TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to Bombay in a Medical College at Bombay for the 2nd M. B.B.S. Course. Before the Medical College could take a decision on her application she has filed this petition on 30th January, 1990. This appears to be on account of the fact that the last date for submitting N.O.C. to the Medical Colleges run by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay was 31st January, 1990, in the petition she has prayed that the said Institute which is run by Respondent No. 2 Society be directed to issue 'No Objection Certificate' to her. She has also challenged the validity of a rule of the said Institute that no application for migration to other Medical Colleges will be entertained from students admitted to that Institute. 3. The prospectus for M.B.B.S. 1988-1989 issued by Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sevagram (Wardha) (Respondent No. 3) sets out that it is an institute which trains the students in a rural community setting. It is a rural medical college which serves the villagers. The institute is located at Sevagram where Mahatma Gandhi and Kasturba lived during the pre independence struggle. The Institute prescribes a Code of conduct for students which, inter alia, r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .. There can be no question of discrimination on the ground that some other University Acts provide for some different set up. Each University must be taken to be a class by itself and the legislature has a right to make such provision for its constitution as it thinks fit subject always to the provisions of the Constitution.... The same reasoning would apply to the rules for admission and migration which are framed by an Institute like Respondent No. 3 which is, in many ways, a special Institute catering to the needs of the rural community. It is entitled to frame a rule prohibiting migration in the middle of the course to another medical college: as it has a reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. 6. In my view, Art, 14 is not violated in any manner by having such a rule prohibiting migration. Other Institutes may permit such migration. But that does not compel the 3rd Respondent-Institute also to permit migration. There is no violation of Art. 14 here. 7. It is submitted by the petitioner that the rule against migration is contrary to the guidelines of the Medical Council of India. It is, therefore, bad in law. The guidelines issued by the Medical Counc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules. The same are, therefore, binding on her. (See also in this connection, (1988)IILLJ84SC where also the Supreme Court has reiterated that the Indian Medical Council is only a recommendatory body.) 8. It is next submitted by the petitioner that in some cases the 3rd Respondent-Institute has in fact granted N.O.C. to some of its students who desired to migrate to another medical college. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 accept this position. They have in fact stated that ordinarily they do not depart from the rule prohibiting migration. But in a suitable case, if a student makes out a genuine good reason why he should be permitted to migrate to another medical college, Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, after being satisfied about the genuineness of the case, grant such a certificate. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, however, submit that in the present case they have not been satisfied that the case of the petitioner is such as to warrant granting her a N.O.C. 9. The petitioner applied on 1-1-1990 to the Dean of Respondent No. 3 for a migration certificate. In her application, which is at Ex. D, she has stated that she would like to apply for transfer to a Medical College at Bombay because since he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccording to the petitioner were granted migration certificates are referred to in her application. Their cases have been dealt with in the affidavit filed by Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The Respondents have pointed out that these students were either suffering from psychic disorders or they were required to be in Bombay on account of major illness of their parents. The details of these cases are set out in this affidavit. In one case the father of the student had suffered a major heart attack; in another case the father of the student was in the terminal stages of cancer at the Tata Memorial Hospital in Bombay. 12. Looking to the circumstances of the present case, the grounds on which the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have not granted migration certificate to the petitioner appears to be genuine. In any case, I do not see any mala fides on the part of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in not granting a migration certificate. The petitioner has no legal right to a transfer from one medical college to another. Learned advocate for the petitioner sought to rely upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Inder Parkash v. Deputy Commr., Delhi AIR1979Delhi87 where the Court, inter alia, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
