Appeal against CA judgment on SAITM

Published : 8:07 am  May 10, 2017 | No comments so far |  | 

(436)

 reads | 

By S.S. Selvanayagam   
The Supreme Court yesterday (9) fixed for support on May 31 for granting Leave to Appeal in respect of the application filed by the Sri Lanka Medical Council (SLMC) against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, contesting its verdict to provisionally register the South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine (SAITM) degree holders.  

 

The Bench comprised Justices B.P. Aluvihara, Priyantha Jayawardane and Nalin Perera.   


The Court of Appeal on January 31 in its judgment ruled that the Petitioner MBBS graduate student of the South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine (SAITM) has a legal right to provisionally register by the Medical Council since she has fulfilled the necessary requirements under Medical Ordinance.   


Petitioner SLMC cited MBBS graduate of the SAITM Dhilmi Kasunda Malshani Suriyarachchi, SAITM, Minister of Higher Education & Highways Lakshman Kiriella, Ministry Secretary, University Grant Commission, Minister of Health, Nutrition & Indigenous Medicine Dr Rajith Senarthne as Respondents   


Court of Appeal in its judgement granted another relief compelling the Medical Council to register the Petitioner provisionally as a medical practitioner as well as to preventing the Medical Council from refusing to register the Petitioner provisionally as medical practitioner.   


Court of Appeal allowed the Writ petition filed by petitioner South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine (SAITM) with cost.   
It had observed that it is clear that under the said Ordinance, the SLMC is empowered to appoint a committee and on its recommendation, the SLMC may submit its recommendation to the Minister.   


However, the role played by the SLMC ends at that point and any steps with regard to the said recommendations of the SLMC will have to be taken by the Minister under the Provisions of the said Ordinance.   


It is further observed that the SLMC without any legal basis exceeded the power conferred on it.  

(436)