Biology mandatory to pursue MBBS course says SC
Advertisement
Delhi: Setting aside a high court's order, the Supreme Court has recently ruled that it is essential that before pursuing an MBBS degree, an aspirant has prior knowledge, both theoretical and practical, of senior secondary level in biology and biological sciences.
The court also added that a candidate should mandatorily produce clear and categorical material to show that she underwent the necessary years of study in all the stipulated subjects in order to be considered eligible for an MBBS course.
This came after the Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences appealed against a decision of the Telangana High Court allowing a writ petition preferred by the student on this front. The respondent student had sought a direction declaring the action of the University in treating her as ineligible for admission to the MBBS Course for the academic year 2020-21, as illegal.
Also Read:MBBS fee hike issue in Kerala Medical Colleges: SC to hear plea on February 17
The student had applied for admission to the MBBS course in the University under the NRI quota. The University published a list containing the student's name, clarifying that she had not furnished proof of study of Biological Science subject in the qualifying examination (10+2 or equivalent). The respondent student then secured a letter from the Consulate General of India in New York, stating that she had successfully completed the 12th grade from one Conrad High School, West Hartford, Connecticut and that it was equivalent to the Pre-University (Two Year Course) New Intermediate University and the 12-year Senior Secondary Board Examination Certificate of India.
The student approached the High Court submitting that besides relying upon the certificate/letter issued by Conrad High School, she also contended upon a certificate issued by the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education, which declared the equivalence as well. The student applied for an interim order and was permitted to participate in the counselling process conducted for the remaining seats without prejudice to the parties' rights. Thereafter, the University filed a petition challenging the interim order and stated that the respondent student was ineligible.
Challenging this order of the High Court, the University approached the Apex Court submitting that the Regulation 4(2) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, lays emphasis not only on the equivalence of the qualification with respect to 10+2 or intermediate sciences examination in the Indian University/Board but that the student should have complete schooling in those subjects in each of the concerned years, i.e. 11th and 12th and should have passed 10+2 with English as a subject as well. It was submitted lastly that by all indications, the qualification held by the student, in this case, is equivalent to 10+2 of any Board in India with English as one of the subjects but there was no further proof that she had undergone study in Biology or Biological Sciences in each of the concerned years at the 10+2 stage.
The counsel for the university further submitted that the 12 Year High School Diploma of the United States of America is recognized in India as equivalent to 12 years senior secondary board examination certificate of India. However, significantly, it did not and could be construed as equivalent to a 10+2 qualification with Biological Sciences.
After considering the points raised by both the parties, the court observed some key features for deciding admission to the MBBS course which included (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 taken into consideration.
While the court agreed that it could not claim expertise and pronounce upon the curriculum and pedagogy of any course, much less the academic course which the student (in this case) qualified, the court stated that it could determine if the candidate fulfilled all the criteria. The court also observed that
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 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 that the AP course in Biological Sciences is of college standard.
Finding that there was 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, the court also added that
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.
Confirming that there had been an additional requirement under Regulation 4(2)(f) that requires equivalence in 'standard and scope' in an examination where the candidate is tested in Physics, Chemistry and Biology including practical testing in these subjects, along with English, the apex court found the High Court followed its previous judgment, and did not closely scrutinize the equivalence certificate or the subject stipulations.
The supreme court added that "High Court's 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 equivalent level. Secondly, the college or intermediate examination [or equivalent qualifications under Regulation 4(2)(f)] cannot be read in isolation, having regard to the circumstances."
In the present case, the apex court found that the " 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 qualified 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."
Finally, a bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat bench allowed the appeal of the University and set aside the order of the High Court stating that
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.
To read the full order, click on the following link
Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.