AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shiva Kirti Singh and Hemant Kumar Srivastava, JJ.—Heard learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Bihar and its officials who are appellants in both these appeals.
The dispute involved in these two appeals preferred under clause 10 of Letters Patent of this Court arises out of transfer of two medical students from two private Medical Colleges situated at Kishanganj and Katihar respectively to a Government Medical College that is, Patna Medical College, Patna.
When the State of Bihar noticed that the transfers which are described as migration by the Medical Council of India had taken place in disregard of criteria laid down by the Medical Council of India itself, it objected to the transfers or migrations already implemented. The students challenged the action of the State Government by preferring writ petitions which have been allowed by the writ court. Those orders passed by the writ court are subject matter of these appeals.
It is not in dispute that on account of migration orders issued by the Medical Council of India and on account of orders of writ court, both the students have virtually completed their courses of study in Patna Medical College. On that ground alone, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the case against the individual beneficiaries of migration.
Learned Advocate General, however, drew our attention to the relevant provisions in Chapter 2 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the �Regulations�). The relevant provisions of Chapter II find mention on the reverse of migration application contained in annexure-9 of CWJC No. 13217/2006. From the provisions in Chapter II and Notes appended therein it is apparent that routine migration on other grounds is totally prohibited and migration from one Medical College to other is permissible only in exceptional cases on extreme compassionate grounds, provided the prescribed criteria are fulfilled. Besides prescribing the criteria in the Regulations, the Notes define the phrase �compassionate grounds� to cover only following 3 situations: - (i) death of a supporting guardian, (ii) illness of the candidate causing disability and (iii) disturbed conditions as declared by the Government in the Medical College area.
It is not in dispute that both the students sought migration which has been allowed by the authorities of the Medical Council of India under the 3rd ground, that is, disturbed condition in the Medical College area. It is the case of State of Bihar that disturbed area can be declared by the State Government under the provisions of a Statute and no such declaration has been issued by the State Government in respect of Kishanganj or Katihar Medical College area.
As already indicated earlier, this Court is not going to examine the matter on merits because students have now virtually completed their studies. Therefore, we desist from making detailed scrutiny and comments upon the merits of the decision taken by the Medical Council of India. It can only be indicated that the decision lacks careful scrutiny of the prescribed criteria and permissible grounds for migration. Hence, without interfering with the orders of migration issued by the Medical Council of India, we would like to observe that the Medical Council of India should be more careful in such matters in future so that undeserving students who somehow managed their admission in private Medical Colleges may not get the benefit of entry into prestigious Government Medical Colleges which may have been denied to more meritorious students. Further, we have been told that for such transfers/migrations no objection is required from the concerned Government Medical College. In that view of the matter, the State Government will also be well advised to adopt fair and strict criteria in the matter of grant of such no objection in respect of claims for migration in future.
With these observations, both the appeals are disposed of.