Full Judgment
N.K. Jain, J.
1. Since both the writ petitions raise common question of fact and law, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. In both the writ petitions, petitioners seek directions to give admission in IInd Year Professional Course of M.B.B.S. at J.L.N. Medical College, Ajmer arid S.P. Medical College, Bikaner respectively, and no N.O.C. is required from M.C.I. for such transfer.
3. On the statement of counsel for the petitioner that petitioner passed 1st Year M.D. 'Physician' from Kalinin Medical Institute, U.S.S.R. whose changed name is Tver State Medical Institute, is a recognised institute by Medical Council of India, Delhi and in identical matter S.B. Civil Writ Petition No; 5099/93 notice has been issued and stay has been granted, this court in the writ petition No. 772/94 also issued show cause notice on 17-2-1994.
4. In reply to show cause notice, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed their reply with Annex. R. 1 and R. 2 stating that question of international migration from one Medical College to another Medical College is to be executed by the Central Government or Medical Council of India. In this respect, Medical Council of India issued policy guidelines whereby acceptance of two students per medical college on migration from Russia is given. It was further replied that M.C.I. is only competent body to determine equivalance of course and there is limit of 5% of students intaking in one Medical College in one year and cases are not covered under the regulation (exceeding 5% of students). It was further replied that as per provisions of admission 10 students have already been granted admission and they were sponsored by the Medical Council of India and in each Medical College except Kota two students have already been admitted and there is no room for any other students.
5. Respondent No. 4 M.C.I. has also filed reply to writ petition along with Annx. R.A. to R.D. and placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Shirish Gobind Prabhu Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 SC 1736 whereby it was held that there is no inherent right in a student to seek a migration and the same is subject to the restrictions for migration imposed by the Medical Council of India. It was also averred in the reply that those students who were sponsored by private agencies, some of them approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for granting no objection for migration which was dismissed and the case was remanded back to M.C.I. with a direction to decide afresh and in pursuance thereof the Council considered her case but the same was rejected. It was further averred that as per policy decision of M.C.I. no objection for migration shall be given to only M.C.I. sponsored candidates is just, proper and is based on a rational criteria. It was further averred that identical matter Civil Writ Petition No. 630/93 Deepti Chouhan v. U.O.I.) was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28-12-1994 : (reported in 1994 AIR SCW ,1946), and in pursuance thereof, they did not considered the incumbents because other persons will be affected.
6. Mr. Manindra Singh, Counsel for M.C.I. submits that in view of the reply and the decision of the Supreme Court, petitioner is not entitled for any relief as he was not admitted in Medical College of Russia through M.C.I. or through channels other than M.C.I, or Central Government, therefore, decision of this Court rendered in Tarun Vyasv. State (S.B.C.W. Petn. No. 5100/93) decided on 15-7-1994 is not helpful in the present case.
7. On the last occasion dated 3-2-1995, Mr. S.G. Ojha appeared for the State and submitted that this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Medical Council of India v. Silas Nelson, (1993) 3 JT (SC) 45 : (AIR 1994 SC 777) and State of U.P. v. Ramona: Perhar, (1994) 6 SCC 1 : (1994 AIR SCW 4390) and Mr. Sudhir Sharma sought time to go through the said judgments and matter was fixed on 22-3-1995. Today, counsel for the petitioner is not present but as the controversy has been decided by the Supreme Court, I proceed to hear the case on merits.
8. I have perused the entire material on record carefully as well as the decisions cited by the counsel for the respondents and arguments of Mr. Manindra Singh, Counsel for M.C.I. were heard.
33
226
226
226(3)