HC Upholds 2-year Internship Rule for FMGs who missed Classes Due to COVID, Ukraine War

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court bench recently upheld the State Medical Commission's decision to mandate a two-year Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship rule for foreign medical students who missed their offline classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the war between Ukraine and Russia.

It was observed by the bench that the Council's decision in this regard "has been incorporated in the larger public interest to ensure that foreign medical graduates are granted permanent registration only after getting adequate practical training as they were unable to attend classes due to the pandemic or the war."

"This Court does not find any illegality in the condition incorporated in Note 3. In fact, there is a reasonable nexus between the condition and the object sought to be achieved. The writ petition is devoid of any merits. Consequentially, the writ petition is dismissed," held the HC bench comprising Justice C S Dias.

These pleas were filed by students who underwent medical courses in Ukraine from 2016-2020. In the State of Kerala, Section 24 of the Kerala Medical Practitioners Act provides for the registration of medical practitioners. As per Schedule 1 read with Regulation 5 of the Regulation, the overall duration of CRMI shall not be less than 12 months but shall be completed within two years. The Kerala State Medical Commission has provided provisional registration to the petitioners as per certificates, valid for two years from the date of registration. However, in Note 3 of the said certificates, it is stipulated that the petitioners have to undergo the CRMI for two years.

Also Read: Doctors move DME as Rajasthan Medical Council says FMG Internship stipend not its Concern

They approached the HC bench seeking a declaration that they would only have to undergo a Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship for one year as per Regulation 5 of the National Medical Commission (Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship) Regulations of 2021. The petitioners argued that when a statutory provision stipulates only one year, the same cannot be changed by an executive decision.

Referring to the stipulation in Note 3, the FMGs claimed it to be arbitrary, oppressive, and discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. They also relied on the NMC notice stating that the students who have sufficiently compensated classes in physical onsite in lieu of online classes and have subsequently passed examinations equivalent to MBBS have to undergo only one-year CRMI. 

It was submitted by the petitioners that they attended theory classes, practical training and examinations in the physical mode at their university. They completed all their examinations. Additionally, they pointed out that in States like Rajasthan, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana, similarly situated candidates are allowed to apply for permanent registration upon completion of a one-year CRMI.

On the other hand, Kerala State Medical Council submitted that due to COVID 19, the FMGs studied online and wrote their examinations online as well. Taking these into consideration, NMC issued a notice stating that considering the Supreme Court's directions, the FMGs have to undergo CRMI for two years to make up for the clinical training which they could not physically attend during their UG medicine course in the foreign institutes. The Council submitted that the FMGs would be eligible for permanent registration only after completing the two-year CRMI. 

The Council further submitted that when the petitioners informed the Council that they had studied in the offline mode in their university during the pandemic, considering their representations, they were issued Provisional Registration Certificates with a specific condition by way of Note 3. After this, NMC issued a notice stating that students who underwent online classes during the final year due to COVID 19 pandemic or Ukraine war must undergo the two-year CRMI.

While considering the pleas, the HC bench noted that the certificates showed that the petitioners completed their graduation in June 2022, and their course was from 2016 to 2022. Therefore, the last year of their course was one year before June 2022. 

"Although the petitioners have contended that they did not return to India during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no material to show that they attended classes during the pandemic period from June 2021 to June 2022 in the offline mode, which is germane. Ext.P9 certificates do not show that the petitioners had subsequently attended classes in the offline mode," noted the Court.

The bench further observed that the Scrutiny Committee of the KSMC scrutinized the communications and issued the provisional registration certificates by incorporating Note 3. "Thus, whether the petitioners had undergone offline mode of classes or subsequently got the online classes adequately compensated, etc., are disputed questions that cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition," observed the bench.

Reiterating the well-settled judicial pronouncements that Courts should refrain from substituting the wisdom of the Experts in academic matters, the Court also relied on the Supreme Court order in the case of Chancellor and Another v. Dr. Bijayananda Kar and Others, where the bench had held that decisions of the academic authorities should not ordinarily be interfered with by the Courts.

Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court order in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, where the Court held that the Courts should be extremely reluctant to substitute their views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by Professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-day-day working of educational institutions and that it will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature.

Accordingly, the bench held that "On an evaluation of the facts, the materials and the law, especially on finding that there are no materials to substantiate that the petitioners had undergone their last year of study during the COVID-19 pandemic in the offline mode, I do not find any valid ground to hold that Note 3 in Ext.P5 series is arbitrary or oppressive. The stipulation has been incorporated in the larger public interest to ensure that foreign medical graduates are granted permanent registration only after getting adequate practical training as they were unable to attend classes due to the pandemic or the war," while dismissing the plea.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/kerala-hc-order-265173.pdf

Also Read: Supreme Court to Decide on Stipend for FMG Internship, Notice Issued