Holding

Regulation 4(2)(f) mandates actual study of Physics, Chemistry and Biology (with practicals) at the 10+2/intermediate level, and the student’s qualifications do not meet this requirement.

Summary

The appellant university rejected the NRI student’s application for the MBBS programme on the ground that she had not satisfied the biology subject requirement of the Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulation 4(2). The student relied on an equivalence certificate issued by the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education, letters from her US high school and an Advanced Placement (AP) Biology course, asserting that these demonstrated a qualification equivalent to the Indian 10+2 with biology. The High Court accepted the student’s claim and allowed her admission, but the university appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the language of Regulation 4(2)(f) and held that the regulation requires actual study of Physics, Chemistry and Biology (including practicals) at the 10+2 or intermediate level, which the student’s documents did not establish. Consequently, the Court found the university’s decision to deem the student ineligible to be correct and set aside the High Court’s order. The appeal was allowed, restoring the university’s original stance.

Issues considered

Whether the student’s qualifications satisfy the eligibility criteria for MBBS admission under MCI Regulation 4(2)(f).
Whether an equivalence certificate and an AP Biology course can be deemed equivalent to the required 10+2 biology study with practicals.
Whether the High Court erred in interpreting the sub‑clauses of Regulation 4(2) as independent and in accepting the student’s documents without detailed scrutiny.

Subjects

MBBS admissionMCI regulationsEligibility criteriaEquivalence certificateNRI candidate10+2 requirementBiology subject requirementSupreme Court

Judgment

[2021] 1 S.C.R. 935 935

KALOJI NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OF A
HEALTH SCIENCES
v.
SRIKEERTI REDDI PINGLE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 390 of 2021)
B
FEBRUARY 16, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical
Education, 1997 – Regn.4(2) – Admission to MBBS course – NRI
candidate – Eligibility criteria – University treated the respondent- C
candidate as ineligible for admission to MBBS course – High Court
allowed the writ petition filed by candidate – On appeal, held: As
per Regn.4(2), the candidate should have undergone study at the
10+2 stage, (or in the intermediate course) in the specified subjects
of Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology – The certificate D
relied upon by the candidate merely clarifies that she undertook a
course whilst in the 10th grade – That, by no means, is sufficient to
fall within the description of “equivalent” qualification under Regn.
4(2)(f) – Nor can it be deemed adequate having regard to the letter
of the Assistant Principal of Conrad High School that the AP course
in Biological Sciences is of college standard – There is a rationale E
and compelling logic on the part of the University to say that the
candidate should have studied biology or biological sciences (apart
from the other two science subjects, along with the further
requirement of having studied English) in all the relevant years
during the intermediate or at 10+2 level – Further, the reference to F
having studied in the first year in a degree course, at the college
level with the said subject, carries with it, the implication that the
student would have necessarily undergone academic study and
training in the said three subjects at the 10+2 or intermediate level
(without which, admission in a degree course is inconceivable in
India) – The further emphasis on having attended or undertaken G
practical lessons, (again at that level, in each of the concerned
years) clearly signifies that a candidate should have undergone
study in those subjects for the last two years at school or intermediate
college level – High Court did not closely scrutinize the equivalence
certificate or the subject stipulations – The stipulation of equivalence H
935
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A in Regn. 4(2)(f) is not merely a formal one – The provision must be
read in the context of the consistent conditions of eligibility
prescribed in Regns. 4(2)(a) to (e) – Regn. 4(2)(f) explicitly refers
to the subject matter requirement reiterated in all the eligibility
conditions from (a) to (e); the substance of the eligibility requirement
indeed, is that the candidate should have qualified an intermediate
B
level examination or first year of a graduate course, and studied
the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology at this level, along
with practical testing in these subject areas, and the English
language – This subject matter requirement is at the heart of eligibility
to be admitted into the medical course - There was no error on part
C of University in treating candidate ineligible.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A plain reading of Regulation 4(2) of the Medical
Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education,
1997 shows that the MCI visualized five different situations,
D having regard to the nature and structure of high school education
in India, and provided for equivalence in respect of other variants
of similar examinations, possibly even overseas qualifications.
In all, the MCI regulations contemplate six qualifications for
eligibility - (i) higher secondary examinations conducted by one
E of the several boards (of secondary and senior secondary school
examinations) or the Indian School Certificate Examination [Reg.
4(2)(a)]; (ii) the intermediate examination in science of an Indian
University/Board or other recognised examining body [Reg.
4(2)(b)]; (iii) “Pre-professional/pre-medical examination” with
Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology, after passing
F either the higher secondary school examination, or the pre-
university or an equivalent examination, with further stipulation
that the pre-professional examination should have a practical test
in Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology [Reg. 4(2)(c)];
(iv) the first year examination of the three years degree course
G of a recognized university, with Physics, Chemistry and Biology/
Bio-technology, with a further stipulation that the candidate
should have passed the 10+2 examination with English at a level
not less than the “core course” [Reg. 4(2)(d)]; (v) the B.Sc.
examination of an Indian University, only if the candidate “has
passed the B.Sc. examination with not less than two of the
H
KALOJI NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES v. 937
SRIKEERTI REDDI PINGLE

following subjects Physics, Chemistry, Biology (Botany, Zoology)/ A
Bio-technology and further that he/she has passed the earlier
qualifying examination with the following subjects – Physics,
Chemistry, Biology and English” [Reg. 4(2)(e)]; and lastly, (vi)
any examination found to be equivalent to the intermediate science
examination of an Indian University/Board, taking Physics,
B
Chemistry and Biology including practical test in each of these
subjects and English[Reg. 4(2)(f)]. [Para 11][946-F-G; 947-A-C]
2. Each variant of what is acceptable, lays stress on certain
common features: (a) that the candidate should have passed the
examination with Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology;
(b) the candidate should have undergone practical tests in those C
science subjects (c) the candidate should have studied English
and, lastly, (d) that marks obtained in Mathematics would not be
taken into consideration for deciding admission to the MBBS
course. [Para 12][947-D-E]
3. The respondent-student’s argument is twofold: one, that D
the letters of Conrad High School and the West Hartford Science
Department Supervisor together with the certificate of the
Telangana Intermediate Education Board, establish that she had
successfully undergone a school certificate program, equivalent
to the 10+2 qualification in India, and second, that the Advanced E
Placement (AP) course undertaken by her is equivalent to a first-
year degree qualification in Biology. This court finds the
submission insubstantial. While the court cannot claim expertise
and pronounce upon the curriculum and pedagogy of any course,
much less the academic course which the student (in this case)
qualified, what it can certainly do is examine whether the F
University’s stand that she does not hold a qualification equivalent
to any of the five categories of qualifications spelt out [i.e.,
Regulation 4(2)(a) to (e)], or the sixth category [Regulation 4(2)(f)]
is correct. [Para 13][947-F-G; 948-A]
4. A careful reading of the said provision discloses that the G
MCI emphasized that the candidate should have undergone study
at the 10+2 stage, (or in the intermediate course) in the specified
subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology. In
this case, the certificate relied upon by the student merely clarifies
H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A that she undertook a course whilst in the 10th grade. That, by no
means, is sufficient to fall within the description of “equivalent”
qualification under Regulation 4(2)(f). Nor, in the opinion of this
court, can it be deemed adequate having regard to the letter of
the Assistant Principal of Conrad High School that the AP course
in Biological Sciences is of college standard. [Para 14][948-B-C]
B
5. There is a rationale and compelling logic on the part of
the University to say that the candidate should have studied
biology or biological sciences (apart from the other two science
subjects, along with the further requirement of having studied
English) in all the relevant years during the intermediate or at
C 10+2 level. Further, the reference to having studied in the first
year in a degree course, at the college level with the said subject,
carries with it, the implication that the student would have
necessarily undergone academic study and training in the said
three subjects at the 10+2 or intermediate level (without which,
D admission in a degree course is inconceivable in India). The
further emphasis on having attended or undertaken practical
lessons, (again at that level, in each of the concerned years) clearly
signifies that a candidate should have undergone study in those
subjects for the last two years at school or intermediate college
level. The regulation is further clear that the examination score
E (marks) in Mathematics shall not be taken into consideration for
the purpose of admission to a medical course, in reckoning
merit or performance in the qualifying examination. [Para 15]
[948-D-F]
6. It is apparent that the High Court did not closely
F scrutinize the equivalence certificate or the subject stipulations.
It also appears to have been largely influenced by the fact that
the candidate was in fact admitted by the University. In the opinion
of this court, the construction placed on Regulation 4(2), i.e.,
that each of the sub clauses (a) to (f) prescribes independent
G qualifications which should be deemed essential, is rather
simplistic. That interpretation ignores the fact that each of the
sub-clauses insists that certain subjects should have been studied,
and practical examinations attempted at the 10+2 or equivalent
level. Secondly, the college or intermediate examination [or
equivalent qualifications under Regulation 4(2)(f)] cannot be read
H
KALOJI NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES v. 939
SRIKEERTI REDDI PINGLE

in isolation, having regard to the circumstances. The provision A
must be read in the context of the requirements for eligibility
under Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e). The equivalence in qualification
is not merely at the level of a 10+2 requirement, i.e., that the
candidate should have passed an examination equivalent to the
intermediate science examination at an Indian University/ Board.
B
Additional to this requirement, Regulation 4(2)(f) requires
equivalence in ‘standard and scope’ in an examination where the
candidate is tested in Physics, Chemistry and Biology including
practical testing in these subjects, along with English. These
subject matter requirements are consistent across Regulations
4(2)(a) to (e) and (f). [Para 19][950-F-H; 951-A-B] C
7. The approach and construction placed by the High Court
undermines the intent behind the MCI’s insistence that a certain
kind of education should be undergone, which is that each
candidate for the MBBS course should have undergone study in
Physics, Chemistry and Biology, in each of the levels (i.e. the D
two years of 10+2 board examination, or the concerned
intermediate examination) with practical exams, in each of those
years; that he or she should also have had English as a subject,
and that the score in Mathematics would be ignored and not taken
into consideration. The equivalence relied on by the Telangana
Intermediate Board in this case, merely alluded to the general E
equivalence in terms of education at the intermediate level,
without stipulating whether the qualifications were equivalent in
terms of the subjects in which she undertook courses for the
relevant years. [Para 20][951-C-E]
8. The stipulation of equivalence in Regulation 4(2)(f) is F
not merely a formal one. The provision must be read in the context
of the consistent conditions of eligibility prescribed in Regulations
4(2)(a) to (e). Regulation 4(2)(f) explicitly refers to the subject
matter requirement reiterated in all the eligibility conditions from
(a) to (e); the substance of the eligibility requirement indeed, is G
that the candidate should have qualified an intermediate level
examination or first year of a graduate course, and studied the
subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology at this level, along
with practical testing in these subject areas, and the English

H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A language. This subject matter requirement is at the heart
of eligibility to be admitted into the medical course. [Para 21]
[951-F-G; 952-A-C]
State of Bombay v. R.M.D Chamarbaugwala 1957 SCR
930 – relied on.
B Sharanya Balaji Nadar v. The Dental Council of India
W.P.Nos.32099/2019 & WMP 32352 & 32353/2019
dated 14.07.2020; Kashvi Udhayakumar v. Union of
India WP Nos. 16529 & 16534/2020 & WMP 20510,
20512, 20517 and 20515/2020 dated 01.12.2020 –
C referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1957] SCR 930 relied on Para 21
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 390
of 2021.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12.2020 of the High Court
for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WP 23953 of 2020.
Ms. Madhavi diwan, Rana Mukherjee, Sr.Adv., P. Venkat Reddy,
Prashant Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy, Aishani Narain, M/S. Venkat Palwai
E Law Associates, Ankolekar Gurudatta, Sumanth Nookala, Mrigank
Prabhakar, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan,
Ms. Alankrita Sinha, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
F
1. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was
heard finally.
2. The Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences
(hereafter variously referred to as “the University” or “the appellant”)
appeals a decision of the Telangana High Court1 in W.P. No.23953/2020
G
which had allowed a writ petition preferred by the respondent (hereafter
referred to as “the student”). The respondent student had sought a
direction declaring the action of the University in treating her as ineligible
for admission to the MBBS Course for the academic year 2020-21, as
1
H Dated 31.12.2020
KALOJI NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES v. 941
SRIKEERTI REDDI PINGLE [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

illegal. The facts necessary for decision are few; the student had applied, A
pursuant to a notification issued by the University on 30.11.2020 for
admission into the management quota for NRI candidates for the MBBS/
BDS course during the academic year (AY) 2020-21. The student had
applied for admission to the MBBS course. The University published a
list on 12.12.2020 containing the respondent student’s name, clarifying
B
that she had not furnished proof of study of Biological Science subject in
the qualifying examination (10+2 or equivalent). The respondent student
then secured a letter from the Consulate General of India in New York,
stating that she had successfully completed the 12th grade from one
Conrad High School, West Hartford, Connecticut and that it was
equivalent to the Pre-University (Two Year Course) New Intermediate C
University and the 12-year Senior Secondary Board Examination
Certificate of India. On 23.12.2020, the University issued a notification
seeking web option for the second round of online counselling for
admission to the MBBS/BDS seats in the management quota for AY
2020-21.
D
3. The student approached the High Court on 24.12.2020 and
besides relying upon the certificate/letter issued by Conrad High School,
she also relied upon a certificate issued by the Telangana State Board of
Intermediate Education dated 23.12.2020, which declared the equivalence
and informed that the 12th class/senior secondary examination of the
West Hartford Board of Education, Connecticut USA was equivalent to E
the Intermediate Examination conducted by the Telangana State Board
of Intermediate Education. The student applied for an interim order and
was permitted to participate in the counselling process conducted for
the remaining seats without prejudice to the parties’ rights. Thereafter,
the University filed an application for vacation of the interim order, made F
its position clear and spelt out why according to it, the respondent student
was ineligible.
4. The High Court, by its impugned order, relied upon the certificate
of the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education, as well as the
letter dated 11.12.2020 of Conrad High School, and the certificate of G
14.12.2020 issued by the West Hartford Science Department Supervisor.
The High Court declared that she had completed her 12th grade with
Biological Sciences as required by the concerned regulations framed by
the erstwhile MCI – which continued to govern and regulate admissions
to various classes of medical courses. The High Court also held erroneous,
the University’s position that there was no proof of her studying Biological H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A Sciences in the qualifying examination. The Court took note of the
equivalence certificate issued by the Telangana State Board of
Intermediate Education, and was of the opinion that the University could
not, therefore, approve and add new grounds in respect of the student’s
application for admission. It concluded that the University acted arbitrarily
in treating the student ineligible.
B
5. Ms. Madhavi Divan, Additional Solicitor General for India
(ASG), relied upon Regulation 4(1) of the Medical Council of India
Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, as amended from
time to time, particularly on 23.01.2018 (hereafter called “the MCI
Regulations”). The relevant part of the Regulation is extracted below:
C
“4. Admission to the Medical Course - Eligibility Criteria:
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
4(2) He/She has passed qualifying examination as
under:-
D
(a) The higher secondary examination or the Indian School
Certificate Examination which is equivalent to 10+2 Higher
Secondary Examination after a period of 12 years study, the
last two years of study comprising of Physics, Chemistry,
Biology/Biotechnology and Mathematics or any other elective
E subjects with English at a level not less than core course of
English as prescribed by the National Council of Educational
Research and Training after the introduction of the 10+2+3
years educational structure as recommended by the National
Committee on education;
F Note: Where the course content is not as prescribed for 10+2
education structure of the National Committee, the candidates
will have to undergo a period of one year pre-professional
training before admission to the Medical colleges;
Or
G (b) The intermediate examination in science of an Indian
University/Board or other recognised examining body with
Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology which shall
include a practical test in these subjects and also English as
a compulsory subject;
H
KALOJI NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES v. 943
SRIKEERTI REDDI PINGLE [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

Or A
(c) The pre-professional/pre-medical examination with Physics,
Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology, after passing either
the higher secondary school examination, or the pre-university
or an equivalent Examination. The pre-professional/pre-
medical examination shall include a practical test in Physics, B
Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology and also English as a
compulsory subject;
Or
(d) The first year of the three years degree course of a
recognized university, with Physics, chemistry and Biology/ C
Bio-technology including a practical test in three subjects
provided the examination is a “University Examination” and
candidate has passed 10+2 with English at a level not less
than a core course;
Or D
(e) B.Sc. examination of an Indian University, provided that
he/she has passed the B.Sc. examination with not less than
two of the following subjects Physics, Chemistry, Biology
(Botany, Zoology)/Bio-technology and further that he/she has
passed the earlier qualifying examination with the following E
subjects – Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English.
Or
(f) Any other examination which, in scope and standard is
found to be equivalent to the intermediate science examination
F
of an Indian University/Board, taking Physics, Chemistry and
Biology including practical test in each of these subjects and
English.
Note:
The pre-medical course may be conducted either at Medical G
College, or a science College.
Marks obtained in Mathematics are not to be considered for
admission to MBBS Course.
After the 10+2 course is introduced, the integrated courses
should be abolished.” H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A 6. It is submitted that the University was justified in rejecting the
student’s candidature because there was no material furnished for it to
conclude that she had undergone a complete course in Biological Sciences
and that consequently, the qualifications held by her were equivalent to
the 10+2 qualification required by the Regulations. The ASG highlighted
in this regard that Conrad High School’s letter dated 11.12.2020 stated
B
that the student undertook a rigorous course of study of Advanced
Placement (“AP”) Biology during her 10th grade year. It is submitted
that according to the letter issued by Conrad High School, the course
was an introductory biology course which examines in an accelerated
and in-depth manner, topics in biochemistry, cellular biology, organismal
C biology, population biology, evolution, genetics and ecology and that it
prepares students for the SAT Biology E/M subject test.
7. The learned ASG further pointed out that according to the letter
dated 14.12.2020 relied on by the student, the AP Biology course at
Conrad High School was designed to be equivalent to a first-year college
D level Biology course and was also aligned to the two courses offered at
the University of Connecticut. The letter further clarified that “in most
high schools across the US, this Course is offered during Grade 11
or 12 to students as a second year Biology course”. The ASG pointed
out that as a consequence, the University acted correctly and was within
its rights in refusing admission on the ground of lack of equivalence in
E the qualification held by the student. Even in terms of the material
submitted by her, as far as the letter issued by the Consulate General of
India dated 22.12.2020 is concerned, the learned ASG emphasized that
it merely certified that according to the Resolution adopted at the meetings
of the Equivalency Committee and the Standing Committee of the
F Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi, the 12 Year High School
Diploma of the United States of America is recognized in India as
equivalent to 12 years senior secondary board examination certificate of
India. However, significantly, it does not and cannot be construed as
equivalent to a 10+2 qualification with Biological Sciences. Likewise, it
is stated that the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education’s
G certificate merely declared equivalence to the intermediate examination
conducted by the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education.
This too omitted the equivalence of the qualification held by the students
in terms of the Regulation, i.e., that the candidate had to complete 2
years scholastic training in Biological Sciences, which is essential.
H
KALOJI NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES v. 945
SRIKEERTI REDDI PINGLE [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

8. It was emphasised that the entire structure of Regulation 4(2) A
lays emphasis not only on the equivalence of the qualification with respect
to 10+2 or intermediate sciences examination in the Indian University/
Board but that the student should have complete schooling in those
subjects in each of the concerned years, i.e. 11th and 12th and should
have passed 10+2 with English as a subject as well. It was submitted
B
lastly that by all indications, the qualification held by the student in this
case is equivalent to 10+2 of any Board in India with English as one of
the subjects but there is no further proof that she had undergone study in
Biology or Biological Sciences in each of the concerned years at the
10+2 stage. In these circumstances, the learned ASG urged that this
Court should reverse the impugned judgment. C
9. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the
student argued that the impugned judgment has correctly reasoned that
the candidate held equivalent qualifications and was eligible for
consideration for a medical UG/MBBS course offered by the University
as an NRI candidate, but submitted that a close look at Regulation 4(2), D
particularly Regulation 4(2)(f) clarifies that nowhere is it expressly
stipulated that an eligible candidate has to undergo schooling in every
year in the concerned subjects – in the present case, that subject being
Biology/Biological Sciences. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the
two letters of Conrad High School dated 11th and 14th December 2020,
and the equivalence certificate issued by the Telangana State Board of E
Intermediate Education. He further placed reliance upon the letter written
by the Assistant Principal of Conrad High School on 29.01.2021, which
sought to clarify the structure of pre-school through 12th grade in the
US, especially in the state of Connecticut. The relevant part of the letter
reads as follows: F
“High school in the United States is not specialized for a
specific career path; as a result, in addition to the core classes
that students can choose to take (English, Math, Science,
World Language, and Social Studies), students can choose to
take elective courses in Business, Art, Theatre, Music, G
Technology and Engineering, etc. While there is an expected
order of specific courses within each field, for example all
9th grade students take Earth Science, a student in 10th grade
in West Hartford has the option of taking an Advanced
Placement Biology course, which is challenging and at a
H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A college level. Students can earn college credit for these
courses. Students can take courses based on their interests,
but they still must take a certain number of courses in each
discipline. Our expectation at Conard High School is that
students WILL challenge themselves with difficult and
advanced courses to prepare them for college and to determine
B
their future interests and possible pathways to careers. The
state of Connecticut does not have a 10+2 system as many
other countries do. However, students in grades 9-12 have
the opportunity to take college level courses through the
college Board’s Advanced Placement Program (recognized
C internationally) and Early College Experience courses
(recognized by the University of Connecticut).”
10. Learned senior counsel also relied upon the two judgments of
the Madras High Court in Sharanya Balaji Nadar v. The Dental
Council of India2 and Kashvi Udhayakumar v. Union of India 3 in
D support of the submission that the interpretation placed by the High Court
on Regulation 4(2) is correct. He emphasised that each of the sub-clauses,
i.e. (a) to (f) of Clause 4(2) are independent of each other and in the
present cases, the declaration of equivalence established by the certificate
of 23.12.2020 by the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education
could not have been discredited as was done by the University.
E
Analysis and Conclusions
11. A plain reading of Regulation 4(2) shows that the MCI visualized
five different situations, having regard to the nature and structure of
high school education in India, and provided for equivalence in respect
F of other variants of similar examinations, possibly even overseas
qualifications. In all, the MCI regulations contemplate six qualifications
for eligibility - (i) higher secondary examinations conducted by one of
the several boards (of secondary and senior secondary school
examinations) or the Indian School Certificate Examination [Reg. 4(2)(a)];
(ii) the intermediate examination in science of an Indian University/Board
G or other recognised examining body [Reg. 4(2)(b)]; (iii) “Pre-
professional/pre-medical examination” with Physics, Chemistry and
Biology/Bio-technology, after passing either the higher secondary school
2
W.P.Nos.32099/2019 & WMP 32352 & 32353/2019 dated 14.07.2020
3
WP Nos. 16529 & 16534/2020 & WMP 20510, 20512, 20517 and 20515/2020
H dated01.12.2020
KALOJI NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES v. 947
SRIKEERTI REDDI PINGLE [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

examination, or the pre-university or an equivalent examination, with A
further stipulation that the pre-professional examination should have a
practical test in Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology [Reg.
4(2)(c)]; (iv) the first year examination of the three years degree course
of a recognized university, with Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-
technology, with a further stipulation that the candidate should have passed
B
the 10+2 examination with English at a level not less than the “core
course” [Reg. 4(2)(d)]; (v) the B.Sc. examination of an Indian University,
only if the candidate “has passed the B.Sc. examination with not less
than two of the following subjects Physics, Chemistry, Biology
(Botany, Zoology)/Bio-technology and further that he/she has passed
the earlier qualifying examination with the following subjects – C
Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English” [Reg. 4(2)(e)]; and lastly,
(vi) any examination found to be equivalent to the intermediate science
examination of an Indian University/Board, taking Physics, Chemistry
and Biology including practical test in each of these subjects and
English[Reg. 4(2)(f)].
D
12. It is noticeable that each variant of what is acceptable, lays
stress on certain common features: (a) that the candidate should have
passed the examination with Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-
technology; (b) the candidate should have undergone practical tests in
those science subjects (c) the candidate should have studied English
and, lastly, (d) that marks obtained in Mathematics would not be taken E
into consideration for deciding admission to the MBBS course.
13. The respondent-student’s argument is twofold: one, that the
letters of Conrad High School 4 and the West Hartford Science
Department Supervisor5 together with the certificate of the Telangana
Intermediate Education Board6, establish that she had successfully F
undergone a school certificate program, equivalent to the 10+2
qualification in India, and second, that the Advanced Placement (AP)
course undertaken by her is equivalent to a first-year degree qualification
in Biology. This court finds the submission insubstantial. While the court
cannot claim expertise and pronounce upon the curriculum and pedagogy G
of any course, much less the academic course which the student (in this
case) qualified, what it can certainly do is examine whether the
4
Dated 11.12.2020 and 29.01.2020
5
Dated 14.12.2020
6
Dated 23.12.2020 H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A University’s stand that she does not hold a qualification equivalent to
any of the five categories of qualifications spelt out [i.e., Regulation
4(2)(a) to (e)], or the sixth category [Regulation 4(2)(f)] is correct.
14. A careful reading of the said provision discloses that the MCI
emphasized that the candidate should have undergone study at the 10+2
B stage, (or in the intermediate course) in the specified subjects of Physics,
Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology. In this case, the certificate relied
upon by the student7 merely clarifies that she undertook a course whilst
in the 10th grade. That, by no means, is sufficient to fall within the
description of “equivalent” qualification under Regulation 4(2)(f). Nor,
in the opinion of this court, can it be deemed adequate having regard to
C the letter of the Assistant Principal of Conrad High School8 that the AP
course in Biological Sciences is of college standard.
15. In the opinion of this court, there is a rationale and compelling
logic on the part of the University to say that the candidate should have
studied biology or biological sciences (apart from the other two science
D subjects, along with the further requirement of having studied English) in
all the relevant years during the intermediate or at 10+2 level. Further,
the reference to having studied in the first year in a degree course, at the
college level with the said subject, carries with it, the implication that the
student would have necessarily undergone academic study and training
E in the said three subjects at the 10+2 or intermediate level (without which,
admission in a degree course is inconceivable in India). The further
emphasis on having attended or undertaken practical lessons, (again at
that level, in each of the concerned years) clearly signifies that a candidate
should have undergone study in those subjects for the last two years at
school or intermediate college level. The regulation is further clear that
F the examination score (marks) in Mathematics shall not be taken into
consideration for the purpose of admission to a medical course, in
reckoning merit or performance in the qualifying examination.
16. So far as the judgment of the Madras High Court in Sharanya
Balaji Nadar (supra) is concerned, the candidate there had applied for
G admission, and was permitted to appear in the common entrance
examination. The structure of the concerned regulations of the Dental
Council of India, in that case, were closely similar to Regulation 4(2) of
7
Issued by the West Hartford Science Department Supervisor.
8
Dated 29.01.2021
H
KALOJI NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES v. 949
SRIKEERTI REDDI PINGLE [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

the MCI Regulations in the present case. The High Court accepted the A
candidates’ submissions, and held as follows:
“14. A careful reading of the above regulations makes it clear
that a candidate even at the time of taking NEET examination
must fulfil the eligibility criteria that is prescribed in Clause 3
which is extracted supra. Clause 3 contains six sub clauses B
from (a) to (f). Each sub-clause is independent of the other
and none of the sub-clauses can be read together. For the
purposes of this case, sub-clause (a) and sub-clause (f)
requires consideration.
15. The case of the petitioner is that she falls under sub- C
clause (f) of the regulations. Any candidate who falls under
sub-clause (f) of the regulations, has to obtain an equivalence
certificate from the concerned authority. The concerned
authority is the Association of the Indian Universities. This
authority considered the degree/diploma obtained by the
petitioner in as educational institution at USA. The concerned D
authority found that the qualification of the petitioner is
equivalent to the senior school certificate of CBSE/other
boards in India. The evaluation of the educational credentials
has been extracted supra.
16. It is based on this equivalence certificate, the petitioner E
was allowed to write the NEET examination and the petitioner
secured 258 marks and she was allotted a seat in the fourth
respondent college by the allotment order passed by the third
respondent, dated 24.07.2019. The petitioner is undergoing
the course.” F
17. In Kashvi Udhayakumar (supra) the relevant facts were
noted by the court, in the following terms:
“The petitioners got the confirmation from the Equivalence
Committee and the Standing Committee of the Association of
Indian Universities that the high school diploma underwent G
by the petitioners in USA is equivalent to 12-year senior school
Certificate of Central Board of Secondary Education.”
18. The High Court then cited and relied on Sharanya Balaji
Nadar (supra) to hold that each sub-clause of Regulation 4(2) was
independent, and that the qualification held by the candidate, an NRI H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A who had studied in the USA, was deemed to be equivalent to the
prescribed eligibility conditions:
“13. It was categorically held by this Court that each Clause
is independent of the other and none of the sub-clauses can
be read together.
B If the candidate has fulfilled the requirements of any one of
the Clause, he or she will be entitled for admission to the
Medical Course. The petitioners in the present case will fall
within Regulation 4 (f) and once the petitioners have produced
the Equivalence Certificate issued by the 5th Respondent,
C there is no more requirement to again subject the petitioners
for one more scrutiny on their eligibility. It will be too
farfetched to declare that a candidate who fulfils the
requirements for NEET Examination, will not fulfil the
qualification when it comes to joining the MBBS Course. Such
an interpretation will lead to illogical consequences. The
D petitioners who were living in USA have come to this country
to undergo the Medical Course and they were found to be
eligible by the Equivalence Committee to write the NEET
Examination.
After having been given an allotment in the 4th Respondent
E Institution, the 4th Respondent Institution cannot now
undertake one more exercise and come to a completely
different conclusion by reading Regulation 4 (a) into
Regulation 4 (f) and thereby render the effect of Regulation
4 (f) completely nugatory and redundant.”
F 19. It is apparent that the High Court followed its previous judgment,
and did not closely scrutinize the equivalence certificate or the subject
stipulations. It also appears to have been largely influenced by the fact
that the candidate was in fact admitted by the University. In the opinion
of this court, the construction placed on Regulation 4(2), i.e., that each
G of the sub clauses (a) to (f) prescribes independent qualifications which
should be deemed essential, is rather simplistic. That interpretation ignores
the fact that each of the sub-clauses insists that certain subjects should
have been studied, and practical examinations attempted at the 10+2 or
equivalent level. Secondly, the college or intermediate examination [or
equivalent qualifications under Regulation 4(2)(f)] cannot be read in
H
KALOJI NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES v. 951
SRIKEERTI REDDI PINGLE [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

isolation, having regard to the circumstances. The provision must be A
read in the context of the requirements for eligibility under Regulations
4(2)(a) to (e). The equivalence in qualification is not merely at the level
of a 10+2 requirement, i.e., that the candidate should have passed an
examination equivalent to the intermediate science examination at an
Indian University/ Board. Additional to this requirement, Regulation 4(2)(f)
B
requires equivalence in ‘standard and scope’ in an examination where
the candidate is tested in Physics, Chemistry and Biology including
practical testing in these subjects, along with English. These subject
matter requirements are consistent across Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e)
and (f).
20. The approach and construction placed by the High Court, in C
this court’s opinion, undermines the intent behind the MCI’s insistence
that a certain kind of education should be undergone, which is that each
candidate for the MBBS course should have undergone study in Physics,
Chemistry and Biology, in each of the levels (i.e. the two years of 10+2
board examination, or the concerned intermediate examination) with D
practical exams, in each of those years; that he or she should also have
had English as a subject, and that the score in Mathematics would be
ignored and not taken into consideration9. It would be, in this context,
necessary to clarify that the equivalence relied on by the Telangana
Intermediate Board in this case, merely alluded to the general equivalence
in terms of education at the intermediate level, without stipulating whether E
the qualifications were equivalent in terms of the subjects in which she
undertook courses for the relevant years.
21. The stipulation of equivalence in Regulation 4(2)(f) is not merely
a formal one. The provision must be read in the context of the consistent
conditions of eligibility prescribed in Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e), as noted F
above. This court, in State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala10
interpreted the definition of a ‘prize competition’11. A prize competition
was defined as including crossword prize competitions, picture prize
competitions, etc., and finally, any other prize competition, for which
solution is or is not prepared beforehand by the promotors, or for G
which the solution is determined by lot or chance. This last
9
The last negative stipulation, by a note, applicable to all the sub-clauses of Regulation
4(2).
10
1957 SCR 930.
11
Under s. 2(1)(d) of the Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competitions Control and Tax
Act, 1948.
H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A qualification was appended only to the last sub-clause on ‘any other
competition’. The court held that the qualification should be equally
applicable to the other sub-clauses too, and that there was no difficulty
in reading the qualifying clause as lending colour to each of those items.
In the present case, Regulation 4(2)(f) explicitly refers to the subject
matter requirement reiterated in all the eligibility conditions from (a) to
B
(e); the substance of the eligibility requirement indeed, is that the candidate
should have qualified an intermediate level examination or first year of a
graduate course, and studied the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and
Biology at this level, along with practical testing in these subject areas,
and the English language. This subject matter requirement is at the heart
C of eligibility to be admitted into the medical course.
22. For these reasons, this court is of the opinion that the
interpretation placed upon the regulations in both the cited cases, by the
Madras High Court, do not reflect the correct position. To be eligible,
the candidate should produce clear and categorical material to show
D that she underwent the necessary years of study in all the stipulated
subjects. This court is of the opinion that such stipulations are to be
regarded as essential, given that the course in question, i.e., MBBS
primarily if not predominantly, involves prior knowledge - both theoretical
and practical, of senior secondary level in biology or biological sciences.
E 23. For the above reasons, this court is of the opinion that the
impugned order cannot be sustained; it is, therefore, set aside. The appeal
is allowed without order on costs.

Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.

F

G

H