Admission before 18 November 2021 insufficient for FMGL exemption unless foreign medical course had actually commenced, Patna High Court rules

The respondent obtained admission to the Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Ukraine, and paid the requisite fees on 8 November 2021.

The National Medical Commission (Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate) Regulations, 2021 came into force on 18 November 2021. Although the respondent’s admission formalities were completed before that date, his medical classes commenced only on 6 December 2021.

The learned Single Judge held that the 2021 Regulations did not apply to the respondent, principally because his admission had been completed before 18 November 2021, and allowed the writ petition dated 21 February 2024.

The National Medical Commission preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

The appellant also objected to the maintainability of the writ petition because the respondent had earlier withdrawn C.W.J.C. No. 11133 of 2023 without obtaining liberty to institute a fresh proceeding.

Whether a foreign medical student whose admission was completed and fees were deposited before 18 November 2021, but whose classes commenced thereafter, was “pursuing” medical education before the commencement of the 2021 Regulations so as to fall within Regulation 5(b)?

Whether the mere issuance of admission documents and payment of fees, without commencement of academic instruction or other course-related activity, was sufficient to attract the transitional protection under Regulation 5(b)?

Whether the respondent could claim exemption under the erstwhile Medical Council of India Screening Test Regulations, 2002, despite the subsequent enactment of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and the 2021 Regulations?

Whether the subsequent withdrawal of the respondent’s earlier writ petition affected the maintainability of the present writ petition?

The Court applied Regulation 5(b) of the National Medical Commission (Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate) Regulations, 2021, holding that its transitional protection extends to candidates who were actually “pursuing their education” before 18 November 2021, not merely candidates who had secured admission or paid fees.

It relied on Omkar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 14 SCC 486, but held that the decision did not establish a universal rule that admission alone always constitutes pursuit of education.

It further relied on National Medical Commission v. Pooja Thandu Naresh, (2022) 13 SCC 56, for the principle that formal compliance cannot replace substantive medical education and clinical training, and that professional medical standards cannot be compromised.

Sections 60 and 61 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 were applied to hold that the 2002 Screening Test Regulations could not independently confer an exemption contrary to the later statutory and regulatory framework.

The Court also applied the principles governing withdrawal of writ proceedings, constructive res judicata and abuse of process, while declining to dispose of the appeal solely on that technical ground.

The Court distinguished between admission, which is the gateway to a course, and pursuit of education, which begins when the student has actually entered upon the course through classes, online instruction, orientation, clinical training or other academic activity.

The respondent’s admission documents and fee receipt proved that he had been accepted by the foreign university and had financially committed to the course, but they did not establish that he had commenced medical education before 18 November 2021.

Since the admitted position was that his classes began only on 6 December 2021, he had not crossed the stage of admission formalities by the statutory cut-off date.

The COVID-19 pandemic explained the delayed commencement but could not alter the statutory consequence or authorise the Court to substitute “admitted before 18 November 2021” for “pursuing education” before that date.

The Court also held that the subsequent transfer or public notice relating to Ukraine-returnee students operated independently and did not automatically exempt the respondent from the 2021 Regulations.

In the absence of material showing that he had actually commenced pursuing his medical education before that date, the 2021 Regulations governed his case.

The appeal was allowed; the judgment dated 21 February 2024 in C.W.J.C. No. 17595 of 2023 was set aside; and the writ petition was dismissed.

The delay of 24 days in filing the appeal was condoned, and the interim stay application was disposed of as infructuous.

The Court clarified that the decision would not prevent the respondent from claiming any independent benefit available under a later policy or public notice, subject to fulfilment of its conditions.

There was no order as to costs.