Judgment:
CWP No.22990 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22990 of 2013 Reserved on:21.01.2014 Date of decision:03.02.2014 Harmanpreet Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Sharma, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Ms.Balpreet Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.
1. Present writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to the migration of respondent No.5 from Government Medical College, Faridkot to Government Medical College, Patiala, for MBBS course and for a direction that the petitioner should be permitted to migrate from Government Medical College, Amritsar to Government Medical College, Patiala, in preference to respondent No.5, in view of more meritorious claim on the basis of marks and personal health problems.
2. The whole issue rotates around the application for migration received from the petitioner and respondent No.5 and which has been recommended in favour of respondent No.5 by the Minister heading the Medical Education and Research Department, who considered both the cases of the petitioner and that of respondent No.5 and came to the following conclusion: “It is mentioned in Rule (Annex. A) of Medical Council regarding Migration that Migration can be made on any genuine and deserving case. On inspecting the file that N.O.C. for Migration has been issued to Akriti Kalra on dated 20.9.2013 vide letter No.2293. After this N.O.C. has been issued on dated 25.9.2013 vide letter No.2418 to other student Harmanpreet Kaur. Akriti Kalra Sailesh ranjan has present the O.P.D. Card of her mother in which the treatment 2014.02.06 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.22990 of 2013 -2- of her mother regarding depression from the year 2008 at Govt. College and Hospital and certificate regarding her eyes problem and Harmanpreet Kaur has presented her Skin problem Certificate issued by (Private Doctor) regarding the year 2012. On the basis of these facts the application of Akriti Kalra is seems very genuine and deserving and as such orders for her migration be issued at Patiala in this regard.”. 3. The abovesaid decision is the subject matter of challenge by the petitioner on the ground that as per the policy of migration of the students from one Government Medical College to another is to be done on a genuine ground, subject to the vacancy in the College where the migration is sought, after the declaration of the 1st professional MBBS examination.
4. In the present case, scramble for migration to Patiala started on the declaration of the 1st Professional MBBS examination on 06.09.2013. It is the case of the petitioner that she applied on 09.09.2013 to her College at Amritsar and thereafter, applied to the Government Medical College, Patiala on 10.09.2013 (Annexure P3). She was successful in getting the no objection certificate from respondent No.3-College only on 25.09.2013 in which it was mentioned that there was only one seat vacant and the NOC had already been received by respondent No.5. The University, thereafter, issued the NOC on 26.09.2013 wherein again, a condition was put that there was only one vacant seat at Patiala and two NOC's had been issued in favour of the petitioner and respondent No.5 and with the said certificate, representation was made to the Director, Research and Medical Education on 27.09.2013 on the ground that the petitioner has skin problem and also suffering from depression for which, she had been undergoing treatment for the last more than one year. It is pointed out that respondent No.5 did not follow the prescribed procedure and applied directly to the Vice-Chancellor on 19.09.2013, on the ground that she was resident of Nabha and her mother was suffering from depression and there was nobody to care for Sailesh ranjan 2014.02.06 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.22990 of 2013 -3- her and therefore, she should be allowed to shift to the Government Medical College, Patiala as it was near her home and it would be easy to look after her. Accordingly, NOC was asked for from all the four authorities, at the same point of time. The NOC was issued to respondent No.5 on 20.09.2013 by the College at Patiala and similarly by the University on 27.09.2013. It was further contended that while applying, a recommendation had been got made from the Minister In-charge, at that point of time, by respondent No.5 and NOC had been granted by the College at Patiala on 20.09.2013 whereas the petitioner had applied on 10.09.2013 itself but her migration certificate was held up till 25.09.2013 due to the influence of respondent No.5. It was further submitted that the Minister, having recommended the case, had taken a decision on 08.10.2013, as reproduced above and therefore, the said decision was vitiated. It was also contended that in the case of the petitioner, her health was an issue as she had a skin problem and she is suffering from depression whereas, in the case of respondent No.5, it was her mother who was ill and it was not clear as to what type of disease she was suffering from. It is also submitted that the petitioner had 409 marks out of 600 as compared to 389 marks of respondent No.5. Accordingly, it was contended that if there was a genuine ground for migration, it was the case of the petitioner which was more favourable and accordingly, it was prayed that the decision to grant migration to respondent No.5 be quashed and the petitioner be granted the said benefit.
5. In view of the contentious factual dispute, this Court had called for the record vide the earlier order dated 13.12.2013. The said record has been produced in Court and it was kept in the custody of this Court, at the time when the judgment in this case was reserved.
6. The State, in its reply, filed by the Director, took the plea that as per Sailesh ranjan the notification of the Medical Council, the migration was to be granted only in 2014.02.06 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.22990 of 2013 -4- exceptional cases, to the most deserving amongst the applicants, after giving sufficient reasons and not in routine course and only after qualifying the 1st Semester of the MBBS examination. Respondent No.5 had been allowed to migrate vide order dated 10.10.2013 (Annexure R1), on the basis of the NOC issued from both the colleges and from the University. It was further submitted that there was no provision that marks obtained by the candidate would be governing factor and it was only in genuine cases, permission was to be given and respondent No.5 was resident of Nabha and her mother was suffering from depression and she needed help. Accordingly, it was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
7. Respondent No.5 chose not to put in appearance.
8. After perusal of the present writ petition and the original records, which have been summoned from the State, it would be clear; firstly, that there is no doubt that respondent No.5 had applied to the Vice-Chancellor and also got the recommendation from the then In-charge Minister, namely, Shri Chunni Lal Bhagat on 20.09.2013. The decision dated 08.10.2013, which is reproduced in the opening paragraph of the writ petition, on the basis of which, the dispute has arisen, was not taken by the same Minister, which would be clear from the original file since the said order was passed by Shri Anil Kumar Joshi. In pursuance of the said noting, formal order was passed on 10.10.2013 (Annexure R1) by Shri Anil Kumar Joshi, Medical Education and Research Minister. Thus, the first contention of the petitioner that the recommending authority itself had taken a decision, is without any basis. As noticed above, recommendation was made by another Minister who was holding the charge at that point of time but the decision on merits, on 08.10.2013, was made by another Minister and therefore, this submission of the petitioner does not carry much weight. Sailesh ranjan 9. 2014.02.06 11:02 The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the person I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.22990 of 2013 -5- higher in merit should be given preference is also without any basis. The State has referred to the clause of migration in which the criteria is that only in exceptional cases and only to the most deserving among the applicants, for good and sufficient reasons and not on routine grounds, migration shall be granted. Relevant clause read as under: “Migration of students from one medical college to another medical college in India shall be granted only in exceptional cases to the most deserving among the applicants for good and sufficient reasons and not on routine grounds. -The number of students migrating to/from any one medical college shall be kept to the minimum which shall in any case not exceed the limit of 5% of its sanctioned intake in one academic year. There shall be no migration on any ground from any medical college to another located in the same city.”. 10. Thus, the said clause nowhere refers to the merit of the case of the petitioner inter se and in the present case, it is apparent from the order of the Minister as well as the file put up that the pros and cons of both the candidates were made part of the record and on the basis of the said record, the Minister came to the conclusion that mother of respondent No.5 was suffering from depression from the year 2008 and was getting treatment from Government Hospital and there was also a medical certificate attached regarding her treatment. The petitioner, on the contrary, had only a skin problem certificate which was also issued by a private Doctor in the year 2012. Weighing the pros and cons inter se the candidates, a decision was taken that the case of respondent No.5 was more deserving and orders for her migration were issued. The record which has been produced also shows to the same effect. Rather, in the certificate which has been issued in favour of the petitioner, regarding the skin specialist from Patiala, is dated 10.09.2013 which is just the date she had applied for to the College at Patiala, though there are other prescriptions also pertaining to her treatment taken Sailesh ranjan for her skin disease from May, 2012 onwards also from the same Doctor, apart 2014.02.06 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.22990 of 2013 -6- from some certificates, taken from one Mannipal OPD Clinic at General and Mental Healthcare, Amritsar. On the contrary, respondent No.5 has relied upon the Psychiatry Card issued by the Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana for the year 2008 and 2009, in favour of her mother, apart from the certificates pertaining to her eye problem from the year 1999. Thus, on the basis of the said record, decision was taken by the competent authority. It is not the case of the petitioner and neither it is apparent from the records that the petitioner's case was never even considered and she was given a raw deal. After examining the pros and cons of both the cases, decision had been taken. The medical certificate of the mother of respondent No.5 prevailed for a decision in favour of her and no fault can be found, as such, in the decision making process which is to be seen by this Court.
11. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the student's health is to be taken into account is also without any basis since, admittedly, it is not that the petitioner is suffering from a major disease on the basis of which she need specialised treatment which can only be given at Patiala. The prescriptions attached by her are of a private Doctor and only for skin problem and therefore, weighage to the same, over and above a person suffering from psychiatry problem, who is undergoing specialised treatment and needing emotional support, cannot be lightly brushed aside.
11. Accordingly, no fault can be found in the decision of the Government vide which the benefit has been granted to respondent No.5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. The original record, submitted in Court, be handed over to the State Counsel, after obtaining proper receipt. 03.02.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.02.06 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document