Ranjana Desai, J.
1. The petitioner is a medical student currently engaged in the 2nd year M.B.B.S. Course of the 2nd respondent, Maharashtra University of Health Science ('the Health University' for short) in a college affiliated to it being the Mahatma Gandhi Mission's College Navi Mumbai, the 3rd respondent herein. The petitioner is seeking transfer to the Grant Medical College, Byculla, Mumbai, the 4th respondent herein.
2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the refusal of respondent No. 2 Health University to grant permission for the petitioner's intra university transfer from one college to another.
3. The petition discloses the following facts. The petitioner was admitted to the 3rd respondent College in 1998. He passed his First Year M.B.B.S. Examination on 15th August, 1999. It is the case of the petitioner that he suffers from severe anxiety and depression. In the past, he has displayed suicidal tendencies. The petitioner's permanent residence is at Flat No. 2, Avanti, Narayan Dabholkar Road, Malabar Hill. On account of his admission in the 3rd respondent College, the petitioner is required to stay at Navi Mumbai. The separation from his home and family environment led to a grave deterioration in the health of the petitioner. As a consequence, he was referred to a psychiatrist for treatment in December 1998. He underwent treatment under the said psychiatrist till March 1999. He was evaluated by Dr. Machiswala, a consulting psychiatrist, who also gave him treatment. He underwent counselling. Dr. Machiswala found that the petitioner was suffering from anxiety and depression with suicidal tendencies. This was affecting his concentration, Academic abilities and also his attitude to life. A further detailed examination and treatment was also carried out by Dr. Nand Katara, a psychiatrist, attached to the Nagpada Police Hospital under the supervision of Police Surgeon and Medico-legal Advisor to the Government of Maharashtra. The petitioner was admitted in the Nagpada Police Hospital in March 1999 and was thereafter treated by the said psychiatrist from 22nd March 1999 onwards. The petitioner continues to take the treatment at the said hospital. The said psychiatrist also found that the petitioner was suffering from mixed anxiety and depression with suicidal tendencies.
4. In support of his case, the petitioner has annexed to the petition a copy of the Psychometric Evaluation Report dated 26th August, 1999 made by Dr. Machiswala. There is also an under treatment certificate dated 26th August, 1999 issued by Dr. Katara and the case notes maintained by Nagpada Police Hospital in respect of the petitioner. Dr. Machiswala opined that the petitioner was suffering from moderate to severe level of depression. The diagnostic impression of Dr. Machiswala was that the petitioner was not able to mobilise the energies to solve his problems, that he felt lonely, helpless and he required psychological support to overcome the situation and such support can be provided only by family members. The certificate of under treatment issued by Dr. Katara stated that the petitioner was treated for mixed anxiety and depression with suicidal tendencies, that he was a basically anxious and sensitive individual and in view of his basic personality traits, he was likely to have similar episodes of illness. The episodes may be dangerous to his life due to strong suicidal thoughts. The certificate further recites that in order to prevent these elapses the petitioner will require support from parents and relatives especially, to prevent him from being left alone.
5. In view of this, it was thought necessary to seek transfer of the petitioner to a medical college in Mumbai so that, he will be able to reside at home and have the benefit of home care. Since the transfer of a student has to be made within three months from the passing of the First Year Examination, the petitioner's father made an application dated 30th August, 1999 to the Dean of the 3rd respondent-Medical College requesting for issuance of a 'No Objection Certificate' of transfer/migration of the petitioner. The Dean issued a'No Objection Certificate' dated 31st August, 1999 for transfer/migration of the petitioner from 3rd respondent College. The petitioner's father addressed a letter dated 1st September, 1999 to the Dean of 4th respondent College i.e., the Grant Medical College and Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals, Byculla, Mumbai, requesting that the said College may signify its acceptance of the petitioner as a transferred student. The Dean of the 4th respondent College considered the documents furnished to him and issued a 'No Objection Certificate' on the same day i.e., 1st September, 1999. In the N.O.C. the Dean of the 4th respondent College directed that a N.O.C. be produced from the 2nd respondent Health University and a demand draft of Rs. 500/- as also an affidavit sworn by the petitioner be produced for onward transmission to the Secretary of the 1st respondent i.e., the Medical Council of India.
6. The petitioner obtained the said No Objection Certificates issued by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and his father made an application dated 1st September, 1999 to the Registrar of the 2nd respondent Health University. The 2nd respondent Health University issued the 'N.O.C.' dated 2nd September, 1999 addressed to the Dean of the 4th respondent College. The petitioner furnished all the necessary documents to the Dean of the 4th respondent College including the 'N.O.C.' issued by the 3rd respondent College, the 'N.O.C.' issued by the 4th respondent College itself, the 'N.O.C.' issued by the 2nd respondent Health University and the affidavits sworn by the petitioner, a draft of Rs. 500/- in favour of the 1st respondent and medical certificates issued by the Police Surgeon and Medico Legal Advisor to the Government of Maharashtra as well as the medical certificate issued by Dr. Machiswala.
7. The 2nd respondent-Health University in its 'N.O.C.' mentioned that the N.O.C. was granted provided the Medical Council of India deems fit and permits the transfer of the petitioner. Therefore, the 4th respondent-College by a letter dated 7th September, 1999 referred the entire matter to the 1st respondent i.e., Medical Council of India for permission. The 4th respondent sent all the necessary documents, to the 1st respondent.
8. The 1st respondent addressed a letter dated 22nd September, 1999 to the petitioner in which, the petitioner's proposed transfer was treated as migration. The petitioner was directed to fill in the attached proforma and forward the same with the documentary proof for further consideration. The petitioner accordingly addressed letter dated 8th October, 1999 to the 1st respondent together with all the necessary documentary evidence as well as the completed proforma. By letter dated 1st December, 1999, the petitioner's request was rejected.
9. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner has approached this Court.
10. Mr. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that under the Indian Medical Council Act of 1956, the Indian Medical Council is empowered to prescribe inter alia standards for medical education which the Universities are bound to follow. The Indian Medical Council in exercise of its powers under Section 20 and with Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 framed the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1977 ('the said regulations' for short). Mr. Singh contended that in view of the fact that different Universities follow different syllabi and have different examinations migration of a student from a medical college in one University to a medical college in another University will necessarily have to be regulated to maintain certain standard of medical education. It is therefore that the said regulations made provisions for migration and leave it to be handled by the Medical Council of India. Drawing our attention to Regulation 6(1), Mr. Singh contended that keeping in view the need to maintain standard of medical education at certain level in different Universities this provision states that migration from one medical college to other is not a right of a student. Migration of students from one medical college in India may be considered by the Medical Council of India only in exceptional cases on extreme compassionate grounds provided certain criteria stated therein are fulfilled.
11. According to Mr. Singh migration is distinct from transfer. Migration conveys a student's leaving a college tn one University and joining a college in another University while transfer conveys leaving one college and joining another college in the same University. While the former falls within the jurisdiction of the Medical Council of India the latter has to be left to the concerned University. In fact in the said regulations there is no provision for transfer from one medical college to another medical college in the same University. The learned counsel contended that the communication made by the Joint Secretary to the Dean of the J. N. Medical College Sawangi (Meghe) Wardha dated 20-8-1999 (Ex. 'Q' to the petition) bears out this submission. In this communication the distinction between migration and transfer is recognised by the Medical Council of India. Inasmuch as in the said regulations there is no provision for transfer of a student from one medical college toanother medical college in the same University, the Medical Council of India had no jurisdiction to grant or deny permission for such a transfer. It was therefore wrong on the part of the second respondent-Health University to make its N.O.C. conditional on the Medical Council of India's finding the transfer fit and permitting it. It was also wrong on the part of the 4th respondent-College where the petitioner is seeking transfer to refer the entire matter for permission to the Medical Council of India. Mr. Singh contended that the impugned order of the 1st respondent-Medical Council of India rejecting the petitioner's application deserves to be set aside.
12. On merits of the petitioner's claim Mr. Singh contended that even if one goes by the criteria prescribed by the Medical Council of India, the petitioner's case clearly fulfils the same. The medical certificates annexed to the petition support the petitioner and this Court should therefore allow the transfer. In this behalf Mr. Singh placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 10-12-1998 in Mr. Shehbaz Nuruddin Palekar v. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 6223 of 1998. Relying on the certificates issued by Head of Psychiatric Department, Grant Medical College, Mumbai and certificate of Dr. Machiswala (incidentally the same Dr. Machiswala has given certificate in the case on hand), the Division Bench held that since the certificates indicate acute depression suffered by the child, his case falls under Note No. 2 laying down compassionate grounds. The Division Bench, in the circumstances, allowed the transfer of the student. According to Mr. Singh in the present case this Court should to likewise. In our opinion this judgment is on facts of that case. Besides no legal submissions seems to have been made before the Court as they are not reflected in the judgment. The said judgment therefore does not help the petitioner.
13. Ms. S. Puri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 on the other hand submitted that the Medical Council of India has an overall control over all the medical colleges in the country. It is the Apex body of experts responsible for maintenance of higher standard of medical education in the country and has been vested with the power to decide as to whether or not in a given case migration should be allowed. Migration/transfer of students is a necessary facet of standards of medical education inasmuch as indiscriminate migration may adversely affect teaching standards of a recognised medical college. The Medical Council of India is under a statutory obligation to control and maintain minimum standards of medical education and profession in the country and to regulate their observance. It is therefore entrusted with the statutory obligation of monitoring migration of students in recognised medical colleges is competitive. Care will have to be taken to see that the migration does not become a means to effect a back door entry. The said regulations have been framed under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Act is referable to Entry 66 of List 1 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of the said regulations are therefore binding upon all. The Sub-Committee of the Medical Council was therefore within its right to reject the petitioner's application. The learned counsel submitted that the Sub-Committee's finding that the petitioner is suffering from a temporary illness and can be treated as an out patient and his case does not fall under compassionate grounds is unassailable. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 28-2-2000 in Medical Council of India v. Diparani P. Desmukh in Civil Appeal No. 1808 of 2000, arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10899 of 1999 reported in : (2000)9SCC163 where the Supreme Court was concerned with the application of a student of Bharati Vidyapeeth Medical College, Pune, for transfer to the Medical College, Aurangabad. The Supreme Court applied the said regulations to the facts of the case and held that the case of the respondent did not fall in any of the three categories of Note 2 under Regulation 6. Having perused Diparani's case (supra), we feel that the distinction between intra-University and inter-University transfer, does not seem to have been agitated before the Supreme Court. There was also no challenge to the jurisdiction of the Medical Council of India to deal with such transfers. Diparani's case (supra) therefore is not of much help to respondent No. 1.
14. Ms. Puri has drawn our attention to the affidavit of A. S. Rahi, Deputy Secretary Medical Council of India in reply to the petition. Substance of Ms. Puri's arguments is reflected in this affidavit. In addition it is stated that over a period of time it is observed that some of those candidates who are not able to get admission in Government Colleges and/or in medical colleges in their home towns make attempt to get migration in those colleges by seeking migration on one pretext or the other. In most such applications it has been seen that invariably the parents of such candidates are doctors themselves. The affidavit further goes on to say that the father of the petitioner is a doctor who has himself stated in communication dated 1-9-1999 (Annexure G to the petition) that he is serving as a doctor at respondent No. 4 hospital i.e. Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals. The petitioner has sought transfer in Grant Medical College and Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals, Byculla, Mumbai. It is also stated that the petitioner is seeking transfer from a private medical college where he is presently studying to a Government medical college where his father is working. The Deputy Secretary has strongly objected to the petitioner's transfer.
15. The submissions of Mr. Ghogre, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Health University are on similar lines.
16. Before we turn to the merits of thepetitioner's case as regards his need to seekan intra-University transfer, we will firstdeal with the legal submissions advanced byboth sides. The Indian Medical Council Act,1956 was enacted by Parliament to providefor the reconstitution of the Medical Councilof India, the maintenance of a medical register for India and formatters connected therewith. It is referable to Entry 66 of List I of theConstitution of India which empowers theParliament to make laws in respect of coordination and determination of standardsin institutions for higher education or research or scientific and technical institutions.
17. Section 33 of the Act gives to the Council the power to make regulations generally to carry out the purposes of the Act with the previous sanction of the Central Government. It provides that without prejudice to the generality of this power such regulations may provide, under Section 33(1) for the courses and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the subjects of examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be obtained in Universities and medical institutions for grant of recognised medical qualifications and un-der Section 33(1), for the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admission to such examinations.
18. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the Medical Council of India has with the previous sanction of the Central Government made the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997. The said Act takes care to see that medical qualifications are not reduced to a farce and only medical qualifications granted by Universities and medical institutions mentioned in the First Schedule shall be recognised as medical qualifications for the purposes of the said Act. Under the said Act medical qualifications granted by medical institutions mentioned in second schedule and third schedule are also recognised medical qualifications. Section 15 states that medical qualifications included in the Schedule to the said Act shall be sufficient qualifications for enrolment on any State medical register. Section 19 empowers the Council to withdraw recognition of a medical institution in case the courses of study and examination to be undergone in, or the proficiency required from the candidates at any examination held by any University or medical institution do not conform to the prescribed standards. Section 19A empowers the Council to prescribe the minimum standards of education required for granting recognised medical qualifications (other than postgraduate medical qualification) by Universities or medical institutions in India. Section 20 makes similar provision for Post-Graduate Medical Education. Section 20A empowers the Medical Council to prescribe the standards of professional conduct and etiquette and code of ethics for medical practitioners and to ensure their observance. Section 21 requires the Council to maintain Indoor Medical register. The Indian Medical Council Act therefore tries to ensure that medical education is imparted in an efficient manner so that it can achieve a level of excellence and that there is no scope for any malpractices which would erode its standards. The said regulations are made to further this purpose of the said Act. They cannot override it.
19. At this stage it is necessary to have a look at Regulation 6 of the said Regulations. Regulation 6 reads thus :
'6. Migration
(1) Migration from one medical college to other is not a right of a student. However, migration of students from one medical college to another medical college in India may be considered by the Medical Council of India. Only in exceptional cases on extreme compassionate grounds, provided following criteria are fulfilled. Routine migrations on other grounds shall not be allowed.
(2) Both the colleges, i.e. one at which the student is studying at present and one to which migration is sought, are recognised by the Medical Council of India.
(3) The applicant-candidate should have passed first professional MBBS examination.
(4) The applicant-candidate submits his application for migration, complete in all respects, to all authorities concerned within a period of one month of passing (declaration of results) the first professional Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) examination.
(5) The applicant-candidate must submit an affidavit stating that he/she will pursue 18 month of prescribed study before appearing at IInd professional Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) examination at the transferee medical college, which should be duly certified by the Registrar of the concerned University in which he/she is seeking transfer. The transfer will be applicable only after receipt of the affidavit.
Note 1 :
(1) Migration during clinical course of study shall not be allowed on any ground.
(ii) All applications for migration shall be referred to Medical Council of India by college authorities. No institution/University shall allow migrations directly without the approval of the Council.
(iii) Council reserves the right, not to entertain any application which is not under the prescribed compassionate grounds and also to take independent decisions where applicant has been allowed to migrate without referring the same to the Council.
Note 2 : Compassionate grounds criteria:
(i) Death of a supporting guardian.
(ii) Illness of the candidate causing disability.
(iii) Disturbed conditions as declared by Government in the Medical College area.'
20. We find some substance in the submission of Mr. Singh that Regulation 6 is intended to apply to transfer of a medical student from a college in one University to another college in a different University. The reason is obvious and it gels with the purpose and objects of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Different medical Universities follow differing syllabi. They have different standards of study, different examination papers and marking levels. There may be possible differences in the teaching methodology. A student coming from a college in a particular University may be in difficulties if he Joins a college in another University. In case of intra-University transfer since the syllabus is same a student may not be at a loss. Since the University conducts the examination in all its affiliated colleges simultaneously, intra-University transfer does not involve any material change. In cases of inter-University transfer, such a state of affairs would result in standard of medical education being adversely affected. It is therefore that Regulation 6 uses the word migration and says that migration from one medical college to other is not a right of a student and it may be allowed only in exceptional cases on extreme compassionate grounds provided the criteria mentioned therein are fulfilled.
21. We however do not wish to convey that intra-University transfers will never have any repercussions on the standards of medical education in a particular University. Though in Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. : AIR1999SC2894 , the Supreme Court was concerned with standards of education and admission criteria for post-graduate medical education, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its view in Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka : [1998]3SCR740 and in State of Kerala v. T. P. Roshna : [1979]2SCR974 that the Medical Council of India has been set up as an expert body to control the minimum standards of medical education and to regulate their observance. It has implicit power to supervise the qualifications or the eligibility standards for admissions into medical institutions. There is under the Act an overall vigilance by the Medical Council to prevent sub-standard entrance qualifications. If the Medical Council has to have an overall vigilance over admissions, it may perhaps have to seewhether indiscriminate transfers of students who could not get admissions to prime colleges on account of their not securing the required percentage, to prime colleges where only highly meritorious students get admission, would result in fall in standards. Such a student may not be able to assimilate the level of teaching in the prime institutions where he is seeking transfer. Standard of teaching may have to be lowered to reach such a student, affecting the general standard of that institution. In case of inter-University transfer this possibility is more and in case of intra-University transfer it is less. We do not wish to express any final opinion on the question whether the 1st respondent. Medical Council of India can control intra-University transfers or not either way. Assuming Medical Council of India can have control over such transfers there are no provisions in the said regulations to deal with them.
22. In our opinion 'migration' as found in Regulation 6 of the said regulations means inter-University transfer and not intra-University transfer. We are fortified in this view of ours by letter dated 28-8-1999 (Ex. Q) addressed by the Joint Secretary of the Medical Council of India to the Dean, J. N. Medical College Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha, in respect of migration of one Ashish Singh from J. N. Medical College Sawangi to Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences Sewagram, Wardha. While rejecting the request of this student the Joint Secretary has stated :
'Moreover, there is no provision of 'transfer' from one medical college to another medical college under the jurisdiction of same University as per the Council Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997.
The term 'Migration' amounts to migration of a candidate from one medical college to another medical college under different Universities.'
23. Therefore if migration amounts to transfer of a candidate from one medical college to another medical college under different University and if there is no provision for intra-University transfer, then the Medical Council of India has no jurisdiction to deal with such transfers. There is no question of Medical Council of India giving permission for such transfers.
24. Our attention has been drawn to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998. Section 50 of the said Act says that subject to the conditions prescribed by or under the said Act, the Management Council may make Ordinance to provide for all or any of the matters set out therein. Section 50(x) refers to the rules to be observed and enforced by colleges and recognised institutions regarding transfer of students wherever necessary. However till date no Ordinance is made by the 2nd respondent-Health University. We are informed that the Bombay University has issued Ordinance to take care of transfer of students of the affiliated colleges of Arts, Science, Commerce, Education, Law and Social Work. Clear guidelines about migration are also issued. We fail to understand why the Health University has not done so.
25. We had asked Mr. Ghogre the learned counsel for the Health University to let us know whether any Ordinance was in contemplation. In fact this petition and the companion petitions were adjourned for a number of times to enable. Mr. Ghogre to take instructions. After several adjournments he has produced a copy of letter dated 4-7-2000 addressed by the Registrar of the Health University to him, instructing him that the Medical Council has made no provision for transfer. The Health University has therefore undertaken the preparation of Ordinance in this connection. The letter further goes on to say that the matter was put up before the Statutes and Ordinance Committee in its meeting held on 3rd and 4th June, 2000 and since the issue is under consideration of Medical Council the issue was differed. Minutes of the meeting are annexed to the said letter.
26. We are amazed at the slow speed at which the matter is being processed. We have already noted that these petitions were time and again adjourned so that the 2nd respondent would take some action. Cases involving a student's career must receive prompt attention of those concerned. Besides if wrong precedents are created it is likely to affect medical education adversely. Much to our chagrin the 2nd respondent has done precious little in the matter though enough time was given. In our opinion this and other companion petitions do not brook further delay.
27. Medial education is of greatest importance to the country. It cannot be tinkered with unrestricted, indiscriminate andundeserving transfers can run riot with this branch of education resulting in erosion of standards. Admission to medical courses is still the ambition of many. Seats in the prime medical colleges are coveted seats. Entry in such colleges is otherwise competitive and the candidate who has not been able to get admission in that college in 1st M.B.B.S. may try to get in by a back door method. In order to get into prime colleges attempts may be made to sneak in by making claims on compassionate grounds. These attempts will have to be defeated. The second respondent-Health University will have to first consider whether intra-University transfers are at all to be allowed. If in exceptional cases they are to be allowed, criteria will have to be laid down. If transfers are sought on health ground, the claim must undergo keenest scrutiny. Even other grounds must be thoroughly screened. In the nature of things, only an expert impartial body can undertake this task. The sooner the University undertakes this task better it is. If the reasons given for transfer are genuine then, such transfer may have to be considered. Since there are no rules or regulations framed by the second respondent-Health University, we have no option but to adopt during the interregnum Regulation 6 of the said regulations as if it is holding the field so far as intra-University transfers are concerned.
28. Compassionate ground criteria in Regulation 6 consists of three items -- (1) death of a supporting guardian; (2) illness of the candidate causing disability; (3) disturbed conditions as declared by Government in Medical College area. It will be necessary to see whether the present case falls in item (2) i.e. illness of the candidate causing disability. We have seen the psychometric evaluation report of 26th August, 1999 made by Dr. Machiswala where based on clinical interview and psychometric evaluation. Dr. Machiswala has given his following diagnostic impressions :
'Based on clinical interview and psychometric evaluation, it can be concluded that Rohan is suffering from Anxiety Depression with suicidal tendencies. He needs to be observed constantly. He is unable to mobilise his energies to solve present problems, feels lonely, helpless and requires psychological support to overcome the situation. Such support can be provided only by the familiar members.'
29. Dr. Nand Katara has, in his certificate of under-treatment dated 26-8-1999, also stated that the petitioner is suffering from mixed anxiety depression with suicidal tendencies in a basically anxious and sensitive individual. Upon perusal of these documents as also the case notes maintained by Nagpada Police Hospital in respect of the petitioner, the Migration Sub-Committee came to a conclusion that the petitioner's illness i.e. 'Mixed Anxiety Depression with suicidal tendencies in a basically anxious and sensitive individuals' is a temporary illness and can be treated as an out patient and it does not fall under the compassionate ground criteria.' In view of our conclusion that the Medical Council of India has no jurisdiction to deal with intra-University transfers, on account of lack of any provisions to that effect we would not go by the opinion of the Migration Sub-Committee dated 1st December. 1999. We will have to set aside the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 1-12-1999 which we hereby do. In such a situation, the matter is left to us to judge whether the petitioner's case falls in the compassionate ground criteria. This case involves intricate medical problem particularly, related human psychology. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner should be examined by two independent doctors of high repute in the field of psychiatry. From the letter heads which are on record we notice that Dr. Machiswala is Honorary Asstt. Professor of Psychiatry at the Grant Medical College. He is also Honorary Psychiatrist at the J.J. Hospital. We also notice from the record that the father of the petitioner-Dr. P. P. Rao is also Honorary Professor of Medicine and Endocrinology at the Grant Medical College. He is Honorary Physician and Endocrinologist in Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals. We would, therefore, like to have the petitioner examined by doctors, who are not connected with these hospitals. Opinion of these doctors may be sought on the question whether the petitioner is suffering from any ailment and whether his case falls under compassionate grounds criteria. We would like to make it clear that by doing this, we do not mean to cast any aspersions either on Dr. Machiswala or Dr. P. P. Rao, the father of the petitioner. We have no reason to come to such a conclusion. Our referring the petitioner to some other doctors do not mean that we have expressed even slightest doubtabout the integrity or character of Dr. Machiswala or Dr. Rao, the father of the petitioner. We are doing this to ensure that no accusing finger is pointed out at these doctors, and the correct decision is arrived at. In our opinion it would be better if the petitioner is got examined from the Head of Department of Psychiatry K.E.M. Hospital, Mumbai and the Head of Department of Psychiatry R. N. Cooper Hospital, Mumbai.
30. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner-Rohan Prabhakar Rao be got examined from the Head of Department of Psychiatry, K.E.M. Hospital, Bombay and Head of Department of Psychiatry, R. N. Cooper Hospital, Mumbai within a period of two weeks. The concerned doctors be furnished a copy of this judgment in the light of which they can conduct the examination of the petitioner. They may also be supplied with all the medical papers of the petitioner annexed to the petition. Fees of said doctors will have to be paid by the petitioner. In case of a difference of opinion between these doctors, Dr. Machiswala and Dr. Katara's opinion may get reinforced. Upon receipt of the said report, the Health University will take necessary action. We are making it clear that this arrangement is made for the interregnum, that is till the Health University comes out with an Ordinance giving clear guidelines about intra-University transfers. We hope that the Health University issues the necessary Ordinance at the earliest.
31. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms.
C. c. expedited.
Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by Associate of this Court.