Susmita Chatterjee & Anr vs Medical Council Of India & Ors on 16 July, 2018

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Susmita Chatterjee & Anr vs Medical Council Of India & Ors on 16 July, 2018

Bench: Arindam Sinha

                                          1


16.07.2018
     (03)
     ddas                         WP 11426 (W) of 2018

                              Susmita Chatterjee & Anr.
                                         Vs.
                              Medical Council of India & Ors.



                 Mr.   Saktinath Mukherjee, ld. sr. adv.
                 Mr.   Biswarup Bhattacharya
                 Mr.   Dipayan Kundu
                 Mr.   Pratik Majumder
                                ... ... For the petitioners

                 Mr. Debaki Nandan Maiti
                 Mr. Supratik Roy
                              ... ...For the WBUHS

                 Mr. Sougata Bhattacharya
                             ... ...For the MCI


                   This writ petition has been listed under the heading 'To Be

             Mentioned' at instance of petitioners.    Affidavit-of-service filed along

             with track record which shows tracking of postal article as dispatched

             to Haldia RMS.

                  Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of

             petitioners and submits, petitioner no. 2 is a medical student. By

             reason of her having suffered a disease called 'Pituitary Adinoma", she

             needs to be nearer to her place of treatment. As such, she wants to

             migrate from being a student of respondent no. 3 to that of

respondent no. 4. By this writ petition she has asked for compelling respondent no. 3 to issue no objection certificate. There is urgency 2 since clinical courses in respondent no. 4 are due to commence from end July 2018 for the year of course study of petitioner. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no. 1 and submits, this migration is not permissible under Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 as requirement under regulation 6(6)(2) is not fulfilled. Respondent no. 3 is a permitted, as opposed to recognized, college and that is why the migration is not permissible. Mr. Mukherjee clarifies that upon getting 'no objection' from respondent no. 3 his client will duly apply for migration.

Petitioners are directed to obtain and serve a copy of this order on respondent no. 4. Respondent no. 4 will make known its position on adjourned date failing which Court will proceed and deal with this writ petition.

List on 19th July, 2018 under the same heading.

(Arindam Sinha, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)