MADHU J Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TRANSFER from one institution to another is not encouraged by either the m. c. i. or the affiliating university. The rules provide for transfer only in case of hardship and in exceptional circumstances. What distinguishes the present case from the rest is that a request even for mutual transfer has not evoked any response from the respondents. In these proceedings they oppose the prayer for transfer on the ground that the request for the same was made late no matter only by ten days. Was that really so is the only question which falls for consideration in the following circumstances.

(2.) THE petitioner and respondent 5 were selected on the basis of a competitive examination for admission to undergo a diploma course in gynecology and obstetrics. While the petitioner was allotted to m. r, medical college at gulbarga, respondent 4, was allotted to Mysore medical college at mysore. Pursuant to the admission orders issued by the directorate of medical college, the petitioner joined a college at gulbarga on 25th of August, 2000, while respondent 5 joined the college at Mysore a day earlier on 24th August, 2000. The course, it is not disputed, started on 1st of October, 2000, shortly, whereafter the petitioner and the 5th respondent appear to have made a joint request to the directorate of medical education, seeking a mutual transfer from the colleges mentioned above. This implied that the petitioner would be transferred to the Mysore medical college, mysore, whereas the 5th respondent would take her place in the M. R. Medical College at Gulbarga. Having evoked no response from the respondent-state or the directorate of medical college, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in which she was challenged the validity of notification dated 31st of August, 2000, issued by the state government as arbitrary and violative of article 14 of the constitution. By the said notification the government have prescribed 30th September, 2000 as the last date for making requests for mutual transfer by candidates, interested in the same. A mandamus directing the respondent-state government to prescribe another date for such transfers has also been prayed for.

(3.) APPEARING for the petitioner Mr. Subramanya jois, learned senior counsel, argued that a transfer on mutual basis was not forbidden by the rules framed by the state government and that unless there were good reasons for declining a joint request, the same ought to be allowed liberally. The request in the instant case was according to the learned counsel made within a reasonable time from the date of the start of the training course which could not have been ignored by the respondents a they appear to have done. Transfer was, according to Mr. Jois, necessary to avoid hardship and inconvenience in the instant case without affected ing the academic standards or creating any other difficulty for the institutions concerned.