AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Subramani, J.—Both the Writ Petitions are filed by the same person. In W.P.1671 of 1998 Petitioner seeks issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to MCI-31 (1) 97-Med/27906 dated 25.11.97 issued by the Assistant Secretary Medical Council of India, New Delhi, the second Respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to transfer the Petitioner to any other university or affiliated to any other University so as to undergo M.B.B.S. course in the corresponding batch of 1995-96 within such time as may prescribed by the Court.
In the other Writ Petition No. 1672 of 1998, Petitioner seeks issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the third Respondent herein to permit the Petitioner to attend the extended course in I M.B.B.S. Course to be undergone till the next examinations to be held in April 1998 as per the Regulation 24B of the Regulations for the M.B.B.S. Course of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Madras, so as to enable the Petitioner to appear for I M.B.B.S. course examinations and pass such further orders.
The facts are same in both the Writ Petitions. Petitioner after completing his 12th standard at Iran, Joined in M.B.B.S. Course in the third Respondent college. It is his case that the third Respondent made him to believe, that it is a recognised and affiliated institution of the first Respondent. At the time when he joined the college, he was asked to pay Rs. 13,00,000/-, in various instalments and as on date of filing the petitions, Petitioner also paid Rs. 3,00,000/-. After paying that amount, Petitioner was allowed to attend the classes for the academic year 1995-96.
In the first year, three subjects were taught consisting of Anatomy-I, Physiology-I and Bio-Chemistry and part II subjects consists of Anatomy-II and Physiology-II and the Academic terms for Part I. It is said that each academic year consists of not less than 200 working days and as per Regulation 15 that no candidate shall be permitted to any one of the parts of M.B.B.S. examination unless he has attended the course in the subject for the prescribed period in an affiliated institution recognised by the University and a candidate is required to put in minimum 80% of the attendance in both theory and practical/clinical in each subject before admission to the examination. Regulation 18 provides for migration or transfer of candidates on certain conditions. Clause v. of the regulation stipulates that the cases not covered under the above regulations are to be referred to the Medical Council of India. Regulation 22 deals with classification of successful candidates and Regulation 24 stipulates carry-over of failed subjects in I M.B.B.S.
Petitioner who wrote the examinations in April 1996 was not successful in any of the subjects and he repeated his chance in October 1997 also. The same was also without any success.
Petitioner has recently come to know that the third Respondent college has not secured recognition from the Medical Council hence the wanted to get clarification from the third Respondent. It is the case of the Petitioner that the third Respondent secured only an approval from the Central Government and not recognition from it. He met the Chairman of the Trust and the Registrar of the third Respondent to know about the correct position and they did not give any reply. When the Petitioner was repeatedly asking the authorities about the same, he was not allowed to write the examinations but at the same time the Petitioner was forced to write a letter that he ceased to be a student of the third Respondent institution after the examinations. The Petitioner also addressed a letter to the second Respondent for transferring him to some other Medical Institution and the same was rejected by the second Respondent by a letter dated 25.11.1997, which is challenged in the Writ Petition.
It is said that the third Respondent institution has no infrastructure or facilities as stipulated under the Medical Council Act, 1956, nor the institute rectified the defects as pointed out by the Inspection Committee of the second Respondent. The Central Government is renewing the approval every year by allowing it to admit students and ultimately the students will be the sufferers after paying huge amounts. The third Respondent committed fraud in admitting students, which is not duly recognised by the medical council. It is therefore prayed that necessary directions may be given to transfer the Petitioner to some of the recognised Medical College.
A Writ Miscellaneous Petition is also filed in W.M.P.16806 of 1998 wherein Petitioner wanted a direction permitting him to undergo the course for writing I year M.B.B.S. Part I and II examinations to be held in October 1998 in any of the colleges recognised by the first Respondent University.
In the other W.P.1672 of 1998, Petitioner seeks direction against the University to permit him to attend the extended course of I.M.B.B.S. for the same reasons.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the first Respondent-University and the learned Counsel for the first Respondent argued on instructions and placed certain documents for consideration. According to the University, the Petitioner is not entitled to get transfer since he has already failed in I.M.B.B.S. and therefore he is not eligible to be admitted in any other Medical college. The same is based on a letter issued by the Medical Council of India dated 1.13.1998.
In the documents filed by the third Respondent, it is seen that the Central Government granted permission to start a Medical College with an intake of 100 students from the academic year session 1995-96. Thereafter, on 12.8.1997 the third Respondent also received a letter stating that the permission already granted is renewed from the year 1997-98 subject to rectification of defects. A correction letter was also issued on 11.2.1998 that the year 1997-98 is corrected as 1998-99. The proceedings of the first Respondent is also filed along with typed set of papers. It is seen from that the college has been given continuance of affiliation to the first Respondent-University.
After having heard the counsel of both sides, I do not think that the Petitioner is entitled to any relief.
The contention that the third Respondent college is not entitled to admit students cannot be accepted in view of the decision by the Central Government permitting the third Respondent to admit 100 students for the year 1995-96. The permission was also extended to for the year 1996-97 also. This question has already been considered in the decision reported in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyarthavathiru Sundara Swamigalme Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , wherein the third Respondent herein is also a party. In para 30 of the judgment Their Lordships have stated that it is for the Central Government to grant permission for starting a Medical College and for the said purpose a scheme will have to be filed, which will be referred to the Medical Council for its recommendation. The Medical Council after considering the scheme, makes its recommendation to the Central Government and thereafter, the Central Government take into consideration both the scheme and the recommendation and also after getting such other particulars permit the applicant either to start a college or refuse such permission. The Medical Council also will have to be consulted and its recommendation will have material hearing for granting permission.
In paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment also Their Lordships considered this question and declared that it is for the Central Government to pass orders on the same.
It could be further seen that the M.G.R. University which is an affiliated University has also passed orders in favour of third Respondent granting affiliation to it for the very same period and it has also granted continued affiliation. On the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was wrongly admitted by the third Respondent.
The Petitioner has come to this Court seeking relief that he must be transferred to some other college. There is no right for transfer from one college to another or from one University to another. What the Petitioner wants is transfer from outside Tamil Nadu, in some other college at Pune. The first Respondent already rejected the claim and the Petitioner who already failed twice is not entitled to get transfer to any other University. The Petitioner did not challenge the regulations of the University that he is not qualified for transfer. There is no question of issuing any direction as prayed for.
How the Petitioner is not entitled to get admission in the extended course is also rightly explained by the 1st Respondent-University, in its counter. So in W.P.1672 of 1998 also Petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
In the result, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous petitions are closed.