the State of Bihar and its officials who are appellants in
both these appeals.
2. The dispute involved in these two appeals
preferred under clause 10 of Letters Patent of this court
arises out of transfer of two medical students from two
private Medical Colleges situated at Kishanganj and
Katihar respectively to a Government Medical College
that is, Patna Medical College, Patna.
3. When the State of Bihar noticed that the
transfers which are described as migration by the
Medical Council of India had taken place in disregard of
criteria laid down by the Medical Council of India itself,
it objected to the transfers or migrations already
implemented. The students challenged the action of the
State Government by preferring writ petitions which
have been allowed by the writ court. Those orders passed
by the writ court are subject matter of these appeals.
4. It is not in dispute that on account of migration
orders issued by the Medical Council of India and on
account of orders of writ court, both the students have
virtually completed their courses of study in Patna
Medical College. On that ground alone, this court does
not propose to go into the merits of the case against the
individual beneficiaries of migration.
5. Learned Advocate General, however, drew
our attention to the relevant provisions in Chapter 2 of
the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997
(hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"). The
relevant provisions of Chapter II find mention on the
reverse of migration application contained in annexure-9
of CWJC No. 13217/2006. From the provisions in
Chapter II and Notes appended therein it is apparent that
routine migration on other grounds is totally prohibited
and migration from one Medical College to other is
permissible only in exceptional cases on extreme
compassionate grounds, provided the prescribed criteria
are fulfilled. Besides prescribing the criteria in the
Regulations, the Notes define the phrase "compassionate
grounds" to cover only following 3 situations: - (i) death
of a supporting guardian, (ii) illness of the candidate
causing disability and (iii) disturbed conditions as
declared by the Government in the Medical College area.
6. It is not in dispute that both the students
sought migration which has been allowed by the
authorities of the Medical Council of India under the 3rd
ground, that is, disturbed condition in the Medical
College area. It is the case of State of Bihar that
disturbed area can be declared by the State Government
under the provisions of a Statute and no such declaration
has been issued by the State Government in respect of
Kishanganj or Katihar Medical College area.
7. As already indicated earlier, this court is not
going to examine the matter on merits because students
have now virtually completed their studies. Therefore,
we desist from making detailed scrutiny and comments
upon the merits of the decision taken by the Medical
Council of India. It can only be indicated that the
decision lacks careful scrutiny of the prescribed criteria
and permissible grounds for migration. Hence, without
interfering with the orders of migration issued by the
Medical Council of India, we would like to observe that
the Medical Council of India should be more careful in
such matters in future so that undeserving students who
somehow managed their admission in private Medical
Colleges may not get the benefit of entry into prestigious
Government Medical Colleges which may have been
denied to more meritorious students. Further, we have
been told that for such transfers/migrations no objection
is required from the concerned Government Medical
College. In that view of the matter, the State Government
will also be well advised to adopt fair and strict criteria
in the matter of grant of such no objection in respect of
claims for migration in future.
With these observations, both the appeals
are disposed of.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Patna High Court
The 17th August,, 2010
NAFR/BKS