I.A. Nos. 27-28 of 2014 in W.P. (C) No. 737 of 2013. Case: 1. Lipika Gupta, 2. Illhaam Ashraf Vs 1. Union of India (UOI), 2. Medical Council of India. Supreme Court

Case Number:I.A. Nos. 27-28 of 2014 in W.P. (C) No. 737 of 2013
Party Name:1. Lipika Gupta, 2. Illhaam Ashraf Vs 1. Union of India (UOI), 2. Medical Council of India
Judges:Dipak Misra and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
Issue:Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Sections 11(2), 33; Indian Medical Council Regulations; Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 - Regulations 6, 6(1), 12(1)
Citation:2014 (12) SCALE 533
Judgement Date:November 03, 2014
Court:Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

  1. By Interlocutory Application No. 27 of 2014, the following prayers have been made:

    (a) Allow the present I.A. and thereby direct the Medical Council of India to clarify its Regulation relating to migration as the same has been followed in a particular manner in all the States except in the State of Karnataka and further hold that the MCI Regulation being uniform has to be followed by the State of Karnataka and the MCI should not maintain silence under the guise that a schedule has been fixed for admission by this Hon'ble Court by virtue of order dated 19.05.2014 passed in W.P. (C) No. 737 of 2013 although it has nothing to do with migration; and

    (b) Pass such further or other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

    It is submitted by Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, learned Counsel for the applicant, that the present application has been filed as the Medical Council of India on the basis of the schedule fixed by this Court has not expressed any opinion to the letter issued by the Directorate of Medical Education, Karnataka as a result of which the applicant has been deprived of the benefit of the migration.

  2. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India, submitted that migration has nothing to do with the fixation of the schedule and migration is permissible in law.

  3. To get the things clear, we thought it apt to deal with the said issue.

  4. It is not in dispute that the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (for short, 'Regulations') have been framed in exercise of power conferred Under Section 33 of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956. Regulation 6, as amended on 20.10.2008, reads as follows:

    "6. Migration.

    (1) Migration of students from one medical college to another medical college may be granted on any genuine ground subject to the availability of vacancy in the college where migration is sought and fulfilling the other requirements laid down in the Regulations. Migration would be restricted to 5% of the sanctioned intake of the college during the year. No migration will be permitted on any ground from one medical college to another located within the same city.

    (2) Migration of students from one College to another is permissible only if both the colleges are recognised by the Central Government Under Section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and further subject to the condition that it shall not result in increase in the sanctioned intake capacity for the academic year concerned in respect of the receiving medical college.

    (3) The applicant candidate shall be eligible to apply for migration only after qualifying in the first professional MBBS examination. Migration during clinical course of study shall not be allowed on any ground.

    (4) For the purpose of migration an applicant candidate shall first obtain "No Objection Certificate" from the college where he is studying for the present and the...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL