Dr Sachin Gagajibhai Sheta vs Union Of India And Ors

$
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on : 22.04.2026
Judgment delivered on : 03.07.2026
Judgment uploaded on : As per Digital Signature~
+ LPA 149/2023

DR SACHIN GAGAJIBHAI SHETA .....Petitioner
versus
UOI & ORS .....Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case

For the Appellant : Mr. Apoorve Karol, Advocate

For the Respondents : Ms. Nidhi Raman CGSC with Mr. Akash
Mishra, Advocate for UOI
Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty,
Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr.
Tanishq Srivastava, Mr. Vedant Sood and
Ms. Ramanpreet Kaur, Advocates for R-2

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

CM APPL. 21350/2026(Exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM APPL. 9914/2023(Condonation of delay 90 day in filing),


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 1 of 41

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 90 days in filing
the appeal is allowed.
4. The application is disposed of.
LPA 149/2023
CM APPL. 9913/2023
CM APPL. 9917/2023
CM APPL. 42078/2023
CM APPL. 44268/2023
CM APPL. 21349/2026

5. This Intra - Court appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment of
the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 5328/202 dated 11.10.2022 whereby the
learned Single Judge had dismissed two petitions including W.P.(C)
7615/2022. This appeal has been filed seeking the following prayers:

“a. Pass appropriate order(s) setting aside the impugned
common order & judgment dated 11.10.2022 passed by the Ld.
Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 5328 of
2021;
b. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in
the interest of justice.”

6. Before delving into the merits of the present controversy, it is
essential to give a brief factual background surrounding this appeal as noted
from the record. The appellant who was the petitioner before the learned
Single Judge was pursuing a Fellowship of the College of Physicians and
Surgeons (FCPS) at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Mumbai
(CPS Mumbai). The appellant has in effect challenged the policy decision
taken by respondent no.1 - Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
(MoHFW) which had held that the FCPS courses are not equivalent to a


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 2 of 41

Master’s Degree being MS/MD Degree. The contention of the appellant was
that the decision has made him ineligible for various examinations
conducted after MS/MD Degree, among such examinations is the final exam
for the Diplomat of National Board (DNB examination) and the National
Eligibility cum Entrance Test-Super Speciality (NEET SS examination)
which is conducted by the National Board of Examinations (NBE) being the
respondent no.3 herein.
7. The respondent no.4 establishment is CPS Mumbai and offers certain
post MBBS Medical Fellowship Courses which were recognised through
government notifications since 1954. The learned Single Judge had noted
the recognition status of such courses was subject of several litigations and
the respondent no.1 through notification dated 22.01.2018 granted the status
of a ‘recognised medical qualifications’ to certain FCPS courses offered by
CPS Mumbai with specified dates for each course. On 30.04.2021, the
respondent no.1 vide letter no. C.18018/11/2021-MEP C.18018/11/2021-
MEP clarified that FCPS qualifications are recognised and eligible for
registration as a medical qualification for the purposes of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (IMC Act) and the National Medical Commission Act,
2019 (NMC Act) but the same are not equivalent to either the MD or MS
Degrees. The appellant here being the aspirant for the DNB/DrNB
examination must fulfil the eligibility criteria as set out by the NBE being
that the aspirant must undergo DNB/DrNB training from accredited institute
or likewise possess a post graduate degree in this case being MD or MS
from a recognised university. However, for June 2021, the NBE issued an
Information Bulletin for the DNB/DrNB examination wherein as per Clause
4.3.2, it was stipulated that the candidates possessing FCPS qualification


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 3 of 41

were deemed as not eligible to apply till such time such qualification was
found to be equivalent to the counterpart degrees being MD or MS
qualification as confirmed by the government. Thereafter, the Clause 4.3.2
of the Information Bulletin for the session June 2022 declared the FCPS
course candidates to be ineligible for appearing in the DNB/DrNB
examination.

8. As the appellant neither possess MD or MS degree nor has undergone
the DNB/DrNB training he was deemed ineligible for the said examination.
It is this disqualification that the appellant has challenged and the de-
recognition of the equivalence of the FCPS courses at the level of MD or
MS degrees along with the eligibility conditions as prescribed by the NBE in
Clause 4.3.2 of the Information Bulletins for the years 2021 and 2022.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
9. Mr. Apoorve Karol, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that
the appellant had joined a three year DrNB Cardiology conducted by the
respondent no.3 on 15.12.2020 after successfully qualifying the NEET SS
examination and was in the midst of the course when the respondent no.1
declared vide impugned letter dated 30.04.2021 that even though FCPS
courses were recognised and the qualifications were eligible for registration
for the purpose of practice however, the same were not equivalent to MD or
MS courses. According to him, the appellant who was petitioner no.11 in
W.P.(C) 5328/2021 received a letter dated 28.03.2022 (after almost one year
from the date of the issuance of the impugned letter dated 30.04.2021)
wherein, the NBE informed the appellant that his candidature for the DrNB
course stood cancelled. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to the letter


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 4 of 41

dated 28.03.2022 being Annexure A-3 of CM APPL. 42078/2023
accompanying the appeal.
10. It is his case that the appellant had almost completed half of his DrNB
course and moved an interim application being CM APPL. 19269/2022 in
W.P.(C) 5238/2021 seeking stay of operation of letter dated 28.03.2022 and
for a direction to continue with the course. It is his submission that the
learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.04.2022 permitted the appellant to
continue with the course. Mr. Karol has argued that the Court continued
these directions vide order dated 19.05.2022. According to him, similarly
placed Doctor had approached the Bombay High Court through Writ
Petition No. 5199/2022 and the Bombay High Court had granted a
temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner therein.
11. Another limb of argument of Mr. Karol is that the rules of the game
cannot be changed once the game has begun as the appellant had already
enrolled in the course when his candidature was cancelled. The action of the
respondents as per Mr. Karol is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. In this regard, he places reliance on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Pal and Others v. State of
Haryana and Others (1987) 2 SCC 445 . It is also his case that the appellant
has already paid Rs.1,47,500/- for each of the first two years and
Rs.1,25,000/- for the third year of the course the said fees totals upto
Rs.4,20,000/- which has been accepted by NBE. It is his case that the said
course would have culminated in December 2023. The action of the
respondent as per Mr. Karol has also jeopardise the appellant’s career
progression. He further stated that no reason was provided by the


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 5 of 41

respondents for coming to the said conclusion and the same divests the
appellant of substantive rights that have accrued in his favour prior to
30.04.2021. He seeks to rely on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. v.
Registrar, Cooperative Society & Ors., (2022) 4 SCC 363 .
12. According to him, the impugned letter dated 30.04.2021 as
implemented by the respondent no. 1 ought to be only applied prospectively
and not retrospectively. The appellant had joined the FCPS course prior to
30.04.2021 and therefore, cannot be ousted from the course through a
retrospective action. He also placed reliance in the case of Aasawari Kiran
Purohit and Others v. Government Of India and Others, Writ Petition No.
4235 of 2023 to state that the Doctors who had joined their two years
diploma courses at CPS, Mumbai to pursue their DNB/DrNB B degrees
even though the said degrees are not equivalent to or corresponding to the
other recognized two year degrees as the said students had joined the
diploma course in the year 2017-18 when CPS students pursuing such
diploma course were allowed to pursue DNB/DrNB courses are protected.
He stated that the said decision was followed by the Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. Hindustanwala Mohd. Adnan Vs.
Union of India, WP (L) No. 1711 of 2012 . Even in the year 2009 when
FCPS courses were de-recognised, the said policy decision was held to be
prospective keeping in mind the interest of the future student Doctors. He
stated that even those students, who had joined the FCPS course prior to
2009 but completed it after 02.12.2009 i.e. when the FCPS courses were de-
recognised in such a scenario, not only were the degrees considered
recognized but they were also allowed to sit for the DNB/DrNB final


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 6 of 41

examination held in the year 2011-12.
13. It is his case that admittedly till the year 2019-20, the Doctors who
had successfully completed their recognised FCPS course were allowed to
sit in the DNB/DrNB final examination and awarded the Diplomate of
National Board Degree. This factum has been recorded in the minutes of
meeting of the examination committee of the respondent no. 3. In the
present case, the appellant had completed his recognized FCPS course from
MGM Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad. The said hospital also
provides MBBS, post-graduate and super specialty courses and there is no
question regarding the quality of training and education received by the
appellant.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
14. Ms. Nidhi Raman, learned Central Government Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents stated that it was by way of
notifications dated 02.12.2009 and 03.02.2010 that the Central Government
had de-recognised the qualifications issued by the CPS, Mumbai by deleting
these qualifications from the first Schedule of the IMC Act w.e.f.
02.12.2009. It was thereafter by way of notification dated 17.10.2017
published in the official gazette on 23.10.2017 that the Central Government
recognised the 39 diploma courses at a post-graduation level conducted by
CPS, Mumbai and had included them in the first Schedule of the IMC Act.
15. According to her, the respondent no. 2/NMC in its reply has stated
that various communications took place between the Medical Council of
India as well as the Central Government regarding the re-examination /


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 7 of 41

recall / withdrawal of the notification dated 23.10.2017. She has drawn our
attention to the communications dated 02.11.2017, 03.11.2017, 08.11.2017,
21.11.2017, 27.11.2017, 19.12.2017 and 25.01.2018. It was through another
notification dated 22.01.2018 that the Central Government again de-
recognised 36 diploma courses conducted by CPS, Mumbai by deleting
them from the first Schedule of the IMC Act. Although, 6 FCPS courses
were inserted in the first Schedule of the IMC Act and in the said
notification, it was clarified that these qualifications shall not be treated as
recognised medical qualification for the purpose of teaching.
16. On 25.07.2020, the result of NEET SS 2020 was declared and in order
to ascertain the status of equivalence of CPS qualifications with the degrees
offered by Indian universities, the respondent no. 3 had vide
communications dated 16.09.2020 and 25.11.2020 written to the Central
Government and the NMC. It was in the interregnum that respondent no. 3
vide communication dated 22.09.2020 informed the candidates who had
appeared for the final theory examinations on June, 2020 that they were
provisionally being allowed to appear for the said examination till the
question of equivalence was being resolved by the Central Government.
17. For the period between 07.10.2020 and 22.10.2020, the common
counseling was done for the admission into the courses of DM/MCh/DNB
Super Specialty SS 2020. According to Ms. Raman, the authenticity of the
documents submitted by the candidates were not verified during the online
counseling and the question of the eligibility of candidates was also not
determined at the time of participation in the online counseling. The
respondent no. 3 received a communication dated 20.11.2020 from the


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 8 of 41

National Medical Commission although, a response from the Central
Government had not come as on that day. It was on 15.12.2020 that the
appellant was awarded a seat in the cardiology department at the Apex Heart
Institute, Ahmadabad during the first round of counseling and the appellant
was permitted to join the institute. Ms. Raman stated that even at this point
of time since no response from the Central Government was received, the
question regarding the eligibility criteria had not been finally decided.
18. It is her case that the respondent no. 3 is fully entitled to lay down the
eligibility criteria for the award of the Diplomate of National Board and the
matter was considered by the governing body of respondent no. 3 and it had
been decided on 24.12.2020 that the FCPS candidates shall not be allowed
to appear in the DNB/DrNB final examination till such a time the
clarification regarding the equivalence of the FCPS in respect of the degrees
awarded by Indian universities was decided by the Central Government.
19. She argued that in terms of the aforesaid decision, the respondent no.3
issued the information bulletin for DNB/DrNB final examination on
19.01.2021 with the addition of clause 4.3.2 to hold that the candidates
possessing FCPS qualification awarded by CPS, Mumbai were not eligible
to apply for the DNB/DrNB final exam.
20. Ms. Raman stated that a batch of writ petitions, which was filed
before the Bombay High Court wherein the Court was considering the
question whether the diploma qualification of the petitioners therein in terms
of notification dated 17.10.2017 when they appeared for the DNB/DrNB
examination and their diploma qualifications were de-recognised vide
notification dated 22.01.2018 having cleared the DNB 2017 and completed


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 9 of 41

the entire two years in the DNB/DrNB post diploma course in terms of the
interim order dated 10.04.2018. The Bombay High Court vide order dated
24.02.2021 directed respondent no. 3 to treat the petitioners therein to
pursue the DNB/DrNB post-diploma course and to treat their qualification
as duly obtained. It is her case that the order dated 24.02.2021 was passed in
the peculiar facts of that case.

21. She argued that the appellant herein paid the registration fees to the
respondent no. 3 for the NEET SS examination 2020 on 18.03.2021. On
25.03.2021, the respondent no. 3 issued the Information Bulletin for
DNB/DrNB 2021 with the clause that the candidates from CPS, Mumbai
were not eligible to apply for DNB/DrNB question of equivalence of CPS
diploma qualifications till such time was still pending at the Government of
India level. Being aggrieved by this clause, some of the candidates holding a
diploma from CPS, Mumbai approached the learned Single Judge of this
Court through writ petition being W.P.(C) 4252/2021. In response to the
said petition, the respondent no. 3 had informed the learned Single Judge
that the question of equivalence of qualifications issued by CPS, Mumbai
was awaited from the Central Government and the learned Single Judge had
ordered vide order dated 09.04.2021 that the Central Government bring its
stand on record. In the meanwhile, respondent no.2 NMC vide letter dated
31.03.2021 informed the Central Government that it did not find any merit
in the request for granting recognition to 14 courses as suggested by the
Hand Holding Committee and further recommended that the qualifications
of CPS, Mumbai that were in the Schedules of IMC Act should also be de-
notified. The Central Government vide its letter dated 30.04.2021 took a call
on this issue and clarified that the FCPS qualifications cannot be treated to


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 10 of 41

be equivalent to MD/MS qualifications.
22. Ms. Raman has brought to our notice that the learned Single Judge of
this Court had accepted the stand of the Central Government in terms of the
letter dated 30.04.2021 and disposed of the writ petition being W.P.(C)
4252/2021 vide judgment dated 04.05.2021. The other candidates including
the appellant herein had filed in the present writ petition being W.P.(C)
5328/2021 challenging the Information Bulletin for DNB/DrNB in its
Clause 4.3.2. She stated that it must be noted that the appellant herein is
petitioner no.11 in the said writ petition and it was by way of order dated
17.05.2021 notice was issued by the learned Single Judge in the said writ
petition as well as the application seeking interim relief. It was in the
meantime that the respondent no.3 on 12.07.2021 issued another
Information Bulletin regarding DNB/DrNB final examination for June, 2021
reiterating its earlier stipulation that the candidates with FCPS qualifications
awarded by the CPS Mumbai are not equivalent to MD or MS level
qualifications.
23. She stated when the matter was listed on 16.07.2021, the petitioners
therein pressed for interim relief and sought to appear in the DNB/DrNB
final examination and the said prayer was rejected by the learned Single
Judge through a detailed order of the same date. She further argued that on
account of the COVID 19 Pandemic, the determination of eligibility of the
candidates who had taken admission in NEET 2020 and their registration
process was delayed. It is to quell such a situation that the respondent no.3
developed a web portal for uploading registration form and other documents
for generating registration number for the candidates. After which the


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 11 of 41

respondent no.3 on 23.10.2021 issued another Information Bulletin for
DNB/DrNB final examination for December, 2021 wherein it was re-
emphasised that the candidates with FCPS qualifications from CPS Mumbai
would not be considered equivalent to either MD or MS level qualifications.
Pursuant to the said Information Bulletin, the candidates filed another
application being CM APPL 39169/2021 sought permission to appear in the
DNB/DrNB final examination schedule from 16.12.2021 to 19.12.2021. The
learned Single Judge again rejected the aforesaid prayers vide order dated
08.11.2021. On 28.01.2022, the appellant was asked to submit the deficient
documents on the web portal for generating the registration number.
However, on scrutinising the documents so received on 28.03.2022, it was
found that the qualification of the appellant being FCPS from CPS Mumbai
not equivalent to MD or MS courses, he was found to be ineligible to pursue
the DNB/DrNB course run by the respondent no.3. Ms. Raman has drawn
our attention to Clauses 2.15, 2.21 and 2.23 stipulated in the Information
Bulletin for NEET 2020 which were considered by respondent no.3 vide
letter dated 28.03.2022 wherein the candidature of the appellant was
cancelled.
24. It was after this that vide order dated 13.04.2022, the learned Single
Judge of this Court had permitted the writ petitioners to fill up the forms for
appearing in the DNB/DrNB final examinations against which the
respondent had preferred an Intra - Court appeal in the form of LPA
348/2022 wherein this Court vide order dated 24.05.2022 had stayed the
operation of the impugned judgment therein. The learned Single Judge vide
order dated 21.04.2022 directed that the appellant be permitted to continue
with the DNB/DrNB Training Course as an interim measure which was


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 12 of 41

further extended on 19.05.2022. The learned Single Judge thereafter
dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment 11.10.2022 against
which this present appeal has been filed. She stated that there are three other
appeals being LPA 15/2023, LPA 16/2023 and LPA 87/2023 filed
challenging the same impugned judgment dated 11.10.2022.
25. In this regard, Ms. Raman has invited our attention to the order dated
18.09.2023 passed in the above three appeals along with the present appeal,
wherein on the issue of interim relief, it was held as under:
“(i) The notification dated 22.01.2018 issued by the Central
Government recognizing FCPS courses never indicated that the
said courses as equivalent to MD/MS qualification.
(ii) No documents have been shown to establish that
equivalence was ever granted to Fellowship courses conducted
by CPS, Mumbai or FCPS was held equivalent to MD/MS
qualification at any point of time.
(iii) There is no retrospective Application of the letter dated
30.04.2021 issued by the Central Government.
(iv) No case is made out for grant of interim relief in favour of
the Appellants.”

26. It was vide judgment dated 01.04.2024 that the LPA 15/2023, LPA
16/2023 and LPA 87/2023, wherein the challenge to the same impugned
judgment as is the case here, were dismissed by this Court by holding as
follows:
“(i) There is no retrospective application of the letter dated
30.04.2021 issued by the Central Government. By the said
letter, the Central Government has only sought to clarify the
position that already existed.
(ii) The Appellants who have taken admission in FCPS courses
between 02.12.2009 and 22.01.2018 have taken admission in
an unrecognized course.


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 13 of 41

(iii) The Appellants who have taken admission in FCPS courses
after 22.01.2018 have taken admission in a course which is
recognized, however, is not equivalent to MD/MS.
(iv) There cannot be any legitimate expectation or promissory
estoppel in education matters as claimed by the Appellants.
(v) Merely because the courses conducted by the CPS, Mumbai
have been granted recognition, the same would not mean that
they have also been granted equivalence to MD/MS degree.
(vi) In the absence of any specific Rule/Regulation/Policy
Decision regarding the FCPS qualifications as being
equivalent to MD/MS degree, this Court cannot proceed on the
basis of any presumption, merely on the basis of the some past
practice wherein doctors with FCPS qualifications had been
allowed to take the DNB examination.
(vii) In the absence of the appellants possessing MD/MS
qualification, they cannot be allowed to sit for the DNB
examination on the basis of FCPS qualification, which is not
equivalent to MD/MS qualification.”

27. Ms. Raman has also stated that against the said judgment Special
Leave Petitions being SLP(C) No. 8630-8631/2024 and SLP(C) No.
25142/2024 have been filed by the candidates and the Supreme Court has
been pleased to issue notice, however, there is no stay operating on the
judgment dated 01.04.2024.
28. Ms. Raman has stated that since the DrNB courses are being
conducted by respondent no.3, it is fully empowered and competent to lay
down standards and the eligibility criteria for the award of the DrNB
qualification. In this regard, she places reliance on the judgments in the
cases of National Board of Examinations v. G Anand Ramamurthy and
Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 515 and Divyesh J Pathak v. National Board of
Examinations 2020 SCC Online 604 .
29. She has argued that in view of the settled position of law regarding


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 14 of 41

the equivalence of FCPS qualification not being analogous to MS/MD
qualification. The Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin concerning NEET
SS 2020, the appellant is neither eligible to appear in the said examination
nor pursue the course run by the respondent no.3. In this regard, she has
drawn our attention to Clauses 2.3, 2.12, 2.15, 2.21, 2.23, 2.26 and 2.27 of
the Information Bulletin to support her arguments. She argued that the
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation or Estoppel in the matters concerning
academics would not be applicable in the present case. She has drawn our
attention to the judgment in the cases of Mahesh Prakash Shinde & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors. 2024:DHC:2551-DB, Rajat Duhan and Ors. v. All
India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors 2019 SCC Online Del 11437 and
Divyesh J. Pathak (supra) .
30. Another limb of argument of Ms. Raman is that Courts of this country
have consistently held that academic bodies are competent to change and
modify eligibility criteria to maintain quality and standards of education.
Simply, because the eligibility criteria was different in the past years as
compared to the subsequent years does not invalidate the subsequent
changes brought about in the interest of quality standards. To buttress her
argument, she has taken recourse to the judgments in the cases of Rajat
Duhan (supra) , Ashwin Prafulla Pimpalwar v. State of Maharashtra 1991
SCC Online Bom 384 and Mahesh Prakash Shinde (supra) .
31. Ms. Raman has sought to differentiate the reliance placed by Mr.
Karol on the order dated 27.04.2022 of the High Court of Bombay by stating
that in the facts of that case, the petitioner therein who had an FPS
qualification had already obtained DNB/DrNB unlike the petitioner herein


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 15 of 41

and therefore the revocation of his candidature is justified. Similar is the
case regarding reliance placed on the interim orders dated 21.04.2022 and
19.05.2022 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 5328/2021
since the said orders stand superseded by the impugned judgment dated
11.10.2022 wherein the writ petition was dismissed.
32. She further argued that a perusal of the FCPS qualification dated
13.07.2018 placed on record by the appellant herein, it would become
apparent that the appellant has taken admission prior to 22.01.2018 i.e.,
when the said course was not even recognised by the Central Government.
33. It is her case that the reliance placed on the judgment in the case of
Suresh Pal (supra) by Mr. Karol is misplaced since the rules of the game
have not been changed. More so, since the letter dated 30.04.2021 has only
clarified the status of the FCPS qualification wherein the said qualification
has been notified to not be treated as a medical qualification for the purposes
of teaching in terms of notification dated 22.01.2018.
34. Ms. Raman has also argued that this Court ought to not place reliance
on the orders dated 24.02.2021, 19.04.2023, 21.04.2023, 08.06.2023 and
30.06.2023 of the Bombay High Court as the said issue involved in those
orders did not pertain to equivalence to FCPS course with MD/MS courses
and the same are distinguishable on facts. She further argued that the issue
of legality of the letter dated 30.04.2021 is liable to be rejected in view of
the judgment dated 01.04.2024 of this Court. In view of the above
arguments, Ms. Raman seeks the dismissal of the present appeal.



Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 16 of 41

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
35. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the short issue which
arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge is justified in
dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. At the outset, we may
state that the subject matter of the present appeal i.e., judgment dated
11.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge were subject matter of LPA
15/2023; LPA 16/2023 and LPA 87/2023. The aforesaid appeals have been
dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated
01.04.2024. We have been informed that the judgment dated 01.04.2024 is
pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.
8630-8631/2024 and SLP(C) No. 25142/2024 wherein notice has been
issued but the impugned order has not been stayed by the Supreme Court.
36. Having said that, from the facts noted above the following position
emerges:
I. Notification dated 02.12.2009 and 03.02.2010 were issued by the
Central Government de-recognising qualifications issued by the
CPS Mumbai by deleting the same from the schedule of the IMC
Act.
II. By way of notification dated 17.10.2017 as published in the
Official Gazette on 23.10.2017, the Central Government
recognised 39 diploma courses at post graduate level conducted by
CPS Mumbai. The Medical Council of India had written to
Central Government for re-examination/recall/withdrawal of the
notification dated 23.10.2017.


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 17 of 41

III. Vide notification dated 22.01.2018, the Central Government
de-recognised 36 diploma courses conducted by CPS Mumbai.
IV. Although, 6 FCPS courses were inserted in the first schedule of
the IMC Act but making it clear that the same shall not be treated
as recognised medical qualification for the purpose of teaching.
V. On 25.07.2020, the result of the NEET SS was declared.

VI. The respondent no.3/National Board of Examinations vide
notification dated 16.09.2020 and 25.11.2020 sought clarification
on the status of equivalence of FCPS qualification to that of
degrees offered by the Indian universities. Pending that, vide
notification dated 22.09.2020, the respondent no.3 informed the
candidates who have appeared for the final examination on June,
2020 that they are provisionally being allowed to appear for the
said examination till the equivalence is resolved by the Central
Government.
VII. The case of the respondent no.3 is that authenticity of the
documents submitted by the candidates were not verified during
the online counselling and the question of eligibility of candidates
was not determined on the participation of online counselling.
VIII. On 15.12.2020, the appellant was awarded seat at Cardiology
department at the Apex Heart Institute, Ahmedabad which
institute the appellant had joined. Even on that day, no response
from the Central Government was received by respondent no.3, on
the issue of equivalence of FCPS qualifications with that of


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 18 of 41

degrees offered by Indian Universities.
IX. The governing body of the National Board of Examination on
24.12.2020 decided that FCPS candidates shall not be allowed to
appear in the DNB/DrNB final examination till such time the issue
of FCPS qualifications equivalence is clarified by the Central
Government.

X. Even on 19.01.2021, Information Bulletin for DNB/DrNB final
examination stipulated in terms of Clause 4.3.2 that the candidates
possessing the FCPS qualification awarded by CPS Mumbai are
not eligible to apply in the DNB/DrNB final examination, till such
time the issue of equivalence of FCPS was pending clarification.
XI. The appellant had on 18.03.2021 paid the registration fee for the
NEET SS examination 2020. On 25.03.2021, the respondent
No.3/National Board of Examination, issued Information Bulletin
for DNB/DrNB 2021 that candidates from CPS Mumbai are not
eligible to apply for DNB/DrNB until resolution of the question of
equivalence of diploma is pending before the Government of
India.
XII. The Central Government, vide letter dated 30.04.2021 clarified
that FCPS qualification cannot be treated equivalent to MD/MS
qualification.
XIII. The appellant along with other candidates filed writ petition being
W.P.(C) 5328/2021 challenging the Information Bulletin for
DNB/DrNB in its Clause 4.3.2. The interim prayer sought by the


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 19 of 41

petitioners including the appellant herein was rejected by the
learned Single Judge.
XIV. Even on 23.10.2021, again Information Bulletin was issued for
DNB/DrNB final examination for December, 2021 reiterating that
candidates with FCPS qualification from CPS Mumbai would not
be considered qualified to the level of either MD or MS Degree.

XV. Even the application filed by the appellant seeking permission to
appear in the DNB/DrNB final examination was rejected. On
28.01.2022, the appellant was asked to submit the deficient
documents on the web portal for generating registration number.
XVI. On scrutinising the documents so received on 28.03.2022, it was
found he has FCPS of CPS Mumbai which is not equivalent to
MD/MS courses as such he was found ineligible and vide letter
dated 28.03.2022, the candidature of the appellant was cancelled.
37. The aforesaid being the position, it is clear that it is the consistent
stand of the respondent no.1 and 3 in terms of clarification that the diploma
secured by the appellant from CPS Mumbai was not equivalent qualification
of MS/MD Degrees and therefore not eligible to undertake the DNB/DrNB
exam.
38. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant is primarily that the
appellant has completed three years of the DNB/DrNB course and cannot be
disqualified and as such cancellation of his candidature of DNB/DrNB is
unjust. We are not impressed by the said submission made by the learned
counsel for the appellant. This we say so as it has been the consistent stand


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 20 of 41

of the respondent no.1 and 3 that the various FCPS qualification granted by
CPS Mumbai are not equivalent to MD/MS qualifications.
39. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that the rules of the
game have been changed mid way is also not impressive, in view of the
notification dated 22.01.2018 and the Information Bulletin issued from time
to time. In this regard, the stand taken by respondent no.1 - Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare as has been noted by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the judgment in the case of Dr. Mahesh Prakash Shinde &
Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, 2024:DHC:2551-DB , is also relevant
wherein, in paragraph 21, the following is stated:
“21. It is also relevant to note that in respect of equivalence of
qualifications granted by CPS, Mumbai, the Central
Government vide its letter dated 30th April, 2021 has clarified
that the various FCPS qualifications, are registrable for
medical practice, however, the said qualifications are not
equivalent to either MD or MS qualifications. In this regard,
the respondent no. 1/MoHFW, has categorically stated that the
aforesaid letter dated 30th April, 2021 was issued as a
clarification, with a view to clarify the position as regards the
CPS courses that already existed. Thus, respondent no.
1/MoHFW has explained its position in the short written
submissions filed on its behalf, which reads as under:-
“xxx xxx xxx
14. It is submitted that before the clarification of the
Ministry of health and family welfare vide
communication/letter dated 30.04.2021 has already
clarified by the NMC, vide letter dated 20.11.2020 that
With reference to your letter No. NBE/ED O/2020/430
dated 16.09.2020, on the subject noted above, it is to
inform you that as notified under Gazette of India dated


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 21 of 41

February 2018, FCPS (Midwifery & Gynecology)
qualification awarded by College of Physicians and
Surgeons, Mumbai, are registrable for practice but there
is no notification with respect to their equivalence to
MD/MS.
15. It is submitted that the ministry has not decided or
made something substantive order but only clarify the
position of the courses already existed, based on the
notification dated 17.10.2017 and 22.01.2018, as the
recognition to these courses were granted with terms and
conditions put at bottom of the notification dated
22.01.2018. The letter dated 30.04.2021 has only
clarified the ambiguity as sought by the respondent no.
3/NBE it does not require notification public at large. It
does not make any substantive changes in the notification
but only clarify the terms and conditions mentioned in the
notification and hence this cannot be challenge on the
ground of retrospective operation. It has been clarified
that since notification clearly stipulates that the CPS
qualifications shall not be treated as a recognized
medical qualification for the purpose of teaching and
hence these qualifications are registrable qualification
for practice, however, the same are not equivalent to
either MD or MS courses because the MD or MS
qualifications are mandatory for teaching.
16. It is submitted that for the sake of argument the letter
dated 30.04.2021 has retrospective operation, the
presumption against retrospective operation is not
applicable to clarificatory or, declaratory statute. In
Para-34, Para-35 and para-36 of the recent judgment of
Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1318-1322
of 2021, titled as Puneet Sharma and Ors vs Himachal
Pradesh state Electricity Board ltd Anr, the Hon‘ble
Supreme Court has reiterated the settled law regarding
retrospective operation of rules/law/order etc.””
40. From the above it is clear that what has been stated by the Ministry of


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 22 of 41

Health and Family Welfare vide its letter dated 30.04.2021 is primarily a
statement of the position as existed on that day, inasmuch as the Central
Government clarified the status on FCPS qualifications as was already
existing. To be noted, nothing has been brought to our notice that FCPS
qualifications were treated as equivalent to MD/MS Degrees even on the day
when the petitioner got admission in DNB/DrNB on 15.12.2020. In that
sense there is no change of rules as sought to be alleged.
41. In fact, the IMC/NMC had been taking consistent stand atleast from
02.11.2017 when communications were sent by the NMC to the Central
Government for re-examination/recall/withdrawal of the notification dated
23.10.2017. In fact, vide notification dated 22.01.2018, the Central
Government had de-recognised 36 diploma courses conducted by CPS
Mumbai. Even with regard to 6 courses, it was clarified that the said
qualification shall not be treated as recognised qualification for the purpose
of teaching.
42. If that be so, no right would enure to the appellant merely because he
had secured admission in DNB/DrNB conducted by the National Board of
Examination in the circumstances highlighted by Ms. Raman which we have
noted above. In that sense, the appellant had been informed that the
qualifications possessed by him are not equivalent to MD/MS and as such he
was not eligible to participate in the DNB/DrNB course. Despite of the
above existing position, the appellant having taken admission in the course
cannot seek to enforce a right which had never accrued to him.
43. Hence, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge is justified in
dismissing the petition. We also reproduce paragraphs 22 onwards of the


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 23 of 41

conclusion drawn by the Coordinate Bench in Dr. Mahesh Prakash Shinde
(supra) in the following manner:
“22. In view of the aforesaid, the undisputed position that
emerges is that the Central Government has only clarified the
status of the FCPS qualifications, as already existing. It is also
undisputed that there is no notification in existence which
recognizes the FCPS qualifications as equivalent to MS/MD.
Therefore, the submission raised on behalf of appellants with
regard to retrospectivity of the notification dated 30th April,
2021, is totally misplaced. The issue of retrospective
application of the letter dated 30th April, 2021 issued by
respondent no. 1/MoHFW has wrongly been raised by the
appellants, as by way of the aforesaid letter, the respondent no.
1/MoHFW has only sought to clarify a position that already
existed. It is not the case of the appellants that equivalent status
was granted to FCPS qualification with MS/MD earlier, which
has been sought to be withdrawn by the respondent no.
1/MoHFW by its letter dated 30th April, 2021.
23. This Court records the unequivocal stand of respondent no.
2/NMC, wherein it has gone to the extent of stating that in
recognizing the qualifications by organizations like CPS,
Mumbai, the NMC carries the risk of being accused of
promoting sub-standard training and specialists. Letter dated
31st March, 2021 in this regard, issued by the NMC is
reproduced as hereunder:-
“ दूरभाष / Phone: 25367033, 25367035, 25367036 पाकेट -14, सेक्टर -8, द्वारका ,
फेस 1, नईददल्ली 77-
फैक्स /Fax : 0091-11-25367024 Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka
ई - मेल / E-mail: [email protected] Phase 1, New Delhi-77




राष्ट्रीयआयुदविज्ञानआयोग
National Medical Commission
Postgraduate Medical Education Board (PGMEB)

No. NMC/MCI-23(1)/2021/Med./ 007204 Date: 31-03-2021

The Joint Secretary,
Medical Education Policy
Government of India,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 24 of 41

Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi

(Kind Attn.: Shri Chandan Kumar, US (MEP))
Subject: VIP reference of Shri Jai Prakash Hon'ble MP, Lok Sabha and PMO Reference
(PMO ID No. 5328875/PMC/2021/SW_dt_12.02.2021) regarding
representation dated 10.12.2020 from Dr. G.K. Maindarkar (President, College
of Physicians and Surgeons of Mumbai).

Sir,

Reference the Ministry's letter dated 6.1.2021 (No. V.11025/01/2021-ME-
I(FTS-8090760) forwarding a reference from Shri Jai Prakash, Hon'ble MP,
Lok Sabha regarding the representation from Dr. G.K. Maindarkar (President,
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Mumbai) and also the letter dated
23.2.2021 forwarding a PMO reference on the same subject.
The matter with regard to the recognition of courses offered by the
College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPS), Mumbai was considered by the
National Medical Commission at its meeting on 16.3.2021. The Commission
considered the representation of Dr. G.K. Maindarkar, the Report of the
Committee to provide the Hand holding support to College of Physicians and
Surgeons, Mumbai and all other documents pertaing to CPS available with the
Commission (including those related to the period of the erstwhile MCI).
The Commission noted that the Hand holding Committee had in its report
observed that since every developed country has more PG seats than UG seats,
and the same is not the case with India, the recognition and expansion of CPS
courses would benefit, especially to provide well trained specialist doctors in
rural and peripheral areas. The Commission however, is not in agreement with
the observations of the need for equal PG seats as UG seats, as the health care
structure in the country differs from that in the countries alluded to. The
Commission also feels that the country needs more general physicians and/or
Family physicians than specialists to cater to the needs of our population. The
argument that those with qualifications conferred by CPS would be available to
under-served and rural areas cannot be justified if such under trained
physicians/specialists were to serve the most needy in the country. Further, the
available documents do not support that those with CPS qualifications have
predominantly served in rural/peripheral areas nor that they have contributed in
substantial measure to the improvement of health care indicators in the regions
where they are working/have worked. The Commission was also concerned with
the quality of training, as CPS did not have the rigour of monitoring and
supervision of the National Medical Commission in the institutions
approved/recognized by it. Further, recognizing the qualifications by such
organizations such as the CPS, the NMC carries the risk of being accused of
promoting substandard training and specialists.
The Commission in its considered opinion did not find any merit in the
request for grant of recognition to the proposed 14 courses as suggested by the
Hand Holding Committee. Further, it also strongly recommends that the
qualifications of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Mumbai currently
included in the Schedules of the IMC Act, 1956 (now the NMC Act 2019) should
also be denotified.

This is for your information and necessary action, and is issued in
pursuance of the decision taken by the NMC in its meeting held on 16.3.2021.
Yours faithfully,
(Dr. R.K. Vats)


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 25 of 41

Secretary ”

24. This Court also records the Minutes of the Meeting dated
th
28 June, 2022 of the PGMEB under the NMC, wherein, the
PGMEB has recommended NMC to take measures to set right
the various irregularities in the courses conducted by CPS,
Mumbai and to derecognize the said courses till necessary
corrections are one. The Minutes of the Meeting dated 28th
June, 2022 of the PGMEB of the respondent no. 2/NMC, is
reproduced as under:-
दूरभाष / Phone: 25367033, 25367035, 25367036 पॉकेट -14, सेक्टर -8, द्वारका , फेस -
“
1, नईददल्ली -110077
फैक्स /Fax: : 0091-11-25367024 Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka
ई - मेल / E-mail : [email protected] Phase-1, New Delhi – 110077

आयुविज्ञान आयोग
राष्ट्रीय
National Medical Commission
Post Graduate Medical Education Board (PGMEB )

No. NMC/PGMEB-Admin/02/2021-Med

The meeting of the Post Graduate Medical Education Board
was held under the chairmanship of Dr Vijay Oza, President, PGMEB
th
on 28 June, 2022 at 12.00 Noon in Room No.119, 1st Floor, Sector-
8, Pocket-14, Dwarka, New Delhi.

Attendees:-
S. No. Name Designation
1 Dr Vijay Oza President,
Postgraduate
Medical Education
Board
2 Dr. R.K. Dhiman Part Time Member
3 Dr. Saleem-ur-
Rehman
Part Time Member


Additionally, Mr. Aujender Singh, Deputy Secretary (PGMEB), Mr.
Pramod Pant, PPS, Ms Navaneetha Pramod, Section Officer
(PGMEB), Ms Rashmi, ASO and Shri Deepak, ASO were also present
to facilitate the meeting.
Minutes of the Meeting
2. The Post Graduate Medical Education Board decided the following
four major policy matters/issues, which are detailed below, before
taking up the Agenda items:


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 26 of 41

2.1 Recognition of Courses offered by CPS, Mumbai:
The matter of recognition of qualifications provided by the College of
Physicians and Surgeons (CPS), Mumbai, was discussed in detail in
the Board's meeting. The Board observed that the CPS is running
various courses of qualifications since 1916 and these courses are
included in the Third Schedule, Part-I of the IMC Act, 1956
(Annexure-I).
The matter of continuation of the recognition of the courses of
qualifications has been debated since long. The Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare (MoH&FW), in its letter dated 30th April, 2021, has
informed the following (AnnexureII):-
i. The DPB, DGO, DCH, MCPS, FCPS (Med.), FCPS (Path.), FCPS
(Surg.), FCPS (Derm.), FCPS (Mid & Gynae) and FCPS (Opth.) are
the only recognised CPS courses at present;
ii. The aforementioned FCPS qualifications awarded by the CPS,
Mumbai are recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of the
erstwhile Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and also for the purposes
of the NMC Act, 2019. These qualifications are registerable
qualification for practice, however, the same are not equivalent to
either MD or MS
courses;
iii. The Diploma qualifications DPB, DGO and DCHawarded by the
CPS, Mumbai are equivalent to their corresponding other recognised
Diploma qualifications. NMC, in its letter dated 31.03.2021 to the
MoH&FW, have strongly recommended that the qualifications of the
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Mumbai currently included in
the Schedule of the IMC Act, 1956 (now the NMC Act,
2019) should be denotified (Annexure-III).
In reply, the MoH&FW had written on 24.05.2021, that as per the
NMC Act, 2019 the power of recognition or otherwise lies with the
NMC. Hence, it requested NMC to take appropriate action in the
matter and intimate the Ministry. In this connection, the Chairman,
NMC vide his note dated 18.05.2022 asked the Post Graduate
Medical Education Board (PGMEB) for its comments (AnnexureIV)
The PGMEB discussed this issue in detail and made the following
observations:-
i. As per Section 25 of the NMC Act, the powers and functions of the
PGMEB are to determine and develop and maintain best standards of
medical education at the postgraduate level and super-specialty level
by framing guidelines of requirements and standard for setting up
medical institutions and medical colleges; and by developing
competency based dynamic curriculum. ii. Further, as per Section 35
of the NMC Act, 2019, the PGMEB has to recognise and renew the
courses of qualifications.
Based on all the above observations, as per Section 25(2) of the
NMC Act, 2019, the Board decided to recommend NMC and MARB


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 27 of 41

to take measures to set right these irregularities and, if necessary,
derecognise these courses till necessary corrections are done. ”
25. In fact, it is the clear stand of respondent no. 2/NMC that
the courses run by CPS, Mumbai do not come under the
monitoring control of NMC. Therefore, the PGMEB
recommended that the equivalence given by MoHFW to the
three diploma courses of CPS, Mumbai, should also be
withdrawn. Letter dated 13th April, 2023 issued by respondent
no. 2/NMC, reads as under:-
“ National Medical Commission
Post Graduate Medical Education Board (PGMEB)

No. P(23)(l)(02)/2023-PGMEB Date: 13.04.2023
To
Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta,
Under Secretary
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110077

Sub.- Clarification regarding recognition of Diploma courses offered
by the CPS, Mumbai reg.

Sir,
Please refer to your letter no. V-110025/14/2015-MEP
[FTS:307429] dated 31.03.2023. It is informed that the matter was
discussed in the Post Graduate Medical Education Board Meeting
held on 12.04.2023 wherein it was decided that he courses run by
CPS, Mumbai does not come under the monitoring control of
National Medical Commission. Therefore, PGMEB does not agree to
providing equivalence to courses of 466 students recognized by the
MoHFW vide its letter dated 18.10.2022.
2. Further, the PGMEB also recommends that the 3 Diploma
courses (DPB, DCH and DGO) for which equivalence has been given
vide MoHFW vide letter dated 30.04.2021 should also be withdrawn
from next academic year.
3. These issues with the approval of Competent Authority.
Yours Faithfully
Rita Singh
UnderSecretary, PDMEB
”

26. Thus, it is manifest that the appellants, who have taken
admission in FCPS courses between 02nd December, 2009 and
22nd January, 2018, have taken admission in an unrecognized


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 28 of 41

course. The appellants, who have taken admission in FCPS
courses after 22nd January, 2018, have taken admission in a
course which is recognized, however, is not equivalent to
MD/MS. Thus, this Court is in agreement with the findings of
the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment on the
question of retrospective application, wherein the learned
Single Judge has held as follows:-
“ xxx xxx xxx
33. It has been argued that notwithstanding non-recognition of
equivalence of FCPS courses — impugned policy decision must not
be given retrospective application so as to prejudice candidates who
sought admission in FCPS courses, relying on past practice of
Respondents. However, since the impugned letter merely clarified the
position that was already in force since 22nd January, 2018, the
question of retrospective application does not arise. Declaring
impugned policy decision to have prospective application and
permitting Petitioners to appear for DNB examination, would be
beyond the ambit of judicial review. Under the scheme of IMC Act
and general practice, MoHFW is the final authority to decide how
conditions introduced by notification of 2018 are to operate. Even
otherwise, it is settled law that a declaratory or clarificatory rule
operates from a prior date covering antecedent events since it merely
elucidates the initial intent of the enactment. As discussed
hereinbefore, impugned letter was sent by MoHFW to clarify the
position qua operation of notification of 2018, and thus, it shall be
deemed to apply to all candidates, including Petitioners, who seek to
enjoy the benefit of equivalence of their courses with MS/MD degrees
and appear for postgraduate level professional examinations.
34. That apart, NBE itself has reserved an absolute right to alter,
amend or modify its guidelines under the information bulletin. From
a perusal of stipulations contained in previous years’ information
bulletins issued by NBE for DNB examinations, it manifests that NBE
cautioned prospective candidates that they shall not be entitled to
claim any right whatsoever from past schedules, policies or
guidelines of NBE. It would not be in the interest of either the
candidates or the medical profession to restrict this power of NBE. It
can also not be said that NBE has usurped its jurisdiction or power,
that would warrant quashing of impugned clause 4.3.2 of the
information bulletins.
35. As regards those Petitioners who have already appeared in DNB
examination in the year 2020 and their results have been withheld,
there is merit in NBE’s contentions that such Petitioners were only
provisionally permitted to appear in the examination, a fact which
was communicated to them not only by way of the information


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 29 of 41

bulletin for the year 2020, but also by e-mail communication dated
22nd September, 2020 in following terms:
“Dear Candidate,
This is with reference to your application for DNB Final (Theory)
Examination June 2020 session.
You have been provisionally allowed to appear in the
aforementioned examination purely on provisional basis. Please
be apprised that the appearance in examination shall be
provisional subject to receipt of clarification awaited from the
Govt of India and Medical Council of India regarding equivalence
of FCPS qualifications with the corresponding MD/MS
counterparts.
The permission granted for appearance shall not allow the
candidates to exercise any legal rights in their favour for
considering their candidature and/or declaration of result and/or
appearance in practical examination in case the clarifications
received from Gol and/or MCI do not confirm the equivalence of
FCPS with corresponding MD/MS courses…”

36. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that concerned Petitioners’
candidatures were only provisional and no relief can be claimed by
them since status of equivalence has now been clarified.
37. Lastly, as regards Petitioners‘ plea of legitimate expectation, this
Court in Dr. Divyesh J. Pathak and Ors. v. National Board of
Examinations and Anr. has held that the principle of legitimate
expectation is inapplicable to matters pertaining to education and as
such, Respondents cannot be compelled to continue recognising
equivalence of FCPS courses with MS/MD degrees and thereby
permitting all candidates similarly placed as Petitioners, to take
NEET-SS or DNB examination on that basis.
xxx xxx xxx”
27. It is no longer res-integra that Court cannot apply its own
evaluation criteria and cannot substitute its own opinion in
place of decisions taken by specialists/experts. The high
standards in medical education cannot be compromised with. If
an expert body has determined that FCPS courses run by CPS,
Mumbai do not meet the supervision of NMC, the Court cannot
review the expert body's evaluation with respect to the
eligibility criteria or quality of education. In view thereof, it is
prudent for this Court to leave it to the wisdom of the experts to
take decisions in such academic matters, who have a deeper
understanding of the issues at hand, than the Courts when it
comes to matters of academics. Thus, Supreme Court in the


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 30 of 41

case of All India Council for Technical Education Versus
Surinder Kumar Dhawan and Others (2009) 11 SCC 726, has
held as under:
“ xxx xxx xxx
16. The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or
technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory
professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters
involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts
start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to
permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to
alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they
think that one course is equal to another, without realising the
repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will
lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of
education.
17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the role of
courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of
educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts
keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to
be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected
with education, the courts will step in. In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v.
Allahabad University [(1980) 3 SCC 418 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 436] this
Court observed : (SCC pp. 424 & 426, paras 11 & 17)
“11. … Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to
tread. …
*
17. … While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that
courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.”
xxx xxx xxx”
28. Similarly, the Supreme, Court on the aspect of Court’s
interference in academic matters in the case of Medical
Council of India Versus Sarang and Others (2001) 8 SCC 427,
has held as under:
“ xxx xxx xxx
6. In matters of academic standards, courts should not normally
interfere or interpret the rules and such matters should be left to the
experts in the field. This position has been made clear by this Court in
University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao [AIR 1965 SC 491 : (1964)
4 SCR 575] , State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana [(1979) 1 SCC
572 : (1979) 2 SCR 974] and Shirish Govind Prabhudesai v. State of
Maharashtra [(1993) 1 SCC 211] . The object of the said Regulation
appears to be that although the course of study leading to the IInd
professional examination is common to all medical colleges, the
sequence of coverage of subjects varies from college to college.


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 31 of 41

Therefore, the requirement of 18 months of study in the college from
which the student wants to appear in the examination is appropriately
insisted upon. Migration is not normally allowed and has got to be
given in exceptional circumstances. In the absence of such a
stipulation as contained in Regulation 6(5), it is clear that the
migrated student is likely to miss instruction and study in some of the
subjects, which will ultimately affect his academic attainments.
Therefore, the strained meaning given by the High Court, which
actually changes the language of Regulation 6(5), is not permissible.
Thus we disagree with the view taken by the High Court and state that
the correct interpretation is as given by the Medical Council of India,
set forth above by us.
xxx xxx xxx”
29. Likewise, there cannot be any legitimate expectation or
promissory estoppel in education matters, as claimed by the
appellants herein. Law is well settled that the expectation must
be fair, rational, and valid in order to be considered
legitimate. It is not possible to hold that the appellants have
any kind of reasonable expectation in the present instance. If
an authority makes any representations or promises either
explicitly or implicitly, then a person might be said to have a
“legitimate expectation” of receiving a certain treatment or
benefit. In the present case at hand, as is the case of
respondents, there is no notification whatsoever, which has
been issued by the competent authorities, granting the status of
equivalence to the concerned FCPS courses.
30. Delving on the aspect of legitimate expectation, Supreme
Court in the case of State of West Bengal & Others Versus
Gitashree Dutta (Dey) 2022 SCC Online 691, has held as
under:
xxx xxx xxx
“
10. The doctrine of ―legitimate expectation‖ has been developed in
the context of principles of natural justice. ‗Legitimate expectation‘ is
a public law right whereas ‗promissory estoppel‘ is a private law
right. The doctrine of legitimate expectation in public law is based on
the principle of fairness and non-arbitrariness in governmental
actions.
11. However, the doctrine of legitimate expectation ordinarily would
not have any application when the legislature has enacted the statute.
Further, the legitimate expectation cannot prevail over a policy
introduced by the Government, which does not suffer from any
perversity, unfairness or unreasonableness or which does not violate
any fundamental or other enforceable rights vested in the respondent.


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 32 of 41

When the decision of public body is in conformity with law or is in
public interest, the plea of legitimate expectation cannot be sustained.
In Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India1 this Court held
that policy decision creating the legitimate expectation which is
normally binding on the decision maker, can be changed by the
decision maker in overriding public interest. It was held as under:
“37. The above survey of cases shows that the doctrine of
legitimate expectation in the substantive sense has been accepted
as part of our law and that the decision-maker can normally be
compelled to give effect to his representation in regard to the
expectation based on previous practice or past conduct unless
some overriding public interest comes in the way…….”
12. In Sethi Auto Service Station v. Delhi Development Authority, this
Court after referring to various precedents observed as under:
“32. An examination of the aforenoted few decisions shows that the
golden thread running through all these decisions is that a case for
applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, now
accepted in the subjective sense as part of our legal jurisprudence,
arises when an administrative body by reason of a representation
or by past practice or conduct aroused an expectation which it
would be within its powers to fulfil unless some overriding public
interest comes in the way. However, a person who bases his claim
on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the first instance, has
to satisfy that he has relied on the said representation and the
denial of that expectation has worked to his detriment. The Court
could interfere only if the decision taken by the authority was
found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or in gross abuse of power or
in violation of principles of natural justice and not taken in public
interest. But a claim based on mere legitimate expectation without
anything more cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke these
principles.
33. It is well settled that the concept of legitimate expectation has
no role to play where the State action is as a public policy or in the
public interest unless the action taken amounts to an abuse of
power. The court must not usurp the discretion of the public
authority which is empowered to take the decisions under law and
the court is expected to apply an objective standard which leaves
to the deciding authority the full range of choice which the
legislature is presumed to have intended. Even in a case where the
decision is left entirely to the discretion of the deciding authority
without any such legal bounds and if the decision is taken fairly
and objectively, the court will not interfere on the ground of
procedural fairness to a person whose interest based on legitimate
expectation might be affected. Therefore, a legitimate expectation
can at the most be one of the grounds which may give rise to
judicial review but the granting of relief is very much limited.


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 33 of 41

[Vide : Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation,
(1993) 3 SCC 499]”
13. In Union of India v. Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary, this Court held that
the legitimate expectation, as an argument, cannot prevail over the
policy introduced by the Government which does not suffer from any
perversity, unfairness or unreasonableness or which does not violate
any fundamental or other enforceable rights vested in the
respondents.
14. There is a necessary inter-play between the plea of legitimate
expectation and Article 14. For a decision to be non-arbitrary, the
reasonable/legitimate expectations of the claimant have to be
considered. However, to decide whether the expectation of the
claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context, is a question of
fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined
not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public
interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh
what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the
claimant. In Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed
Industries, this Court has pointed out as under:
“8. The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in
such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but
failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision
arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a
legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-
arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every
legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration
in a fair decision-making process. Whether the expectation of the
claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of
fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined
not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public
interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh
what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the
claimant. A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this
manner would satisfy the requirement of nonarbitrariness and
withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation
gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system in
this manner and to this extent.”


31. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Pravesh
Singh and Others Versus State of Bihar and Others (2006) 8
SCC 381, while elucidating the doctrine of legitimate
expectation, has held as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
15. What is legitimate expectation? Obviously, it is not a legal right.


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 34 of 41

It is an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy, that may ordinarily
flow from a promise or established practice. The term ―established
practice” refers to a regular, consistent, predictable and certain
conduct, process or activity of the decision-making authority. The
expectation should be legitimate, that is, reasonable, logical and
valid. Any expectation which is based on sporadic or casual or
random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be
a legitimate expectation. Not being a right, it is not enforceable as
such. It is a concept fashioned by the courts, for judicial review of
administrative action. It is procedural in character based on the
requirement of a higher degree of fairness in administrative action, as
a consequence of the promise made, or practice established. In short,
a person can be said to have a ―legitimate expectation” of a
particular treatment, if any representation or promise is made by an
authority, either expressly or impliedly, or if the regular and
consistent past practice of the authority gives room for such
expectation in the normal course. As a ground for relief, the efficacy
of the doctrine is rather weak as its slot is just above ―fairness in
action‖ but far below “promissory estoppels”. It may only entitle an
expectant: (a) to an opportunity to show cause before the expectation
is dashed; or (b) to an explanation as to the cause for denial. In
appropriate cases, the courts may grant a direction requiring the
authority to follow the promised procedure or established practice. A
legitimate expectation, even when made out, does not always entitle
the expectant to a relief. Public interest, change in policy, conduct of
the expectant or any other valid or bona fide reason given by the
decision-maker, may be sufficient to negative the “legitimate
expectation”. The doctrine of legitimate expectation based on
established practice (as contrasted from legitimate expectation based
on a promise), can be invoked only by someone who has dealings or
transactions or negotiations with an authority, on which such
established practice has a bearing, or by someone who has a
recognised legal relationship with the authority. A total stranger
unconnected with the authority or a person who had no previous
dealings with the authority and who has not entered into any
transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the
doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the
authority has a general obligation to act fairly.
xxx xxx xxx
17. This Court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the
principle of legitimate expectation: (SCC pp. 546-47, para 33)
“[I]t is generally agreed that legitimate expectation gives the
applicant sufficient locus standi for judicial review and that the
doctrine of legitimate expectation is to be confined mostly to right of a
fair hearing before a decision which results in negativing a promise
or withdrawing an undertaking is taken. The doctrine does not give


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 35 of 41

scope to claim relief straightaway from the administrative authorities
as no crystallised right as such is involved. The protection of such
legitimate expectation does not require the fulfilment of the
expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In
other words where a person's legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by
taking a particular decision then decisionmaker should justify the
denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public
interest. Therefore even if substantive protection of such expectation
is contemplated that does not grant an absolute right to a particular
person. It simply ensures the circumstances in which that expectation
may be denied or restricted. A case of legitimate expectation would
arise when a body by representation or by past practice aroused
expectation which it would be within its powers to fulfil. The
protection is limited to that extent and a judicial review can be within
those limits. But as discussed above a person who bases his claim on
the doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the first instance, must
satisfy that there is a foundation and thus has locus standi to make
such a claim. In considering the same several factors which give rise
to such legitimate expectation must be present. The decision taken by
the authority must be found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and not
taken in public interest. If it is a question of policy even by way of
change of old policy, the courts cannot interfere with a decision. In a
given case whether there are such facts and circumstances giving rise
to a legitimate expectation, it would primarily be a question of fact. If
these tests are satisfied and if the court is satisfied that a case of
legitimate expectation is made out then the next question would be
whether failure to give an opportunity of hearing before the decision
affecting such legitimate expectation is taken, has resulted in failure
of justice and whether on that ground the decision should be quashed.
If that be so then what should be the relief is again a matter which
depends on several factors.
xxx xxx xxx”
32. It is significant to point out that merely because courses
conducted by CPS, Mumbai, have been granted recognition
would not mean that they have also been granted equivalence
to MD/MS degree. “Equivalence” is a term which describes the
state of being equal and requires scrutiny to decipher whether
two things are, in fact, equal in force and value. Navigating the
complexities of equivalence often requires the involvement of
credential evaluation by the expert bodies. The Supreme Court
in the case of Mukul Kumar Tyagi Versus State of Uttar

Pradesh and Others (2020) 4 SCC 86 , had laid emphasis on
the literal meaning of the term “equivalence”, the relevant
portion of which reads as under:


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 36 of 41

“xxx xxx xxx
65. We have already held that equivalence of qualification cannot be
left to candidates by their self-declaration. There have to be norms
and guidelines, which may subserve the purpose and object of
making equivalent qualification as an eligibility for the post. The
word “equivalent” has been defined in Advanced Law Lexicon by P.
Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edn. in the following manner:
“Equivalent. Equal in worth or value. Equal in value, measure,
force, effect, etc. EQUIVALENT, EQUAL. Equal expresses the fact
that two things agree in anything which is capable of degree, e.g., in
quantity, quality, value, bulk, number, proportion, rate, rank and the
like. Equivalent is equal in such properties as affect ourselves or the
use which we make of things, such as value, force, power, effect
impact and the like (as) “Equivalent of money”.
xxx xxx xxx”
33. This Court is of the considered view that even otherwise,
the issue pertaining to equivalence is to be decided by the
competent authority, having expertise in academic matters.
This Court cannot adjudicate on the aspect of equivalence in
the absence of any notification issued by the competent
authority granting the status of an equivalent medical
qualification. In the present case, the notification dated 30th
April 2021 issued by the respondent – Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare (MoHFW), stipulates in categorical terms that
FCPS qualifications awarded by the CPS, Mumbai are
registrable qualification for practice, however, the same are
not equivalent to either MD or MS Courses. In this regard, the
Supreme Court in the case of Unnikrishnan CV and Others
Versus Union of India & Others 2023 SCC Online 343, has
held as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
14. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, this
Court has reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic matter.
It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body
of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order
or resolution, duly published. Dealing specifically with whether a
distance education course was equivalent to the degree of MA
(English) of the appellant university therein, the Court held that no
material had been produced before it to show that the distance
education course had been recognized as such.
15. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, it was held
that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications
as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 37 of 41

of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties,
functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to
the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can
neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide
the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given
qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as
recruiting authority, to determine.
xxx xxx xxx”
34. Further, in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Versus State of Maharashtra and Others (2009) 5 SCC 24,
Supreme Court has noted that “Equivalent” has been defined
to be equal in value, amount, function, meaning having the
same or similar effect or significant corresponding in position
or function.
35. The fact that FCPS qualifications are recognized as per
Schedule 1 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, will also
not help the case of the appellants to claim equivalence to
MD/MS degree. No presumptions can be made by Court in
education matters. In the absence of any specific
Rule/Regulation/Policy Decision regarding the FCPS
qualifications as being equivalent to MD/MS degree, this Court
cannot proceed on the basis of any presumption, merely on the
basis of the some past practice wherein doctors with FCPS
qualifications had been allowed to take the DNB examination.
36. There is no denying the fact that the appellants are
qualified doctors, who have successfully completed the MBBS
course. There is also no denying the fact that FCPS
qualifications of the appellants are recognized. However, on
that basis, the appellants cannot raise any claim for taking the
DNB examination, when there is a categorical assertion by the
respondents that the appellants are not entitled to take the DNB
examination, as they do not possess the requisite qualification
of MD/MS for taking up the DNB examination. The appellants
have not been able to point out any Rules or Regulations to
show that the FCPS qualifications held by them are equivalent
to MD/MS qualification, in order to entitle them to take the
DNB examination.
37. The judgments relied upon by the appellants-doctors do not,
in any manner, aid or assist their cases, as the same are clearly
distinguishable in law and facts.


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 38 of 41

37.1 The judgment in the case of Hindustanwala Mohd. Adnan
(supra) of Division Bench of Bombay High Court dealt with the
issue of de-recognition of the courses run by CPS, Mumbai. It
was in that context that the Division Bench of Bombay High
Court had held that the notification regarding de-recognition of
the said courses would operate prospectively. However, the
present appeals do not deal with the issue of de-recognition of
any courses. It is undisputed that the FCPS courses run by
CPS, Mumbai are recognized. The said case did not deal with
the issue of equivalence of FCPS qualifications with MD/MS,
which is the issue in the present case. Even otherwise, there is
nothing on record to show that equivalence was granted to the
FCPS qualifications with MD/MS, which is sought to be
withdrawn by the impugned letter/notification. Appellants, in
the present appeals have not pointed out any
Rule/Regulation/Notification ever granting equivalence to
FCPC qualifications with MD/MS. Thus, the present is not a
case of withdrawal of a benefit that was earlier conferred on
the appellants.
37.2 The judgment in the case of Anita Kishan Rao Videkar
(supra) of Bombay High Court dealt with a case wherein
eligibility criterion was changed midway, which is not the case
in the present appeals.
37.3 The judgment in the case of Suresh Pal (supra) of Supreme
Court dealt with a situation where the petitioners were
admitted to a course having a requisite recognition, which was
later de-recognized during the time when the petitioners were
still pursuing the case. This was held to be impermissible by the
Supreme Court. However, in the present appeals, the courses
pursued by the appellants have not been de-recognized. Only a
clarification has been issued as regards the status of the course
pursued by the appellants, which status already existed since
recognition of the said courses by way of notification dated
22nd January, 2018 issued by the Central Government, viz.
respondent no. 1/MoFHW.
37.4 Likewise, the judgment in the case of Aasawari Kiran
Purohit (supra) of Bombay High Court and Geetanjali Medical
College And Hospital (supra) of Rajasthan High Court, did not
deal with the issue of equivalence, which is the subject matter


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 39 of 41

of adjudication in the present appeals.
37.5 The judgment in the case of Sree Sankaracharya
University of Sanskrit and Others (supra) of Supreme Court
dealt with the issue of withdrawing a benefit by way of a
clarification. However, in the present appeals, the appellants
have not been able to point out any
Rule/Regulation/Notification by which equivalence was granted
to the FCPS qualifications with MD/MS. Therefore, the present
appeals stand on a different footing, as the same do not pertain
to withdrawal of a benefit, conferred earlier.
37.6 Similarly, the judgment in the case of Assistant Excise
Commissioner, Kottayam and Others (supra) of Supreme Court
has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the
present appeals, as the said case dealt with retrospective
operation of new laws affecting rights, which is not the case in
the present appeals.
38. Considering the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is manifest
that the notification dated 22nd January, 2018 issued by
respondent no. 1/MoFHW recognizing the FCPS courses never
indicated that the same were equivalent to MD/MS
qualification. Therefore, in the absence of any specific
notification in this regard, there cannot be any presumption
regarding equivalence of FCPS courses with MD/MS
qualification.
39. This Court notes that for the DNB course, possessing
MD/MS qualification is a pre-requisite. Hence, in the absence
of the appellants possessing MD/MS qualification, they cannot
be allowed to sit for the DNB examination on the basis of FCPS
qualification, which is not equivalent to MD/MS qualification.
40. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no
merit in the present appeals. The same are accordingly,
dismissed along with pending applications.”


44. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellant are concerned three judgments have been dealt with by the
Division Bench in the aforesaid three appeals. The said judgments primarily
being Hindustanwala Mohd. Adnan (supra), Suresh Pal (supra) and


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 40 of 41

Aasawari Kiran Purohit have been distinguished by the Division Bench in
paragraphs 37.1, 37.3 and 37.4, respectively. Insofar as the judgment in the
case of Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd.
(supra) as relied upon by the counsel for the appellant to argue that
substantive rights have accrued in the favour of the appellant herein is
concerned, the said judgment does not aid the case of the appellant as the
same diverges on facts. Moreover, as we have already come to a conclusion
that no right had accrued in favour of the appellant herein to seek
equivalence in qualification acquired from CPS Mumbai, he cannot enforce
a right which had never existed in him/in his favour.
45. The judgment in the case of Dr. Mahesh Prakash Shinde (supra) is
squarely applicable to the present case, more so since the judgement decided
a challenge to the same order of the learned Single Judge which has been
impugned in the present appeal. We do not find any reason to deviate from
the reasoning of the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
46. In view of our discussion above, we are of the view that present
appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merits. The learned Single Judge is
justified in dismissing the petition.
47. The appeal is dismissed and the pending applications having become
infructuous are also dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J


MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JULY 03, 2026
rt


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
11:13:37
LPA 149/2023 Page 41 of 41