Judgment:
ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner joined I year of MBBS course, during the academic year 2006-07 in Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagunur, Karimnagar District (for short 'PIMS'). She completed I year, in that college. However, on account of health problems faced by her, she wanted to be transferred to Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal, the 3rd respondent herein. Both the colleges are affiliated to Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, the 1st respondent herein. As required under the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, the 2nd respondent herein, the petitioner submitted applications to the 1st and 3rd respondents and PIMS, the college in which she joined; duly enclosing the medical certificates and the opinion of the Medical Board etc. PIMS gave 'No Objection Certificate', on 7-4-2008, and on the next day, the 3rd respondent issued such a certificate. Based on the same, the 1st respondent issued 'Conditional No Objection Certificate', on 17-6-2008.
2. The matter went before the 2nd respondent for approval. On a consideration of the request, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings, dated 17-10-2008, allowing the migration of the petitioner from PIMS to the 3rd respondent. Reference was made to the medical certificates and the ailment of the petitioner. However, in the proceedings, it was mentioned that the petitioner shall be permitted to appear in the II year MBBS, only after she completes full 18 months of study from the 3rd respondent.
3. The petitioner contends that, soon after she passed I year examination, she was promoted to II year in the PIMS and till she was relieved from that college on 31-10-2008, on the basis of the migration permitted by the 2nd respondent, she not only studied the II year course, but also appeared in the semester examination. She contends that, on 1-11-2008 itself, she joined the 3td respondent-College and continued the studies in that institution. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the condition imposed by the 2nd respondent insisting on 18 months study in the 3rd respondent-college.
4. Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate counter- affidavits. They seek to justify the condition, imposed against the petitioner, by placing reliance on Regulation 6(5) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (for short 'the Regulations').
5. Heard Sri B. Narayana Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and learned Government Pleader for the 3rd respondent.
6. The petitioner joined the MBBS course in PIMS and she passed I year examination of the course, from that institution. She was suffering from 'Accute reactive depression with severe suicidal ideation with H/o suicidal attempts twice'. It is in this context that, she initiated steps for her transfer to the 3rd respondent-college. The prescribed procedure was followed and her case was referred to the Regional Medical Board of M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. The Board examined the petitioner and recommended her transfer. The college, in which, she joined, and the one, to which she intended to be transferred, expressed their no objection, and this was, in a way, approved by the University i.e., 1st respondent.
7. The 2nd respondent is the ultimate authority to accord permission for the transfer of candidates from one institution to the other. After referring to the background of the case in brief, the 2nd respondent allowed migration of the petitioner from one institution to the other. However, the following condition was imposed:
The Sub-Committee further decided that the Principal of the transferee college be requested to ensure and confirm to allow the candidate to appear for the 2nd professional examination only after she completes full 18 months of study from the date of migration at the transferee medical college i.e., Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal.
8. The petitioner contends that, much of the delay in giving clearance for transfer has occurred at the 2nd respondent. She states that the study spread over 6 months, which she has undergone during the pendency of the matter before the 2nd respondent, cannot be permitted to go waste.
9. The respondents place reliance upon Regulation 6(5) of the Regulations, in support of their decision. The provision reads as under:
The applicant candidate must submit an affidavit stating that he/she will pursue 18 months of prescribed study before appearing at II 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 m which he/she is seeking, transfer. The transfer will be applicable only after receipt of the affidavit.
10. From a perusal of this and in particular, the underlined portion, it can be gathered that the requirement is mostly in cases where the transfer is from an institution affiliated to one University to the institution affiliated to another university.
11. This provision fell for consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. Sarang and Ors. : (2001) 8 SCC 427.
12. That was a case, where, a student of MBBS was transferred from one University to another. By the time the case came to be decided by the Supreme Court, the candidate completed the MBBS course, in its entirety. It was only for future guidance and academic purposes that the principle was laid. It is important to refer to the introductory portion of the discussion, on this aspect.
Regulation 6(5) provides that a student will pursue 18 months of prescribed study before appearing at the II professional examination at the transferee medical college. However, the High Court took the view that the proper construction of this Regulation should be that a student, who has migrated from one university 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 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 the 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.
(underlining, by this Court)
13. It is clear that the transfer in that case was from the Medical College affiliated to one University, to the Medical College affiliated to another University. Such is not the case here. Both the institutions are affiliated to one and the same University.
14. There is an objective, that justifies the insistence on the study by the candidate for full length of the course, in the event of his being transferred to another institution. Though the broad framework of the MBBS course is framed by the Medical Council of India, the syllabus, and the course pattern, prescribed by different universities would differ, at least, in minute details. Therefore, the candidate, who has studied the MBBS course in an institution affiliated to one University, cannot claim the benefit thereof, when he is transferred to an institution affiliated to different university. This justification virtually ceases to be relevant, when the transfer is from one institution to another, both of which are affiliated to the same university. The reason is that not only the course content, pattern of course and examination papers are common, but even the structure of the course, in its minute details, is one and the same.
15. The amount of attention, which a student pays for study of a professional course, like MBBS, does not need any emphasis. The petitioner, who was transferred on grounds of serious health problems, cannot be subjected to further pressure to study a substantial portion of the course, which she has already undergone. Added to that, she had already cleared internal examination from the same university under the same pattern. Therefore, the condition imposed by the 2nd respondent, that the petitioner shall study II year MBBS for full 18 months in the 3rd respondent-college, cannot be sustained in law. She cannot be denied the benefit of the study of II year MBBS in the other institution.
16. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to for the benefit of her study up to 31-10-2008 in the II year MBBS from Prathima Institute of Medical Services, in the context of her eligibility to appear in the II year examination.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.