Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kum. Vaishnavi I Anchatgeri, a medical student, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, challenging the communication dated 19.11.2018 issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI) at Annexure-N, whereby she was denied permission to migrate from the 6th respondent college (Shridevi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Hospital, Tumkur) to the 7th respondent college (SDM College of Medical Sciences & Hospital, Dharwad). The sole ground for denial was that the receiving college (7th respondent) lacked Central Government recognition. The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned communication and a direction to permit her migration. The MCI filed a Statement of Objections resisting the relief, contending that both colleges having recognition is a sine qua non for according permission for migration, and filed an affidavit stating that in the preceding four years, no migration permission had been issued where one of the two colleges lacked recognition. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner argued that the Regulations of the Council on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 1997, particularly Note-2 to Regulation 6, vest discretion in the MCI to grant migration, and that discretion must be exercised reasonably. The court considered the submissions and held that the MCI's discretion under Note-2 is not absolute and must be exercised in a reasonable manner, considering the object of the regulations to mitigate student hardship. The court noted that both colleges have State Government recognition and are affiliated to a university, and the MCI had not revoked its recognition of the receiving college. Therefore, the lack of Central Government recognition alone cannot be a ground to deny migration. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned communication, and directed the MCI to reconsider the petitioner's application for migration in light of the observations, within a period of four weeks.
Headnote
A) Medical Education - Migration of Students - Recognition of Colleges - MCI Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 1997, Regulation 6, Note-2 - The court considered whether MCI can deny migration permission solely because the receiving college lacks Central Government recognition. The court held that MCI's discretion under Note-2 must be exercised reasonably, and where both colleges have State recognition and the student faces hardship, migration cannot be denied on the sole ground of lack of Central recognition. (Paras 1-5) B) Medical Education - MCI Discretion - Reasonable Exercise - MCI Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 1997, Regulation 6, Note-2 - The court held that MCI's discretion to grant or refuse migration is not absolute and must be exercised in a reasonable manner, considering the object of the regulations to mitigate student hardship. (Paras 3-5) C) Medical Education - Central Recognition vs. State Recognition - MCI Regulations - The court observed that the receiving college had State Government recognition and was affiliated to a university, and the MCI had not revoked its recognition. Therefore, the lack of Central Government recognition alone cannot be a ground to deny migration. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Medical Council of India can deny permission for migration of a medical student from one college to another solely on the ground that the receiving college lacks Central Government recognition, when both colleges have State Government recognition and the student faces hardship.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure-N) is quashed. The MCI is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for migration in light of the observations made in the order, within a period of four weeks.
Law Points
- Migration of medical students
- Recognition of medical colleges
- MCI Regulations on Graduate Medical Education
- Discretion of MCI
- Hardship of student
