the recommendation of the Medical Council. Universities and the State Government of Karnataka had no authority to allow increase in the number of admissions in the medical colleges in the State. No medical college can admit any student in excess of its admission capacity fixed by the Medical Council subject to any increase thereof as approved by the Central Government and that Sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C will prevail over Section 53(10) of the State Universities Act and Section 41 (b) of the State Government Capitation Fee Act”. [Paras 25, 28, 30, 31] 
In spite of clear directions from the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,  as well as Supreme Court of India  to the concerned authorities of State Governments to seek recognition after 1993, no sincere effort in this regard is initiated. After the insertion of Ss. 10A, 10B and 10 C in the Medical Council Act, the MCI has framed regulations with the previous approval of the Central Government which were published in the Gazette of India dated September 29, 1993.
Any medical college or institution, which wishes to increase the admission capacity in M.B.B.S. / Higher Courses (Including Diploma / Degree / Higher Specialties) has to apply to the Central Government for the permission of the State Government and that of University with which it is affiliated and in conformity with the regulations framed by the MCI. [Paras 25, 28, 30, 31] 
Apex Court further added that “to say that the number of students as permitted by the State Government and /or University before June 1, 1992 could continue even if medical council has fixed the admission capacity would be allowing an illegality to perpetuate in all time to come. It is not that only future admission will have to be regulated on the basis of capacity fixed or determined by the MCI. [Para 31]  Medical Council Act (102 of 1956) – S. 33- regulations framed under – falling within the purpose mentioned in S. 33- will have mandatory force. [Para 25] 
Principal of B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur was directed to take necessary steps with in a period of six weeks from the date of order to complete the formalities of making applications and depositing the requisite fee for approval of courses. [Order dated May 14, 2004] 
Principal of B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur was directed to take steps to meet the requirements of MCI to enable it to recognize the P.G. Courses in question. He was granted 10 days time to complete all formalities required for enabling MCI to carryout inspection. [Order dated Feb. 23, 2005] 
The MCI had also been directed to scrutinize the applications, carryout the MCI Inspection with in a period of next four week and then inform Chief Secretary of U.P. and Registrar, D.D.U. University, Gorakhpur, U.P. [Order dated Feb. 23, 2005] 
Registrar, D.D.U. University, Gorakhpur, U.P. also directed to ensure taking all appropriate steps by the U.P. P.S.C. for making requisite teaching faculty appointments. [Order dated Feb. 23, 2005] 
The Central Government was directed to take necessary steps at the earliest to take appropriate measures to effectuate the recommendations of the MCI for recognition of degrees in question having regard to the fact that the petitioners in these cases completed their course in 1996-97. Court further directed that The Central Government shall ensure that appropriate steps are taken expeditiously and as for as possible within three weeks. [Order dated Jan. 18, 2008] 
Affidavit dated 21-02-2005, wherein it has been stated that the respondents are undertaking steps to make up the deficiencies pointed out with regard to the existence of the faculty members in the college and on submission that a period of one month is required to place the up-to-date status with regard to the appointments of the faculty members so as to enable a meaningful inspection of the Medical Council of India. Court posted matter for reporting status with regard to the appointments which are necessary to comply with the deficiencies pointed by the Medical Council of India. [Order dated April 28, 2005 
Adverse observations of the Court:
Role of Central Govt.: when counsel for Union of India seeks time to obtain instructions whether the Govt. has verifies the degrees in question, Hon’ble Court made observations: “Apparently, the Central Govt. is dragging its feet over the matter though the Medical Council had sent a formal recommendation regarding recognition of the degrees way back on December 26, 2007”. Court further observed “In these circumstances any further delay would result in disadvantage to the petitioners”. [Order dated Feb. 14, 2008] 
Court further directed “In these circumstances, any further delay would result in disadvantage to the petitioners. Unless the steps directed by Court in its previous order are taken by the next date of hearing, the Joint Secretary (Medical Education) Government of India, Department of Health shall be present in court to assist the proceedings and ensure compliance of the court orders”. [Order dated Feb. 14, 2008] 
It is made clear that if the Director of Medical Education, State of UP is not present on the next date, non-bailable warrants may be issued. [Vikramajit Sen, J. July 07, 2005] 
Despite repeated orders of this court, respondent nos. 6 to 9 have not taken steps required to meet the requirements of the Medical Council of India which have been duly notified to it. The directions made by this court in terms of the affidavit dated 21st February, 2005 filed by respondent no. 8 have also not been complied with. Learned counsel who is appearing on behalf of these respondents is unable to point out the steps taken for compliance of the directions made on 23rd February, 2005 and 28th April, 2005. In these circumstances, it is directed that the Director, Medical Education of the State of Uttar Pradesh having his office in Lucknow shall remain personally present in this court on the next date of hearing. He shall make available all the relevant record relating to the matter in issue and shall ensure compliance with the directions made by this court. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Resident Commissioner of the State of Uttar Pradesh who is at Delhi to ensure compliance of the orders passed today. [Gita Mittal, J. May 25, 2005] 
Perusal of the record shows that the respondent no.7 which is the concerned authority has been appearing in the matter right from 16.8.2002. Despite the seriousness of the matter no counter affidavit has been placed on record. The respondent has opted merely to watch the proceedings even though it is the most concerned respondent in the instant case. Let the stand of the said respondents be positively placed on record within a period of ten days from today. The affidavit to be filed by the respondents shall deem with the allocations made by Medical Council of India in respect of the deficiencies pointed out by it. In case the affidavit as directed is not filed within the stipulated period the Director of Medical Education and Training of the state of U.P. shall remain personally present in Court with all the relevant record. [Gita Mittal, J. January 20, 2005] 
Following are the concerned authorities involved in the process of recognition of the medical degrees / diplomas in the medical colleges:
Head of Department of concerned specialty
Principal of the Institution
Registrar, Affiliated University
Director General Medical Education
Chief Secretary of State
Principal Secretary, Medical Education
Health Secretary of Medical Education
Medical Council of India
Member, Medical Council of India (nominated and elected both U.G. & R.G.)
Union of India
Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of India
Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi
Public Service Commission, Concerned State
University Grant Commission, etc.
Important reasons for delayed Justice:
Involvement of different authorities (State and Union Government)
Complicity of the case
No knowledge of MCI Rules and Regulations by MCI Members and concerned Authorities
Insensitivity of government and concerned authorities
Lack of political will
Seeking unnecessary time to file replies, rejoinder, to place additional documents and facts on record
Asking for unnecessary adjournments for personal problems like: unable to attend the court, plea of recently engaged for the case, notices or documents not served to them, etc.
Change of bench or transfer of case to another bench
Insensitiveness, non-cooperative and irresponsible attitude of the concerned authorities by dragging feet over the problem with impunity.
Denial of Right to Speedy Trial:
Medical P.G. Courses M.D./ M.S. / Diploma were started in the years 1979, 1980, 1983 respectively and first batch appeared for examination (should be date of inspection for recognition by the MCI) in the years 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986 respectively. Petitioners completed their courses in the years 1996-1997 and till 2002 nothing happened when they filed a case in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, first hearing of which occurred on August 16, 2002 and finally disposed on March 12, 2008. More than 28 hearings were done by the Hon’ble High Court and a total of eight judges including then Chief Justice of Delhi High Court hared the matter.
Hon’ble Court made many adverse observations against the concerned government authorities. In the mean time another case was filed by the M.B.B.S. Students in the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court heard by the then Chief Justice and passed order on April 22, 2005. 
Consequences of possessing unrecognized degrees / diploma:
No right to practice
Termination of services
Demotion form senior post
No right to registration of degree in Concerned State Medical Council / Medical Council of India
No call for interview
Denial of employment, promotion
Not counted as Faculty Members especially for starting P.G. Courses
Humiliation for holding unrecognized degree
No right to write unrecognized degree as suffix with name
Framing of Criminal cases, civil cases of negligence
Requirement of recognition of degree by MCI and right to practice Medicine / that specialty found mention in Chapter I, as “No person other than a doctor having qualification recognized by MCI and registered with MCI/SMC is allowed to practice Modern System of Medicine or Surgery”. (Point 1.1.3), and as “Physician shall display as suffix to their names only recognized medical degrees or such certificates / diplomas and memberships / honours which confer professional knowledge or recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements. [Point 1.4.2] 
“Medical Teachers in all Medical Colleges except the Tutors, Residents, Registrars and Demonstrators must posses the requisite recognized Postgraduate Medical qualification in their respective subject. [Point 3], and as “the appointing authority may consider the holders of equivalent postgraduate qualification, which may be approved by the MCI from time to time, to have the requisite recognized qualification in the subject concerned. [Point 4, Schedule I] 
“From January 1985 all fresh entrants as teachers in medical colleges should have the requisite recognized Indian Postgraduate medical qualifications (recognized by the MCI). [Schedule II, page 74, Point 6] 
Organization of workshop for MCI Members and other concerned authorities for making them aware about recent rules and regulations.
Fixing of Accountability of concerned authorities for failing to take appropriate action in time bound manner.
Filing of PIL for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and violation of statutory provisions or Hon’ble Court directions.
Use of Right to Information Act-2005 by all the affected parties including common men to know the problem or status of progress on this issue.
Filing of case in consumer court for compensation for awarding unrecognized degree by the concerned authorities which amount to deficiency in service
Hon’ble Court should ensure strict compliance by not allowing frequent adjournments on personal reasons or pity arguments, by issuing direction for personal appearance of defaulting government authorities, issuing non-bailable warrants, issue of copy of order to the Resident Commissioner of the State who is at Delhi in case of case filed out side the State in Delhi High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court to ensure compliance of the order passed by the Court.
The Central Government / State Government stop admission if MCI recommends so, if not MCI should approach Hon’ble Court for issue of direction or writ for compliance by filing PIL.
The Central Government should coordinate in the matter of recognition as the matter is falling under the State List, and Concurrent List of the Constitution and following the directions of various court orders including Hon’ble Supreme Court on many occasions.
Concerned members of Medical Council from the concerned State both nominated and elected should be held accountable for delay in getting recognition
Summary & Conclusions:
The ultimate sufferers of all these problems are concerned student and common men getting treatment from these doctors.
For speedy disposal of cases minimum adjournment, no change of judge or transfer of case to other bench, service through dasti orders for ensured time bound service of affidavit, counter affidavit, rejoinder, etc, along with strict compliance of orders of the court.
Pursuant to the direction of the Court, the Medical Council of India had, in view of the pendency of the proceedings and matter, recommended that the courses undergone by the present petitioners should be notified under section 11 (2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 on December 26, 2007. This was noticed by the previous order of the Court on January 18, 2008 and February 14, 2008. The Central Government was enjoined to take appropriate consequential action towards the notifications. Learned Counsel for the Central Government has placed on record a copy of notification issued on February 22, 2008. In its terms, the M.S. (Surgery), M.D. (Anaesthesia), M.D. & D.C.H. (Paediatirics), M.D.(Obst. & Gynae), M.D. & D.V.D. (Skin & V.D.) undergone by the petitioners have been notified under section 11(2) of the Act w.e.f. different dates which are as specified in the notification. In view of the above, the claim in the present petition has been satisfied. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. [S. Ravindra Bhat, J. March 12, 2008 Final Order of Disposal]
The important question is still persisting i.e. is it the duty of the student who after doing hard labour qualifies tough competition and get admission for unrecognized course and after completing the course successfully had to approach the court to remind the statutory duties of concerned government authorities that to at the cost of his time, money and career at stack.
1. Dr. Ms. Swapnil Sandhya & Others v. Union of India & Others, W.P. (Civil) 3065/2002, Disposed on March 12, 2008 in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
2. Dr. Om Prakash and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, Writ Petition No. 1563 (M/B) of 2005, Order dated April 22, 2005 of Lucknow Bench, Allahabad High Court.
3. Minutes of P.G. Medical Education Committee dated June 16, 2006 (No.MCI-4(3)/2006-Med./) Item No. 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 112; page No. 44-49
4. Minutes of General Body of MCI 131ST Session No.MCI-6(2)/2006-Med./ dated 16-11-2007, Item No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 26; page No. 11, 12, 15, 16.
5. The Central Govt. Notification under Section 11(2) of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 dated 22-02-2008 [Order dated March 12, 2008]
6. MCI Notification No.MCI-66(22)/2007/Med.24600 dated 26-12-2007 for recognition of M.D. & D.C.H. (Paediatrics)
7. MCI Notification No.MCI-66(22)/2007/Med.24596 to dated 26-12-2007 for recognition of M.D. & D.V.D. (Skin & V.D.)
8. MCI Notification No.MCI-66(22)/2007/Med.24597 to dated 26-12-2007 for recognition of M.D. & D.G.O. (Obst. & Gynae.)
9. MCI Notification No.MCI-66(22)/2007/Med.24569 to dated 24-12-2007 for recognition of M.S. (General Surgery)
10. MCI Notification No.MCI-66(22)/2007/Med.2459 to dated 26-12-2007 for recognition of M.D. & D.A. (Anaesthesiology)
11. The Times of India, June 7, 2008: 17 vide Directorate of Medical Education & Research, Mumbai, Notification No. DMER/PGM-CET 2008/2ND Round / Notification-8/2-A, Dated 5TH June 2008.
12. Sunday Times of India, April 20, 2008: 7.
13. Neha Bhayana. ‘State assures more seats, students wary’, Hindustan Times, April 20, 2008: 7.
14. ‘Six days on, resident docs call off strike’, The Times of India, April 22, 2008: 7.
15. ‘Maharastra doctors call off strike’, The Times of India, April 21, 2008: 11.
16. The Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993 (No.31 of 1993), Published in the Gazette of India – Part II, Section 1, No. 54, dated April 3, 1993. It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 27th Day of August 1992.
17. Sanjay K Singh. ‘SC notice to Centre, States, MCI on unrecognized Medical Colleges in country’, The Economic Times, New Delhi, April 16, 2008: 3.
18. Dr. Mukesh Yadav & Others v. Union of India & Others, Writ No.124 of 2008, Supreme Court of India.
19. (Point 1.1.3), (Point 1.4.2) of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Ethics and Etiquettes) Regulations-2002, published in the Gazette of India, Part III, Section 4 dated April 6, 2002, MCI Notification NO. 211(2) 2001, Dated March 11, 2002, regarding:
20. Schedule I, (Point 4), Schedule II, page 74, Point 6) of the MCI’s Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 (Published in the Gazette of India, Part III, Section 4, dated December 5, 1998.
21. Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan and Others, Civil Appeal No. 303 of 1976 decided on March 5, 1982 Rajasthan High Court.
22. Dr. Harish Bajaj v. Rani Durgavati Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur and Others, AIR 2003 Madhya Pradesh 114-117. Writ Petition No. 30 of 2002, dated 10-05-2002.
23. Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 1998 SC 2423.