- (1.) Heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Avanish Mishra, learned counsel for the Medical Council of India and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner is a Medical practitioner and has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 16.01.2017 passed by the Medical Council of India holding the petitioner to be guilty of professional misconduct, and her name has been directed to be removed from the State Medical register and Indian Medical register for a period of one year.
(2.) The contention of Sri Shukla are threefold. Firstly, that the specialised qualification possessed by the petitioner has been incorrectly construed not to be based on a valid certificate, and which certificate has been erroneously described as not being recognised and registerable in the State. He submits that there is no such requirement of additional registration inasmuch as the certificate obtained by the petitioner is already mentioned as a recognised certificate in the First Schedule of the Medical Council of India Regulations that has been filed at page 37 of the paper book. He has invited the attention of the Court to Serial No. 3 of the said list which mentions the Diploma as described in the certificate of the petitioner to urge that the said Diploma having been obtained in the year 2007 is admissible. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non - consideration of such relevant material and is contrary to the aforesaid facts, hence deserves to be set aside. He then submits that there is no requirement of any additional registration of such degree as a recognised and registerable degree and, therefore, the finding recorded is wrong. In the absence of any such requirement, no provision of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 has been violated nor any other provision of the State Law or Regulations framed has been violated.
(3.) He has then cited a decision of the Apex Court in case of Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan and others, (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 55 to substantiate the aforesaid submissions contending that the Diploma possessed by the petitioner is a valid Diploma.;