AMANDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners had obtained admission to the M.B.B.S. Course in the Dr. M.G.R. University Madras, in Guru Gobind College, Faridkot and in the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, respectively. They all cleared the first M.B.B.S. professional 18 months course in their very first attempts. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar respondent No. 3 issued an Information Brochure Annxure P-1 in which the instructions of the State Government dated 15.4.1996, prescribing the guidelines for migration from one Medical College to another both within and outside the State, were set out. The petitioners made an application for the purpose, seeking migration to the 2nd professional M.B.B.S. in some other institution and also sat in the Joint Test for migration held on 19.5.1996, and on declaration of the result two days thereafter, were shown at Merit Nos. 13, 14 and 19 respectively, and being meritorious enough, were granted migration to the Medical College, Amritsar on 28.5.1996 and joined classes therein, on 3.6.1996. It is the admitted position that the Medical Counsel of India-respondent No. 5 also approved the migration granted to the petitioners being in accordance with the rules. The final examination for the second professional was to be held some time in July, 1997 and the petitioners filled in the application form within the due date. They were, however, told that as certain queries had been raised by respondent No. 5 on their eligibility to take the examination, they could not be permitted to do so. It is the petitioners', case that this action was being taken on account of Annexures P-4/A and P-4/B dated 24.7 1996 and 28.11.1996 respectively in which Migration Sub Committee of the Medical Council of India, had taken a decision that those students who had got migration after the lapse of three months from the passing of the first M.B.B.S. professional examination were required to complete a course of study of 18 month in the receiving college before they could be allowed to take the 2nd professional examination. The petitioners, aggrieved by the proposed action which had rendered them ineligible to take the examination addressed various representations to the Medical Council of India, but to no avail. Frustrated thereby, the petitioners have come to this court.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued in this case on 11.4.1997 and in response thereto two separate replies have been filed one on behalf of the State of Punjab respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and second by respondent No. 5, the M.C.I. The reply filed by respondent No. 4 i.e. Principal of the Gove. Medical College, Amritsar relies primarily on the stand taken by respondent No. 5. In the reply filed by respondent No. 5 the statutory functions enjoined on the M.C.I. by virtue of the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 have been set out amongst them being a duty to prescribe the minimum standards of medical education required for the grant of recognised qualifications by the Universities or Medical Institutes. It has also been pointed out that one of the important functions of the Medical Council pertained to the admissions in medical colleges, duration of the courses and migration from one medical college to another. Reference has also been made to clauses (iii) and (v) of the Regulations framed under the Act (hereinafter called the Regulations) and it has been highlighted that Regulation (iii) dealing with the duration of courses provided that the first professional course would consist of 18 months of study. Specific attention has also then drawn to Regulation (v) and it has been pointed out that as the petitioners had been allowed migration more than three months of their passing the first professional examination, they had to undergo a course of instructions of 18 months in the receiving college in order to make them eligible to sit in the second professional examination.

(3.) Mr. J.S. Khehar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that the reliance by respondent No. 5 the Medical Council of India, on Regulation (v) was misplaced inasmuch as that the said Regulation only placed an embargo on the grant of migration after the expiry of three months from the first professional examination and the additional condition placed by the respondent with regard to a course of instruction of 18 months in the receiving college before appearance in the 2nd professional examination was not warranted as the petitioners had admittedly undergone a period of 18 months of study partly in the first and partly in the receiving colleges. He has, in this connection, referred to the various clauses of the Brochure Annexure P-1 with special emphasis on paragraph 7 thereof which provided that the number of lectures attended in the first college would be counted in the receiving college, and if this condition stood satisfied admission to the 2nd professional examination could not be denied. He has, accordingly, urged that the additional condition imposed which was now under challenge, had absolutely no basis.