Medical Council of India Vs. Sarang & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 202 of 2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29.4.99 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 1659 of 1998)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29.4.99 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 1659 of 1998)
Petitioner: Medical Council of India
Respondent: Sarang & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 202 of 2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29.4.99 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 1659 of 1998)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29.4.99 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 1659 of 1998)
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 28, 2001
Appearances:
Mr. P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate, Mr. A. Mariarputham, Mr. Maninder Singh, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Mrs. Pratibha M. Singh and Ms. Kavita Wadia, Advocates with him for the Appellant.
Mrs. V.D. Khanna and Mr. C.G. Sholshe, Advocates for the Respond-ents.
Mrs. V.D. Khanna and Mr. C.G. Sholshe, Advocates for the Respond-ents.
Head Note:
EDUCATION
Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Educa-tion, 1997
Regulation 6(5) – Medical education – Migration from one institu-tion to another – Requirement of Regulation 6(5), prescribing a minimum of 18 months study at transferee medical college – How to be interpreted – Respondent seeking migration on compassionate grounds of ill health – Appellant’s Counsel declining the request – High Court directing the appellant to permit migration – On such direction appellant permitting migration but directing respondent to undergo study at the transferee institution for 18 months before being permitted to appear in next examination – On writ, High Court holding that the student should have completed 18 months study in both colleges together for being entitled to appear in the examination. Held, High Court’s interpretation of Regulation 6(5) was not correct. Migration being permitted only in exceptional cases stipulation contained in Regulation 6(5) requiring 18 months study at the transferee institution should be insisted upon. On facts and circumstances order passed by High Court not interfered with but law made by the High Court declared to be incorrect.
Held:
In matters of academic standards, courts should not normally interfere or interpret the rules and such matters should be left to the experts in the field. This position has been made clear by this Court in The University of Mysore & Anr. v. C.D.Govinda Rao & Anr., (1964 (4) SCR 575); State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P.Roshana & Anr., (1979 (2) SCR 974) and Shirish Govind Prabhu-desai v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (JT 1993 (3) SC 722). The object of the said regulation appears to be that although the course of study leading to IInd professional examination is common to all medical colleges, the sequence of coverage of subjects varies from college to college. Therefore, the require-ment of 18 months of study in the college from which the student wants to appear in the examination is appropriately insisted upon. Migration is not normally allowed and has got to be given in exceptional circumstances. In the absence of such a stipula-tion as contained in Regulation 6(5), it is clear that the migrated student is likely to miss instruction and study in some of the subjects, which will ultimately affect his academic at-tainments. Therefore, the strained meaning given by the High Court, which actually changes the language of Regulation 6(5), is not permissible. Thus we disagree with the view taken by the High Court and state that the correct interpretation is as given by the Medical Council of India set forth above by us. (Para 6)
In the circumstances of the case, though we do not interfere with the order made by the High Court, we make it clear that the declaration of law made by the High Court is incorrect. (Para 7)
Cases Reffered:
1. Shirish Govind Prabhudesai v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (JT 1993 (3) SC 722) (Para 6)
2. State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P.Roshana & Anr. (1979 (2) SCR 974) (Para 6)
3. The University of Mysore & Anr. v. C.D.Govinda Rao & Anr. (1964 (4) SCR 575) (Para 6)
2. State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P.Roshana & Anr. (1979 (2) SCR 974) (Para 6)
3. The University of Mysore & Anr. v. C.D.Govinda Rao & Anr. (1964 (4) SCR 575) (Para 6)
JUDGEMENT:
RAJENDRA BABU, J.
1. Respondent no.1, being a student of medical college in New Mumbai, sought for migration to a medical college at Aurangabad, his home-town, on certain medical grounds. The appellant reject-ed the application as he did not fall within the purview of the compassionate grounds specified in the relevant regulations. Respondent no.1 filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay for a direction to the appellant to permit migration on the ground of mental depression and on the additional ground that his father was having angina problem. He also filed a misc. application in the said writ petition stating that he was suffer-ing from acute renal failure and his father was suffering from hypertension and unstable angina. The High Court directed the appellant to re-examine the case of respondent no.1 for migration on the basis of the medical certificate issued on 2.10.1998. The appellant again examined the case of respondent no.1 and declined to grant migration by communication sent on 7.1.1999. However, on 13.1.1999, on account of some misunderstanding of the matter, the learned Counsel for the appellant, who appeared before the High Court, stated that the appellant had permitted the migration which was in fact contrary to the communication sent on 7.1.1999 to the Assistant Registrar of the High Court. On the basis of the statement made in the High Court, the High Court directed the provisional admission of respondent no.1 in the medical college at Aurangabad. The High Court was informed on 21.1.1999 that the statement made by the appellant’s Counsel was incorrect. Howev-er, no modification was made in the order of the High Court. By order dated 12.2.1999, the High Court again directed that the copies of the latest test reports along with the report of the Civil Surgeon be sent to the appellant for re-consideration of the matter. On 15.4.1999, the appellant made an order allowing migration of respondent no.1 subject to the condition provided in Regulation 6(5) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 that he should appear for the IInd professional MBBS examination only after completing 18 months study in the transferee college from the date of migration and affidavit to that effect be obtained from respondent no.1. The High Court, by an order made on 29.4.1999, construed that Regula-tion 6(5) does not require the study of 18 months at the trans-feree medical college after the date of migration before appear-ing for the IInd professional MBBS examination, and thus allowed the writ petition.
2. On appeal by special leave, this Court granted leave and stayed the order of the High Court but without affecting the benefit derived by respondent no.1.
3. It must be made clear in this case that respondent no.1 has already passed the IInd professional examination and also cleared the IIIrd professional examination and whatever may be the out-come of the present case, he will not be affected adversely by the order of this Court. The appellant is more interested in interpretation of Regulation 6(5) framed by it.
4. Regulation 6(5) provides that a student will pursue 18 months of prescribed study before appearing at the IInd professional examination at the transferee medical college. However, the High Court took the view that the proper construction of this regula-tion should be that a student, who has migrated from one univers-ity to another university, should have completed 18 months study in both the colleges together, that is, from the college he has migrated and in the transferee college. In other words, if he completes 18 months study altogether he will be eligible to appear for the examination. The High Court has thus held that the appellant has erroneously interpreted the said Regulation to mean that in the transferee college the student should have completed 18 months study and such an interpretation is unjust because after passing the examination of the first year MBBS the candidate has to submit the application through the college to the Medical Council of India seeking migration under Regulation 6 and unless and until the migration is permitted under Regulation 6, the said candidate cannot give up the college where he has already been admitted and he cannot join the transferee college located in other university area where the migration has been sought and if the Medical Council of India takes some time for taking the decision the student will have to lose one academic year of the MBBS course.
5. Thus, the following comparison can be drawn between Regulation 6(5), as it stands, vis-a-vis interpretation given to it by the High Court:
Regulation 6(5), as it stands Regulation 6(5), as interpreted by the High Court
The applicant candidate must The applicant candidate must submit an affidavit at
submit an affidavit stating that he/ the transfer-ee college stating that he/she will pursue
she will pursue 18 months of 18 months of pre-scribed study before appearing for
prescribed study before appearing the IInd professional Bachelor of Medicine and
at IInd professional Bachelor of Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) examination, which
Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery should be duly certified by the Registrar of the
(MBBS) examination at the transferee concerned uni-versity in which he/she is seeking a
college, which should be duly certified transfer. The transfer will be applicable only after
by the Registrar of the concerned receipt of the affidavit.
university in which he/she is seeking
transfer. The transfer will be appli-
ca-ble only after receipt of the affidavit.
6. In matters of academic standards, courts should not normally interfere or interpret the rules and such matters should be left to the experts in the field. This position has been made clear by this Court in The University of Mysore & Anr. v. C.D.Govinda Rao & Anr., (1964 (4) SCR 575); State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P.Roshana & Anr., (1979 (2) SCR 974) and Shirish Govind Prabhu-desai v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (JT 1993 (3) SC 722 = 1993 (1) SCC 211). The object of the said regulation appears to be that although the course of study leading to IInd professional examination is common to all medical colleges, the sequence of coverage of subjects varies from college to college. Therefore, the require-ment of 18 months of study in the college from which the student wants to appear in the examination is appropriately insisted upon. Migration is not normally allowed and has got to be given in exceptional circumstances. In the absence of such a stipula-tion as contained in Regulation 6(5), it is clear that the migrated student is likely to miss instruction and study in some of the subjects, which will ultimately affect his academic at-tainments. Therefore, the strained meaning given by the High Court, which actually changes the language of Regulation 6(5), is not permissible. Thus we disagree with the view taken by the High Court and state that the correct interpretation is as given by the Medical Council of India set forth above by us.
7. In the circumstances of the case, though we do not interfere with the order made by the High Court, we make it clear that the declaration of law made by the High Court is incorrect and to that extent the order shall stand modified. The appeal is dis-posed of accordingly. No costs.
1. Respondent no.1, being a student of medical college in New Mumbai, sought for migration to a medical college at Aurangabad, his home-town, on certain medical grounds. The appellant reject-ed the application as he did not fall within the purview of the compassionate grounds specified in the relevant regulations. Respondent no.1 filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay for a direction to the appellant to permit migration on the ground of mental depression and on the additional ground that his father was having angina problem. He also filed a misc. application in the said writ petition stating that he was suffer-ing from acute renal failure and his father was suffering from hypertension and unstable angina. The High Court directed the appellant to re-examine the case of respondent no.1 for migration on the basis of the medical certificate issued on 2.10.1998. The appellant again examined the case of respondent no.1 and declined to grant migration by communication sent on 7.1.1999. However, on 13.1.1999, on account of some misunderstanding of the matter, the learned Counsel for the appellant, who appeared before the High Court, stated that the appellant had permitted the migration which was in fact contrary to the communication sent on 7.1.1999 to the Assistant Registrar of the High Court. On the basis of the statement made in the High Court, the High Court directed the provisional admission of respondent no.1 in the medical college at Aurangabad. The High Court was informed on 21.1.1999 that the statement made by the appellant’s Counsel was incorrect. Howev-er, no modification was made in the order of the High Court. By order dated 12.2.1999, the High Court again directed that the copies of the latest test reports along with the report of the Civil Surgeon be sent to the appellant for re-consideration of the matter. On 15.4.1999, the appellant made an order allowing migration of respondent no.1 subject to the condition provided in Regulation 6(5) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 that he should appear for the IInd professional MBBS examination only after completing 18 months study in the transferee college from the date of migration and affidavit to that effect be obtained from respondent no.1. The High Court, by an order made on 29.4.1999, construed that Regula-tion 6(5) does not require the study of 18 months at the trans-feree medical college after the date of migration before appear-ing for the IInd professional MBBS examination, and thus allowed the writ petition.
2. On appeal by special leave, this Court granted leave and stayed the order of the High Court but without affecting the benefit derived by respondent no.1.
3. It must be made clear in this case that respondent no.1 has already passed the IInd professional examination and also cleared the IIIrd professional examination and whatever may be the out-come of the present case, he will not be affected adversely by the order of this Court. The appellant is more interested in interpretation of Regulation 6(5) framed by it.
4. Regulation 6(5) provides that a student will pursue 18 months of prescribed study before appearing at the IInd professional examination at the transferee medical college. However, the High Court took the view that the proper construction of this regula-tion should be that a student, who has migrated from one univers-ity to another university, should have completed 18 months study in both the colleges together, that is, from the college he has migrated and in the transferee college. In other words, if he completes 18 months study altogether he will be eligible to appear for the examination. The High Court has thus held that the appellant has erroneously interpreted the said Regulation to mean that in the transferee college the student should have completed 18 months study and such an interpretation is unjust because after passing the examination of the first year MBBS the candidate has to submit the application through the college to the Medical Council of India seeking migration under Regulation 6 and unless and until the migration is permitted under Regulation 6, the said candidate cannot give up the college where he has already been admitted and he cannot join the transferee college located in other university area where the migration has been sought and if the Medical Council of India takes some time for taking the decision the student will have to lose one academic year of the MBBS course.
5. Thus, the following comparison can be drawn between Regulation 6(5), as it stands, vis-a-vis interpretation given to it by the High Court:
Regulation 6(5), as it stands Regulation 6(5), as interpreted by the High Court
The applicant candidate must The applicant candidate must submit an affidavit at
submit an affidavit stating that he/ the transfer-ee college stating that he/she will pursue
she will pursue 18 months of 18 months of pre-scribed study before appearing for
prescribed study before appearing the IInd professional Bachelor of Medicine and
at IInd professional Bachelor of Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) examination, which
Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery should be duly certified by the Registrar of the
(MBBS) examination at the transferee concerned uni-versity in which he/she is seeking a
college, which should be duly certified transfer. The transfer will be applicable only after
by the Registrar of the concerned receipt of the affidavit.
university in which he/she is seeking
transfer. The transfer will be appli-
ca-ble only after receipt of the affidavit.
6. In matters of academic standards, courts should not normally interfere or interpret the rules and such matters should be left to the experts in the field. This position has been made clear by this Court in The University of Mysore & Anr. v. C.D.Govinda Rao & Anr., (1964 (4) SCR 575); State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P.Roshana & Anr., (1979 (2) SCR 974) and Shirish Govind Prabhu-desai v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (JT 1993 (3) SC 722 = 1993 (1) SCC 211). The object of the said regulation appears to be that although the course of study leading to IInd professional examination is common to all medical colleges, the sequence of coverage of subjects varies from college to college. Therefore, the require-ment of 18 months of study in the college from which the student wants to appear in the examination is appropriately insisted upon. Migration is not normally allowed and has got to be given in exceptional circumstances. In the absence of such a stipula-tion as contained in Regulation 6(5), it is clear that the migrated student is likely to miss instruction and study in some of the subjects, which will ultimately affect his academic at-tainments. Therefore, the strained meaning given by the High Court, which actually changes the language of Regulation 6(5), is not permissible. Thus we disagree with the view taken by the High Court and state that the correct interpretation is as given by the Medical Council of India set forth above by us.
7. In the circumstances of the case, though we do not interfere with the order made by the High Court, we make it clear that the declaration of law made by the High Court is incorrect and to that extent the order shall stand modified. The appeal is dis-posed of accordingly. No costs.
