FCPS Qualifications are Registrable for Medical Practice but Not Equivalent to MD or MS Degrees

The appellant completed a Fellowship of the College of Physicians and Surgeons (FCPS) from CPS Mumbai, a qualification recognized for medical registration under the IMC/NMC Acts

After qualifying for the NEET SS 2020, he was allotted a seat and joined the three-year DrNB Cardiology course on December 15, 2020

During his course, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) issued a clarification on April 30, 2021, stating that while FCPS qualifications are registrable for practice, they are not equivalent to MD or MS degrees

Consequently, the National Board of Examinations (NBE) declared FCPS holders ineligible for the DNB/DrNB final examination and cancelled the appellant's candidature on March 28, 2022

The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that he had already completed half the course and that the "rules of the game" could not be changed retrospectively

A learned Single Judge dismissed his petition on October 11, 2022

1. Whether the MoHFW clarification dated April 30, 2021, regarding the non-equivalence of FCPS to MD/MS, constitutes an impermissible retrospective change to the eligibility criteria.

2. Whether the appellant has a vested right or legitimate expectation to complete the DrNB course and sit for the final examination based on his initial admission.

The Court applied the principles of academic autonomy, stating that statutory professional bodies are the final authorities on educational standards and equivalence

It relied on the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, noting that recognition for practice does not automatically imply equivalence for teaching or higher specializations

The Court followed the precedent in National Board of Examinations v. G. Anand Ramamurthy, which affirms the NBE's power to lay down eligibility criteria

The Court applied the doctrine that "legitimate expectation" cannot override a valid policy decision taken in the public interest or to maintain academic standards, as held in State of West Bengal v. Gitashree Dutta

Clarificatory statutes are deemed to have existed from the date of the original notification

The Court reasoned that the letter dated April 30, 2021, was not a new substantive rule but a clarification of the status quo established by the notification dated January 22, 2018, which had already restricted FCPS qualifications from being used for teaching purposes—a hallmark of MD/MS equivalence

The Court found that the NBE had consistently flagged the issue of equivalence in its Information Bulletins and provisional admission notices, meaning the appellant was aware his eligibility was subject to government clarification

Since the expert bodies (NMC and MoHFW) determined that CPS courses lack the "rigour of monitoring" required for MD/MS equivalence, the Court refused to substitute its judgment for that of the experts

The plea of "changing the rules mid-game" failed because the lack of equivalence was an inherent condition of the qualification from 2018 onwards

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge's judgment, confirming that the appellant was ineligible for the DrNB course

The Court followed the coordinate bench decision in Dr. Mahesh Prakash Shinde v. Union of India, which dealt with identical challenges to the same impugned order