ALKA VERMA Vs. MAHARISHI DAYA NAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, on being sponsored by the Indo Soviet Medical Education, Care and Research Foundation, which is a registered body recognised by the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the MCI') obtained admission in the Vinnitsa Medical Institution (in the Ukraine then a part of the USSR) a Medical College recognised by the MCI for the MBBS Course. The course in question was of seven years including one year of the language course and six of medical studies. It is the conceded case of the parties that the petitioner has completed 2-1/2 years of the six years required to complete the course of study. It has been averred by the petitioner that on the break up of the Soviet Union, the Government of Ukraine, increased the fee for medical studies to an amount which could not be paid by her, with the result that she came to India and approached respondent No. 4 that is the MCI and respondent No. 3 the Principal, Medical College, Rohtak, for migration to the Medical College, Rohtak. The MCI informed the petitioner vide Annexure P-5 dated September 8, 1992 that her case for migration could be considered provided she produced a 'No objection certificate' from the Medical Institute in the USSR as well as one from the Principal of the Medical College where she proposed to take admission. The petitioner, accordingly, produced Annexure P-4 dated December 25,1992, a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Vinnitsa, Medical Institute, and once again applied to the MCI and to the Principal of the Medical College, Rohtak. Her case for migration was, however, considered and rejected by the respondents vide Annexure P-6 dated June 23, 1993 and support for this action has been sought from a decision taken by the Executive Committee of the MCI in its meeting held on December 29, 1992 to disallow migration to candidates who had been sponsored by agencies other than the MCI as the marks of these candidates were determined after holding competitive tests and interview. It has also been asserted in the reply that this decision of the MCI had been circulated amongst the Medical Colleges in India vide circular dated August 2, 1993. The stand of the Medical College-respondent No. 3 is that if the MCI had no objection to the grant of admission to the petitioner, the College too would not have any objection.

(2.) Mr. Mabesh Grover, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that as the case of the petitioner had been sponsored by the Indo Soviet Medical Education Care and Research Foundation, which was recognised by the MCI and this fact had not been denied in the reply filed by the respondents, the further directive based on the decision of the Executive Committee of the MCI dated December 29, 1992 that migration would be allowed only to MCI sponsored candidates was, not called for and was wholly arbitrary. It was also urged that sub clause (a) in paragraph (v) of the Medical Council of India Recommendation on Graduate Medical Education Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation) do not envisage the newly imposed condition and as such it did not have the sanction of law. It has also been asserted that as the petitioner has sought admission way back in 1989, any instruction issued in August, 1993, would not be binding on the petitioner.

(3.) In reply, the stand of the respondents is that a mandamus could not issue to them as the petitioner had no right in her favour to claim migration as it was a mere concession and as such there was no corresponding duty on the respondents to grant her migration. It has also been asserted that a concession could validly be circumscribed by any rule which might be framed.