Delhi High Court Upholds Cancellation of Doctor’s DrNB Admission, Says FCPS Qualification Is Not Equal to an MD/MS Degree
Delhi High Court Dismisses Doctor’s Challenge to DrNB Cancellation, Holds FCPS Qualification Is Recognised for Practice but Not Equivalent to MD/MS
Facts
The appellant, Dr. Sachin Gagajibhai Sheta, challenged the Single Judge’s judgment dismissing his writ petition against the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s clarification dated 30 April 2021. The clarification stated that FCPS qualifications awarded by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Mumbai are recognised and registrable medical qualifications for practice, but are not equivalent to MD/MS degrees.
The appellant had joined the three-year DrNB Cardiology course on 15 December 2020 after qualifying NEET-SS. He contended that he was already pursuing the course when the clarification was issued, and that his candidature was cancelled by NBE on 28 March 2022 after almost half of the course had been completed.
The dispute arose because NBE’s information bulletins required candidates to possess MD/MS or equivalent qualification for DNB/DrNB eligibility, and FCPS qualification was not treated as equivalent to MD/MS.
Issues
Whether FCPS qualification awarded by CPS Mumbai could be treated as equivalent to MD/MS for DNB/DrNB eligibility.
Whether the Ministry’s clarification dated 30 April 2021 operated retrospectively against candidates who had already joined DrNB.
Whether the appellant acquired a vested right merely because he had been admitted to the DrNB course and had paid fees.
Whether the Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition.
Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant argued that he had joined DrNB Cardiology before the clarification dated 30 April 2021 and had almost completed half of the course when his candidature was cancelled. He submitted that the respondents changed the “rules of the game” after the process had already begun.
He further argued that the clarification should apply only prospectively and not to candidates who had joined FCPS or DrNB before 30 April 2021. It was also submitted that FCPS candidates had been permitted in earlier years to appear in DNB/DrNB examinations, and therefore the sudden denial of eligibility violated Articles 14 and 16.
The appellant relied on cases such as Suresh Pal, Aasawari Kiran Purohit, Hindustanwala Mohd. Adnan, and Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., arguing that accrued rights could not be taken away retrospectively.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents argued that FCPS qualifications were never declared equivalent to MD/MS. The Ministry’s letter dated 30 April 2021 was only a clarification of the existing position and not a new retrospective rule.
They submitted that CPS qualifications had a complicated recognition history. Several CPS courses were de-recognised in 2009 and 2010; later, 39 diploma courses were recognised in 2017; and by notification dated 22 January 2018, 36 diploma courses were again de-recognised. Although six FCPS courses were inserted in the First Schedule of the IMC Act, it was clarified that such qualifications would not be treated as recognised medical qualifications for teaching purposes.
The respondents also submitted that NBE was entitled to prescribe eligibility standards for DNB/DrNB courses. Since the appellant did not possess MD/MS and FCPS was not equivalent to MD/MS, he was not eligible. They further argued that online counselling did not amount to final verification of eligibility and no vested right accrued merely from provisional admission.
Analysis of the Law
The Court held that the FCPS qualification may be recognised for purposes of medical practice, but recognition is not the same as equivalence to MD/MS. Equivalence is a technical academic matter and must be determined by the competent expert body, not by the Court.
The Court found that there was no rule, regulation, notification or policy decision declaring FCPS qualifications equivalent to MD/MS. Therefore, the appellant could not claim eligibility for DNB/DrNB merely on the basis of recognition of FCPS.
The Court also rejected the argument of retrospective operation. It held that the letter dated 30 April 2021 only clarified the status already existing and did not withdraw any previously conferred equivalence.
Precedent Analysis
The Court followed the earlier Division Bench judgment in Dr. Mahesh Prakash Shinde v. Union of India, which had dismissed similar appeals arising from the same Single Judge judgment. That judgment held that FCPS courses recognised after 22 January 2018 were recognised but not equivalent to MD/MS, and that candidates without MD/MS qualification could not sit for DNB on the basis of FCPS.
The Court also relied on principles from AICTE v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and Medical Council of India v. Sarang, holding that courts should ordinarily not interfere in academic standards or substitute their views for expert bodies.
On equivalence, the Court referred to Mukul Kumar Tyagi and Unnikrishnan C.V., reiterating that equivalence cannot be assumed and must be specifically recognised by the competent authority.
The Court distinguished the appellant’s reliance on Suresh Pal, Hindustanwala Mohd. Adnan, and Aasawari Kiran Purohit, holding that those cases involved de-recognition or different factual situations, while the present case concerned absence of equivalence between FCPS and MD/MS.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the respondents had consistently maintained that FCPS qualifications are not equivalent to MD/MS. Even when the appellant was allotted a DrNB seat on 15 December 2020, the issue of equivalence had not been finally resolved and eligibility verification had not been completed.
The Court noted that NBE had repeatedly issued information bulletins stating that FCPS candidates were not eligible for DNB/DrNB unless equivalence was clarified by the Government. The Central Government ultimately clarified on 30 April 2021 that FCPS qualifications cannot be treated as equivalent to MD/MS.
The Court held that the appellant could not claim that rules were changed midway, because FCPS was never shown to have been granted MD/MS equivalence at any point. Past practice of allowing some FCPS candidates to appear could not create a legal right.
The Court further held that no legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel could arise in academic matters where expert bodies prescribe eligibility standards to maintain quality.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s decision. It held that FCPS qualification from CPS Mumbai is recognised for medical practice but is not equivalent to MD/MS, and therefore cannot be used to claim eligibility for DNB/DrNB where MD/MS or equivalent qualification is required.
The Court also dismissed all pending applications as infructuous.
Case: Dr. Sachin Gagajibhai Sheta v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: LPA 149/2023
Judge: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Date: 3 July 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed; Single Judge’s dismissal upheld; pending applications dismissed as infructuous.
