Allahabad High Court
Ashish Kumar vs The Secretary, Medical Health And ... on 23 September, 1994
Equivalent citations: AIR1995ALL98, (1994)3UPLBEC1740, AIR 1995 ALLAHABAD 98, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1740, 1994 (2) ALL CJ 990, 1994 ALL CJ 2 990, (1995) 1 APLJ 30, (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1740, (1994) 3 ALL WC 1655
ORDER S. S. Sodhi, C.J.
1. The matter here concerns admissions to Government Medical Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh by migration or transfer from various recognised and unrecognised Medical Colleges outside the State. It arises in the context of a bunch of 139 petitions, which came up before the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal against interlocutory orders of this Court directing admissions to Government Medical Colleges in the State by migration/transfer, which as the Supreme Court observed, "prima facie indicate too liberal a judicial attitude to matters which should have required the application of settled principles of interlocutory relief" and further that the submissions during arguments "embarrassingly indicated a widely shared apprehension as to the bona fides of the transfers and possible abuse of the process of Court" and that "the present interlocutory orders do lack visible legal support."
2. Most of the writ petitions now before us comprise the said bunch of 139 petitions besides several others too. Save just a few, in all these matters there were interlocutory orders directing admission by migration transfer from Medical Colleges, recognised and unrecognised, outside the State, to recognised Government Medical Colleges in . the State of Uttar Pradesh. For dealing with them the Supreme Court classified such interlocutory orders into three broad categories, namely, migration from-
1. unrecognised Medical Colleges,
2. recognised private Medical Colleges, and
3. recognised Government Medical Colleges.
As mentioned earlier admissions in all these three categories were to be recognised Government Medical Colleges. The interlocutory orders passed in all these categories were vacated but as regards the third, namely, migration/transfer from recognised Government Medical Colleges, it was, however, directed that if the petitioners were already pursuing their studies in the transferee colleges they may be permitted to continue their studies till the disposal of the writ petitions subject to the ultimate outcome of the writ petitions and further that if there were any purported cancellations of such admissions, in relation to this class of transfers, such orders shall not affect the continuance of their studies till the disposal of the main matters. It was, however, added that if ultimately the writ petitions fail such cancellations would take effect from the date of their original order. It was, at the same time, also observed :--
"In this category of cases it as a result of our earlier stay order any of the candidates has missed any examination and if ultimately the High Court finally allows the writ petitions on the merits, whatever they may have been deprived of shall be made good by appropriate direction for holding, if necessary, special examination."
3. Having said this and set aside the impugned interlocutor orders, the Supreme Court desired that all the writ petitions before it and other similar writ petitions be heard and finally disposed of as expeditiously as possible. It is in this background that these matters have now come up before us.
4. The issue that confronts us, at the very threshold is whether there enures, in a student of a Medical College, an inherent right to seek admission to another Medical College by-migration/transfer. Put as broadly as this, itj cannot but admit of only one answer, namely, in the negative, there being no statutory provision, rule or even any legal principle to support a claim to any such right. Such was also the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Shirish Govind Prabhudesai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 SC 1736 where it was held that there is no right to migration/ transfer of students from one Medical College to another dehors the conditions subject to which migration/transfer is permitted. The Court went on further to say (para 6) :
"It is also not disputed that in case a recognised medical college chooses not to take any student by migration/transfer from another medical college, it cannot be compelled to do so. It follows that unless a recognised medical college offers to admit by migration/transfer some students from another medical college no student can claim as of right admission by migration/transfer to that medical college."
5. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioners sought to rest their claim for admission by migration/transfer upon the provisions of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and particular on Chapter V of "The recommendations of the Medical Council of India on Graduate Medical Education" concerning "Migration/Transfer of students from one Medical College to another."
6. The Act, as observed by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1994) 2 JT 662 : (1994 AIR SCW 2515) was enacted by Parliament to provide for the reconstitution of the Medical Council of India, maintenance of a medical register for India and for matters connected therewith. Section 11(1) says that 'the medical qualifications granted by any University or medical institution in India which are included in the First Schedule shall be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of this Act. Section 12(1) says that the medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India which are included in the Second Schedule shall also be medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act. Section 13 says that the medical qualifications granted by certain other medical institutions in India not included in the First Schedule but included in Third Schedule shall as well be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act. Section 15 provides that the medical qualifications included in the Schedules to the Act shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State medical register. It further declares that save as provided in Section 25, no person other than a medical practitioner enrolled on a State medical register shall hold office as physician or surgeon under the Government or under any other institution maintained by a local or other authority. He shall also not be entitled to practice medicine in any State nor shall he be entitled to issue any certificate or give evidence in any matter relating to medicine. Any person acting in contravention of the said provision is made liable for punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or both. Section 16 empowers the Indian Medical Council to call upon every university and medical institution of India which grants a recognised medical qualification to furnish such information with respect to the 'courses of study and examinations to be undertaken in order to obtain such qualification, as to the ages at which such courses of study and examinations are required to be undergone and such qualification is conferred and generally as to the requisites for obtaining such qualification. Section 17 empowers the executive committee of the Indian Medical Council to appoint such number of medical inspetors as it may deem necessary to inspect any medical institution, college, hospital or other institution where medical education is imparted and to attend any examination held by it. Section 18 confers upon the council the power to appoint visitors to inspect such institutions. Section 19 empowers the council to withdraw recognition in case 'the courses of study and examination to be undergone in, or the proficiency required from the candidates at any examination held by any university or medical institution' do not conform to the prescribed standards. Recognition can also be withdrawn where 'the staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities or instruction and training' provided in such institution do not conform to the prescribes standards. Section 19-A empowers the Council to prescribe 'the minimum standards of education required for granting recognised medical qualifications (other than postgraduate medical qualification) by universities or medical institutions in India". Section 20 empowers the council to prescribe the standards of post graduate medical education 'for the guidance of universities' and to 'advise universities in the matter of securing uniform standards for post-graduate Medical Education throughout India'. For this purpose, the council can constitute a post-graduate medical education committee. Section 20-A empowers the council to prescribe the standards for professional conduct and etiquette and code of ethics for medical practitioners and to ensure their observance. Section 21 requires the council to maintain the Indian medical register. Sections 22 to 28 deal with matters relating to the said register, Section 29 obliges the Council to furnish such reports, accounts and other information as the Central Government may require. Section 32 empowers the Central Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act whereas Section 33 empowers the Council to make Regulations, with the previous approval of the Central Government, generally to carry out the purposes of the Act. Section 33 also specifies the several matters which can be provided by Regulations. The matters so specified include (j) the courses and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the subjects of examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be obtained, in Universities or medical institutions for grant of recognised medical qualifications. By Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, Sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C were added. These sections deal with establishment of new medical colleges or opening of new or higher courses of study or training in existing medical institutions."
7. Of significant relevance is Chapter V of "The recommendations of the Medical Council of India on Graduate Medical Education" (referred to hereafter as "The Medical Council recommendations") which deals with migration/transfer of the students from one Medical College to another, in terms of which :
"(a) A student studying in a recognised medical college may be allowed to migrate/ transfer to another recognised medical college under another/same university.
(b) The migration/transfer can be allowed by the University concerned within three months after passing the 1st professional examination, as a rule.
(c) Migration/transfer of students during the course of their training for the clinical subjects should be avoided.
(d) The number of students migrating/ transferring from one medical college to another medical college during one year will be kept to the minimum so that the training of the regular students of that college is not adversely affected. The number of students migrating/ transferring to from any one medical college should not exceed the limit of 5% of its intake in any one rnedical college in one year.
(e) Cases not covered under the above regulations are to be referred to the Council for consideration on individual merits.
(f) An intimation about the admission of migrated/transferred students into any medical college should be sent to the Council forthwith."
8. Mr. S. N. Verma, Senior Advocate, appearing for some of the petitioners, sought to contend that, in the context of the provisions of the Act, it was Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations that conferred a right upon the petitioners to seek migration/transfer to other Medical Colleges. The argument being that though described as "recommendations" the 'Medical Council recommendations' were in fact 'Regulations' made by the Medical Council of India under the Act and as the Act had been made by Parliament under Entry 66 of the Union list the Medical Council recommendations would have overriding effect over any Government orders that may have been issued by the State Government in this behalf. Counsel went on further to argue that admissions to Medical Colleges by migration/transfer fall within the ambit of Entry 66 of List 1, as it empowers Parliament to make laws with respect to 'co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific behalf, that as determination of standards of higher education in various medical institutions in the country and their co-ordination could only be done by an apex body, which in terms of the provisions of the Act was the Medical Council of India, therefore, this matter, that is, of admission of students by migration/transfer, could not be covered by Entry 25 of List III. In other words, it came exclusively within the ambit of Entry 66 of List 1.
9. To emphasise the respective fields of Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III reference was made to Osmania University Teachers Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 2034 where the legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh legislature to enact the Andhra Pradesh Cornmissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986 under Entry 25 of List III was challenged, on the ground, that in the context of the provisions of the University Grants Commission 1956, it encroached upon the field of Entry 66 of List I. In upholding this challenge the Court held that the Andhra Pradesh Act had been drawn, by and large, in the same terms as the University Grants Commission Act though it contained some more provisions than the former. Both the enactments, however, dealt with the same subject matter, that is, with co-ordination and determination of excellence of standards of teaching and examination in the University. The encroachment by the State legislature upon the Union List was thus held to be patent and obvious and the impugned legislative enactment was consequently declared void and inoperative.
10. Turning to the provisions of Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations, counsel attempted, with great emphasis, to construe the word 'may' in clause (a) thereof, to mean 'shall' in order that the provisions of this Chapter are read in imperative form rather than merely as an enabling provision. Here again, the argument was founded upon the plea, though put in a different way, namely, that clause (a) conferred a discretion to permit migration/transfer, but it was coupled with an obligation to consider such claim when made. Seen in this light, it was contended, the word 'may' had to be read as 'shall'. Reference was, in this behalf, made to two judgments of the Supreme Court where the word 'may' occurring in the relevant provisions was read as 'shall'. These judgments being State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh, AIR 1963 SC 1618 and L. Hirday Narain v. Income-tax Officer, Bare-illy, AIR 1971 SC 33.
11. Coming back to the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that though described as "recommendations" the Medical Council of India had, in fact, prescribed "Regulations" governing migration/transfer of students from one Medical College to another, it was said that the Supreme Court too had taken them to be "Regulations" and not mere "recommendations". In support reference was made to the judgment in Medical Council of India v. Silas Nelson, AIR 1994 SC 777. The matter there concerned migration from an unrecognised Medical Institution to a recognise Medical College. In dealing with this matter, the Court while referring to clause V of the Medical Council recommendations called it "Regulation V". Stress was also laid upon clause E of the Medical Council recommendations being described, by the High Court, to be "mandatory recommendations approved under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956".
11A. A plain reading of Silas Nelson's case (AIR 1994 SC 777) (supra) cannot, however, but bring out the tenuous nature of the contention raised. The expression "Regulation" was no doubt used, but without, in any manner, going into the distinction between "Regulations" and "recommendations", in the context of the provisions of Chapter V of the Medical Council Recommendations. No occasion, in fact, arose for the Court to consider, much less decide, whether the Medical Council recommendations in this behalf were "recommendations" or "Regulations".
12. Further, as regards the said Chapter V, counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S. N. Verma, also argued that it conferred a right upon a student to invoke the exercise of its provisions and to thereby seek migration/ transfer from one Medical College to another and this in turn, cast a corresponding obligation upon the State to consider such a claim when put forth by a student and to thereafter allow it or to reject it, in fair and reasonable manner, but not arbitrarily. The contention, in. other words,.being that it could not be said "I have the power but I will not exercise it. 'The contention raised was thus designed to mean that as there vests power with the State to permit migration/transfer of a student from one Medical College to another, a student had a corresponding right to invoke the exercise of it and if invoked, it would be incumbent upon the State to consider such a claim.
13. An argument was next raised that even if it be taken that admission to Medical Colleges came within the ambit of Entry 25 of List III, migration/transfer, it was said, was not 'admission" as it came after admission had been granted. Considered in this light, it was contended, the State Government was not empowered to prescribe any conditions for migration/transfer contrary to those in Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations. In other words, the said Chapter V rendered such admission permissible.
14. Reference in passing was also made to the aspect of national integration, involved in the transfer of medical students from a college outside the State to one in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Counsel, in this behalf, cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suman Gupta v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1984 UP LBEC 98 : (AIR 1983 SC 1235) where the question raised was with regard to the scheme of the State Government to select by nomination candidates for admission to seats reserved in Medical Colleges outside the State. This matter was dealt with on the assumption that national integration, which was a "highly commendable and laudable objective" could be effectively served by a policy encouraging the admission of candidates of State to seats in the Medical Colleges of another State.
15. Another Senior counsel, Mr. K. N. Tripathi, appearing for some of the other petitioners, chose to put across a similar point but in a somewhat different manner, namely, that admission, he argued meant only initial entry to a course and as under Section 33(2) of the Act, the Medical Council was empowered to recognise or permit the various parts of the M.B.B.S. course to be completed in different Medical Colleges, it must be taken to have within its ambit the requisite power and authority to regulate and permit migration/ transfer of students and this being so, the State could, either under Entry 25 of List III nor by recourse to the provisions of Article 162 of the Constitution, prescribe conditions for or deny migration/transfer.
16. The Medical Council of India, on its part, took the stand that the Regulations pertaining to migration/transfer came within the ambit of Entry 66 of List I and further that the provisions of Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations had statutory force, having been framed under Section 33 of the Act. Emphasis, in this behalf, was placed upon the letter to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of November 30, 1977, whereby approval of the Central Government was conveyed for the recommendations of the Expert Body on graduate medical education except Chapter II thereof, which dealt with selection of students. Approval to this chapter too was later granted by the Central Government by its letter of October 15, 1979. The argument thus being that the said Chapter V had been framed under Section 33 of the Act after approval of the Central Government.
17. Mr. V. K. S. Chaudhary, appearing for the Medical Council of India, however, went on to add that though the provisions of Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations were statutory in nature, no student could claim migration/transfer thereunder as of right.
18. A wholly divergent stance was taken up by the Advocate General. The plea put forth on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh being that the provisions of Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations pertaining to migration/transfer were neither Rules or Regulations framed under Section 33 of the Act. They were thus neither statutory nor mandatory, but were rather merely recommendatory and directory in nature.
18A. It will be seen that two questions thus emerge :--
1. Whether the power to frame Rules or Regulations pertaining to migration/transfer comes within the scope and field of Entry 66 of List I, and
2. If it is so, whether the provisions of the said Chapter V have been framed under the Regulation making powers conferred by Section 33 of the Act.
19. The contentions raised regarding admission by migration/transfer founded upon the provisions of the Act and particularly Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations, though attractive on the face of it, recede into oblivion in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (1994) 2 JT 662 : (1994 AIR SCW 2515), where it was held that the power to regulate admission to courses of study in medicine is traceable to Entry 25 of List III and the States, which establish and maintain medical institutions, have the power to regulate all aspects and affairs of these institutions except to the extent provided for by Entries 63 to 66 of List I. It being observed in this conlext "while regulation of admission to these medical courses may be incidental to the power under Entry 66 of List I it is integral to the power contained in Entry 25 of'List III. The State which has established and is maintaining these institutions out of public funds must be held to possess the power to regulate the admission policy consistent with Article 14. Such power is an integral component of the power to maintain and administer these institutions."
Further, it was held that none of the Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 19-A, 22 and 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 "empowered the Council to regulate or prescribe qualifications or conditions for admission to such courses of study. No other provision in the Act does. It is thus clear that the Act does not purport to deal with, regulate or provide for admission to graduate or post-graduate medical courses."
20. Next to note is State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kumari Nivedita Jain, AIR 1981 SC 2045, where it was held that Regulation I of the Medical Council recommendations, which lays down the conditions or qualifications for admission to medical courses, comes within the competence of the Medical Council under Section 33 of the Act and it is thus mandatory; whereas Regulation II, which deals with process or procedure for selection from amongst eligible candidates for admission, was merely in the nature of a recommendation and was directory, as laying down the process or procedure of selection for admission of the candidates out of the candidates eligible or qualified for admission under Regulation I. Regulation II recommending the process for selection was thus outside the authority of the Medical Council under Section 33 of the Act.
21. Faced with this situation, counsel for the Medical Council of India sought to persuade us to hold that migration/transfer from one Medical College to another was not "admission" and, therefore, Parliament was empowered to legislate with regard to it and further that Section 33 of the Act specifically authorised the framing of Regulations with regard to it. In other words, it was under sub-sections (j) (k) and (1) of Section 33 of the Act, that Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations had been framed. An attempt was made here to press in aid the observations in Navedita Jain's case (AIR 1981 SC 2045) (supra) "Sub-sections (j), (k) and (1) relate to post admission stages and the period of study after admission in Medical Colleges". The argument being that as migration/transfer was a post admission stage, the provisions of the said Chapter V were clearly Regulations framed under sub-sections (j), (k) and (1) of Section 33 of the Act.
Before proceeding further, reference may be made to the provisions of Section 33, subsections (j), (k) and (1) thereof. These subsections read as under :--
"(j) the courses and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the subject of examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be obtained in Universities or medical institutions for grant of recognised medical qualifications;
(k) the standards of staff, equipment, accommodation training and other facilities for medical education;
(1) the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners, and the conditions of admission to such examination."
22. A plain reading of these sub-sections leaves no manner of doubt that Regulations relating to migration or transfer of students from one Medical College to another, do not come within the regulation making field carved out for the Medical Council of India, under the Act. The nearest that can come to admission by migration/transfer are perhaps the words "the conditions of admission to such examination" in sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act, but migration/transfer can by no means, be construed as a condition for admission to as a Medical Course.
23. The other distinction sought to be drawn between initial admission to a medical course and admission by migration/transfer, was on the ground that whereas the initial admission was to a medical course, admission by migration/transfer was to another medical institution. This too cannot stand scrutiny, as admission to a course in a particular college cannot by itself permit continuance of that course in another medical institution, unless a student is allowed to take or complete the course in the other medical institution. This can obviously be done only by admission to that institution.
24. It follows, therefore, that the power to regulate admission to Medical Colleges is not the one covered by Entry 66 of List I, but one which falls within the ambit of Entry 25 of List III. This being so, it lies within the competence and authority of the State Government to frame Regulations regarding admissions and further, that the Act does not deal with nor does it provide for, admission to Medical Colleges and more specifically that it does not authorise the framing of Regulations for admission by migration/transfer.
25. It is also pertinent to note that in its language too, the provisions of Clause V are couched in just such terms. Besides clause (a) of Chapter V which says that students may be allowed to migrate/transfer to another recognised Medical College, clause (d) goes on to say that admission of students by migration/transfer "should not exceed the limit of 5 per cent of its in take in any one medical college in one year". In other words a maximum limit is indicated, leaving it to the state to fix that, or any lower limit, if al all, it chooses to permit such admissions. It is apparent, therefore, that both in law and by its intent, as expressed by the Medical Council in the said Chapter V, what is stated there, cannot but be taken to be merely recommendatory.
26. Before parting with the plea regarding the right of a student to claim admission by migration/transfer, mention must be made of the contention which, to use the colloquial expression, "takes the cake" was as put forth by Mr. S. K. Verma, counsel for Ankit Mehrotra, petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 3223 of 1991, namely, that the right to admission by migration/transfer accrued to the petitioners by the interlocutory orders passed by this Court on the basis of which such admissions had been granted. Counsel, in fact, went further and sought to invoke the maxim "Actus Curie Neminem Gravabit"(an act of the Court shall prejudice no man) founded upon the premise that the Court by granting the petitioners the interim relief of admission by migration/transfer, prejudiced them, in the sense that if now it is held that they were not entitled to such admission and it has thus to be cancelled, they would lose the years of study put in by them since then. The prejudice, in other words, being the grant by the court of the interim relief claimed by the petitioners.
27. It would indeed the straining one's the credibility to hold that a person, who approaches the Court for relief, must be deemed to have been prejudiced by the relief claimed being granted to him. There could be no plea more untenabe and lacking in any semblance of merit than that the grant of interim relief, which the petitioners were not entitled to, conferred upon them an enforceable righl to such relief, when their petitions are taken up for final hearing. This contention has obviously, to be stated, merely to be repelled.
28. The inevitable conclusion that emerges is that no student has an inherent right to obtain admission by migration/transfer to another Medical College. Such admission, as the Supreme Court in Prabhu Desai's case (AIR 1993 SC 1736) (supra) put it, being "subject to which (conditions) migration/ transfer is permitted."
29. Further, the provisions of the Act and the Medical Council recommendations, including Chapter V thereof, are, in this context, to be read to be merely advisory or directory in nature, as it is for the State, which establishes and maintains the Medical Colleges, to lay down the mode and criteria for such admissions and this the State Government is competent to do in the exercise, both, of its legislative power under Entry 25 of List III as also executive power under Art. 162 of the Constitution. This being so, whether the word 'may' occurring in Chapter V, Cl. (a) is read as 'may' or 'shall' loses its relevance. These provisions are thus to be taken to be merely enabling and recommendatory in nature.
30. It follows, therefore, that in laying down the rules or guidelines governing admission by migration/transfer, the State Government may deviate from what is prescribed In Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations even to the extent of prohibiting altogether admissions by migration/ transfer. In other words, it would be well within the power and competence of the State Government to provide that all seats in Medicai Colleges shall be filled only on the basis of the common entrance test,
31. Having said this, we must, however, hasten to add, that even though directory in nature, the recommendations of the Medical Council of India as contained in Chapter V are entitled to, nay must be given, due weight and consideration, coming as they do, from the apex body of the medical profession in the country and being founded upon the deliberations and opinion of an expert body thereof and also, it appears, having the approval of the Central Government too.
32. The only aspect of the said Chapter V that now survives for comment is Cl. (e) thereof, which the Advocate-General sought to brand as being an unbridled power, arrogated to itself by the Medical Council of India, without any guidelines or Rules to govern its exercise.
33. It will be recalled that Cl.(e) of Chapter V enables the Medical Council of India to consider cases for migration/ transfer "on individual merits." It does not go further to mention any guidelines or criteria for considering such "individual merits."
34. The procedure adopted by the Medical Council of India, while dealing with applications of students seeking migration, has however been set forth in its Vth Supplementary-affidavit where it is stated :
"(a) If a student who is studying in a recognised medical college applies for migration/transfer within 3 months after the first professional examination along with required 'no objection certificates' from the relieving and the transferee medical colleges within the permissible 5% migration quota, then the MCI has only to give the formal no objection which in such cases may be issued by the officer of the MCI dealing with these matter.
(b) All cases of request by medical students for migration/transfer, which do not satisfy all the conditions in sub-els, (a) to (d), are referred to the Migration Sub-Committee duly constituted under the Act.
(c) All these applications falling under sub-cl. (e) received by the MCI from the concerned students/authorities received before the meeting of the Migration Sub-Committee are formatted giving details regarding the cases and are incorporated in the agenda circulated to members of the Migration Subcommittee. As a normal practice, a separate clause is put in the agenda for discussion of 'any matter with the permission of the Chair.' Further all these applications which fall under sub-cl. (e) of Cl. (v) or require reference to the Migration Sub-Committee received after the agenda is circulated, but before the date of the meeting, are also placed before the Sub-Committee. This is done only with a view to avoid any hardship and delay in the case of deserving candidates."
35. Further, students seeking migration are required to furnish information as set out in a pro forma prepared by the Medical Council of India, which is reproduced here-
under :
"Sir/Madam, This is to acknowledge the receipt of your letter No. -----dt. ----- in connection with migration of M/Miss -----from-----Medical College,-----to-----Medical College, -----
2. You are requested to kindly forward the following documents for consideration of this migration by this Council.
(i) No Objection Certificate from relieving college ----- stating that the migration is within 5% migration quota.
(ii) No Objection Certificate from -----
----- Medical College, -----
----- to which you wish to migrate stating that the migration is within 5% quota of annual admission.
(iii) Reasons for not applying within 3 months after passing the Ist Professional Examination.
(iv) You have not enclosed photocopy of mark-sheet of Ist Professional Examination passed by you.
(v) Reasons for migration with documentary proof have not been mentioned.
(vi) Your application has not been routed through proper channel i.e. College where migration is sought for.
3. Since ----- Medical College, ----- is not recognised by the Medical Council of India, your application for migration cannot be considered."
36. The affidavit goes on to say that applications of the students seeking migration, after scrutiny, are placed before the Migration Sub-Committee which then considers the cases on individual merits. The Executive Committee of the Medical Council of India, which is an elected body under the Act, may also take up cases of migration, besides others, which the Migration Sub-Committee may refer to it.
37. What is important to note is, that at its meeting held on July 8, 1988, the Migration Sub-Committee framed certain guidelines for considering the cases of migration. These guidelines being :--
"(i) Serious illness of the student warrant-the change of place duly supported by proper medical certificates.
(ii)Serious illness/death of the parents warranting the students to be with the parents or nearest to the-place of residence of the parents. (iii) Marriage of the students warranting to live with the spouse at the place of migration.
(iv) Circumstances which may lead to the danger to the life of the candidate in case he continues to study in the parent institution."
It was, however, further added :
"There may be further special circumstances, for example break up of the USSR which forced the students reading in medical colleges of USSR to come to their motherland or the militancy in Kashmir or Srilanka resulting in student's exodus. In such cases fresh guidelines apart from the aforesaid, may be adopted; or the Migration Sub-Committee is free to adopt other norms suitable to the conditions arising out of extraordinary situation. Often in extraordinary circumstances, the Central Government issues directions/ requests to the States for sympathetic consideration of the placement of the candidates involved."
38. Seen in the context of the guidelines adopted by the Medical Council of India and the procedure it has laid down for dealing with applications for migration, there can be no escape from the conclusion that a very fair and reasonable manner of dealing with such applications has been evolved and is being followed. At any rate, as held earlier, the provisions of Chapter V do not have statutory force and are merely recommendatory in nature. This being so, we are not persuaded to hold that clause (e) of Chapter V deserves to be struck down as conferring unwarranted power and authority for intrusion into the field of migration of students or that it is capable of arbitrary use. It of course goes without saying that, if in any particular case, migration of a student is recommended, for reasons which cannot be justified, the Courts can certainly steps in to provide the requisite legal remedy.
39. Such being the law, we turn now to the three orders issued by the State Government pertaining to admissions in Medical Colleges by migration/transfer from Medical Colleges outside the State. These being of December 31, 1986, September 25, 1991 and April 13, 1993 (for brevity, referred to hereinafter, as the 1986, 1991 and 1993 Order, respectively).
40. According to the 1986 Order, admission by migration/transfer was restricted to female students and that tpo only from "those outside colleges where the admission is not given on the basis of Capitation fee or differential fee."
41. Further, the facility of migration/ transfer was, in the first instance, to be given to the students of the U.P. State Medical Colleges and it was only for the remaining seats, if any, from "the transfer limit prescribed by Medical Council of India" that girls from medical colleges outside the State could be given admission. Not only this, such migration/transfer of female students from outside the State was confined to only two medical colleges, namely, those of Jhansi and Gorakhpur "where the admissions have been given only to the students securing minimum marks in this State in C. P. M. T. Examination."
42. The 1986 Order held the field till it came to be replaced by the 1991 Order, which imposed a complete ban on admissions by migration/transfer from outside the State. This ban remained in force for two years, till the 1993 Order again permitted such admissions, of course, subject to the conditions contained therein. This Order provides :--
"(1) Migration or transfer shall be allowed only within three months of passing of first professional examination.
(2) During any one year a maximum of five percent students of the intake capacity of any of the Government Medical Colleges or the King George's Medical College, Lucknow may be allowed to migrate or transfer to and from a recognised medical college subject to a maximum of five students in any of the Government Medical Colleges or the King George's Medical College, Lucknow, in one year; provided that no additional seat shall be created in any Government Medical College or the King George's Medical College, Luck-now, as a result of migration or transfer."
43. The order in which migration/transfer is to be allowed being :
"(a) students selected through Combined Pre-Medical Test or All India Entrance Examination for admission to under-graduate medical/dental course conducted by Central Board of Secondary Education and studying in any of the Government Medical Colleges or the King George's Medical College, Lucknow;
(b) students selected through All India Entrance Examination for admission to under-graduate medical/dental course conducted by Central Board of Secondary Education and studying in any recognised medical college outside the State of Uttar Pradesh.
(c) students selected through competitive examination and studying in any recognized medical college outside the State of Uttar Pradesh.
(d) M. B. B. S. students other than those mentioned in sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) studying in any recognised medical college outside State of Uttar Pradesh."
44. This order further goes on to provide that applications for migration/transfer shall be decided "strictly on merit to be determined on the basis of marks obtained in the first professional examination and keeping in view of the choice of the candidate."
45. A concerted attack was launched by the counsel for the petitioners on the legal validity of these three orders, namely, those of 1986, 1991 and 1993. To begin with, the aspect of the legislative competence of the State Government was again reverted to, this time, of course, with regard to the issuance of these orders. Reference was also again made to several judgments of the Supreme Court with a view to show that regulation of admission to Medical Colleges by migration/transfer fell exclusively within the domain of Entry 66 of List I. Further, the distinction, in this behalf, was sought to be repeated, between initial admission to a Medical College and by migration/transfer, implying thereby that joining a Medical College by migration/ transfer was not "admission." It will be recalled that both these points have already been considered and dealt with and, therefore, call for no further discussion. As shown earlier, the former clearly stands answered by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Singh's case (1994 AIR SCW 2515) (supra), while the latter patently lacks backing of any reason or logic.
46. There can be no manner of doubt that the pbwer to regulate admission to Medical Colleges falls, not under Entry 66 of List I, but comes within the ambit of Entry 25 of List III. This being so, the State Government possesses the requisite authority and power to frame regulations regarding such admission. What is more, the Act neither deals with nor provides for admissions to Medical Colleges. Both, on this account, as also on a plain reading of its provisions, Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations cannot but be treated as merely directory and recommendatory in nature. Once it is so held, no infirmity can be imputed to an order merely on the ground of it not being in confirmity with the provisions of the said Chapter V.
47. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate here to get out of the way the related plea put forth by the Counsel for the petitioners pertaining to admissions by migration/transfer, namely, that regulation of such admissions by the State Government could not be carried to the extent of completely barring them, as was done by the 1991 order. In other words, 'regulation' must fall short of 'prohibition'. To lend weight to this argument, Counsel cited State of U.P. v. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation, AIR 1979 SC 1459. The matter there concerned the regulation of supply of electricity under the Electricity Act, 1910 and the U.P. Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) Order. An argument was raised that what the State Government was authorised to do was to make an order providing for 'regulating' the supply, distribution, consumption, or use of energy, but it had not been conferred the power to prohibit the supply of energy to any consumer. In dealing with this ' contention, the Court observed (at p. 1465, Para 34) :--
"It appears that a distinction between 'regulation' and 'restriction' or 'Prohibition' has always been drawn, ever since Municipal Corporation of the City of Toronto v. Virgo, 1896 AC 88. 'Regulation' promotes the freedom or the facility which is required to be regulated in the interest of all concerned, whereas 'prohibition' obstructs or shuts off, or denies it to those to whom it is applied. The Oxford English Dictionary does not define "regulate" to include prohibition so that if it had been the intention to prohibit the supply, distribution, consumption or use of energy, the Legislature would not have contended itself with the use of the word "regulating" without using the word "prohibiting" or some such word, to bring out that effect."
48. The support of these observations stands severely whittled down by the later judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone, AIR 1981 SC 711 where in dealing with the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, reference was made to Section 15 thereof, which authorised making of rules and regulations for the grant of mining leases. The contention was raised that such rules could not provide for prohibition of the grant of mining leases. (Hindustan Aluminium Corporation (AIR 1979 SC 1459) (supra) was also referred to in this behalf. It was, however, held that 'regualtion' does not have "that rigidity of meaning as never to take in 'prohibition'. Much depends on the context in which the expression is used in the statute and the object sought to be achieved by the contemplated regulation."
49. Seen in this light and considering that provisions of Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations are merely recommendatory in nature, no bar or restriction can be taken to have been placed upon the power of the State Government to completely bar admissions by migration/ transfer.
50. Several counsel for the petitioners also vexed eloquent on the legal infirmity they attributed, particularly, to the 1986 and 1991 orders, on the ground that they had not been notified in the Gazette as required by law. The argument being that sub-Section (5) of Section 28 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1973 Act"), under which these orders had been issued, rendered it imperative that they be notified and in terms of the definition of "notification" or "publication" as contained in Section 4(29A) of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (in abbreviation "the 1904 Act"), such notification could only be by publication in the Gazette. As admittedly this had not been done, in the case of either of these orders, they were thus said to lack legal validity and this being so, they could not, therefore, stand in the way of students seeking admission by migration/transfer.
51. Before dealing with the point canvassed, it must be appreciated that once it is held that no right inherers in a student to seek admission by migration/transfer dehors, the Regulations made, in this behalf, permitting it and further that the provisions of Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations were merely directory, if Regulations made, pertaining to admission by migration/transfer, are held to be legally invalid, not even a slippery foothold, as it were, for seeking such admissions, survives.
52. Be that as it may, the contention raised, cannot even otherwise, be sustained. As originally enacted, sub-section (5) of Section 28 of the 1973 Act was in these terms :--
"(5) Admissions to medical and engineering colleges shall be regulated by such orders as the State Government may by notification in the Gazette, make in that behalf."
53. Later, by U.P. Act 15 of 1980, which came into effect from January 1, 1979, this provision came to be as it now reads:
"(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, admission to medical and engineering colleges and to courses of instruction for degrees in education or Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of medicine (including the number of students to be admitted), shall be regulated by such orders which if necessary may be with retrospective effect, but not effective prior to January 1, 1979} as the State Government may by notification make in that behalf."
The significant omission brought in by this amendment being of the words "in the Gazette" occurring between "notification" and "make in that behalf. With the legislature having deliberately so deleted the requirement of the notification being published in the Gazette, the petitioners cannot now be heard to say that an order passed under this provision of law would not be legally valid until and unless it is also published in the Gazette.
54. In an attempt to wriggle out of this situation, counsel for the petitioners turned to Section 4(29A) of the 1904 Act where "notification" has been defined to mean "a notification published in the Gazette of the State". The rationale for the omission of the words "in the Gazette" by the amendment in 1973 Act was sought to be attributed to the intention of the legislature to delete provisions that had become redundant in that Act. In other words, as "notification" meant publication in the Gazette, the words "in the Gazette" were, therefore, deleted from sub-section (5) of Section 28 of the 1973 Act. The credibility of this contention cannot, however, stand when reference is made to the other provisions of the 1973 Act where the requirement that the notification be published in the Gazette is, in these terms, specifically prescribed. One such instance being of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the Act. If indeed the intention of the legislature was to delete all references, to publication in the Gazette, as it had become redundant by virtue of Cl. (29A) of Section 4 of the 1904 Act, it logically follows that these words, wherever occurring in the Act, would have been deleted. The fact, therefore, that they have been specifically deleted from subsection (5) of Section 28 and not from the other provisions of the Act, is a clear pointer to the legislative intent, that publication in the Gazette of an order made under sub-section (5) of Section 28 was not an essential prerequisite. It follows, therefore, that no legal flaw can be attributed to the 1986 or the 1991 orders on the ground that they had not been publsihed in the Gazette.
55. Next followed the assertion that the two orders, namely, those of 1986 and 1991, were, at any rate, requried to be published in some form to be made known to those who would be concerned with them. No suggestion was however, attempted at the how and where of it. Significantly there is no averment even to the effect that the concerned parties were not aware of them nor is there any hint of any prejudice having been caused to any one, by the alleged absence of publication of these orders, rather a reference to the record of the matters before us shows that all the petitioners, as also the Principals of the Government Medical Colleges in Uttar Pra4esh, knew of them. This again is thus no ground for challege to these orders.
56. Counsel for the parties then moved on to specifically attacking the 1986 Orders as being discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as, it restricted migration/ transfer to girls and that too to just two Medical Colleges in the State, namely, these at Jhansi and Gorakhpur.
57. The stand of the State regarding the 1986 Orders, as spelt out in the counter-affidavit of Sri T. N. Tandon, Deputy Secretary in the Department of Medical Education and Training, was :--
"..... before issuance of the aforesaid G.O. dated 31-12-1986, the State Govt. noticed that students who either failed in CPMT Test of this State or failed to secure sufficient high merit so as to be entitled to admission to recognised Govt. Medical Colleges of U.P., in order to secure back door entry to the prestigious colleges of the State, generally seek admissions in either unrecognised or recognised Private Medcial Colleges of other States of the country upon payment of donations or heavy capitation fee. They thus avoid to compete and secure merit in Competitive Entrance Test and somehow or the other try to be admitted by transfer in the Medical Colleges of the State either in First Prof. MBBS Course itself or after passing the First Prof. MBBS course from the said College. It was also noticed by the State Govt. that some candidates who seek admission in recognised Govt. Medical Colleges outside the State of U.P. although they are residents of U.P. who could not secure high merit in CPMT Test of U.P., also try to secure admission by transfer in the Medical Colleges of this State. Their Merit in most cases is lower than those already admitted in the Medical Colleges of U.P. and transfer in First Prof. adversely affected the rights of other successful meritorious candidates of CPMT in waiting list who held higher merit than the applicants seeking transfers. As such to curb this malpractice and to protect the interest of meritorious and eligible candidates of this State the Govt. issued G.O. dated 31-12-1986."
58. As for the Medical Council of India, according to their counsel Mr. V. K. S. Chaudhary, there was no conflict between the 1986 order and the provisions of Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations and, therefore, it suffered from no legal infirmity.
59. The Constitutionality of the 1986 Order is ho longer open to challenge in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) 1812 of 1989 Secretary Medical and Health, Lucknow v. Shree Vilas, decided on March 13, 1989 where it was held that the Government Order of 1986 was not open to question in view of Clause (3) of Art. 15 of the Constitution. Further, as regards admission by migration/transfer being restricted to only two Medical Colleges, the reason is set out in the order itself, namely, "where admissions have been given only to the students securing minimum marks in the State C.P.M.T. Examination". What is more, if admission by migration/transfer is not a right vested in a student, migration, where permitted by any Rules or Order, cannot but be looked upon as a mere concession. Seen in this context too, to restrict such admision to two specific colleges cannot fasten upon the Rule or Order, so prescribing it, the label of discrimination, so as to render it vulnerable in law.
60. As regards the 1991 Order, the only ground on which it had been sought to be challenged was that it provided for a total prohibition on migration/transfer from Medical Colleges outside the State to Medical Colleges inside the state. This, as shown earlier, was clearly permissible for the State Government to do.
61. Finally, turningto the 1993 Order, the criticism sought to be levelled against it was merely that it categories students seeking migration/transfer, into four classes with reference to their mode of obtaining admission to the Colleges where they had been intially admitted. This was sought to be branded as unreasonable on the ground that as migration/transfer could only be sought after the passing of the First Professional Examination, the relevance of how admission was secured lost its significance. This contention cannot, however, be upheld. In the context of the highly competitive field of admissions to Medical Colleges and the need to maintain high standards of medical education, the mode of selection for admission, even after the passing of the First Professional Examination, cannot but retain its significance and relevance.
62-63. An attempt was also made to contend that determination of inter se merit of candidates for migration/transfer of the same category, on the basis of the result of the First Professional Examination was unreasonable, when seen in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Motital Nehru Medical College, Allahbad, AIR 1985 SC 1059 (at pp 1062-63) where it was said :--
"It would be wholly unjust to grant admissions to the students by assessing their relative merits with reference to the marks obtained by them, not at the same qualifying examination where standard of judging would be reasonably uniform but at different qualifying examinations held by different State Governments or Universities where the standard of judging would necessarily vary and not be the same. That would indeed be blantantly violative of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution."
These observations were made in the context of selection for admission to Medical Colleges for the 30% open seats available, on all India basis. The position here is, however, clearly distinguishable, in the sense that though the First Professional Examination may be from different Medical Colleges, it is as per a uniform syllabus and standard, prescribed by the Medical Council of India. All the colleges concerned, the transferer and the transferee colleges, being recognised medical collegesw, have per force to conform to it. Having regard to the cases before us, the question posed is, at any rate, purely academic, as no petitioner has come forth with a plea that he came in one of the categories mentioned in the 1993 Order but was denied admission on the basis of this inter se merit being assessed as per his result in the First Professional Examination.
64. It will thus be seen that all the three Orders, namely, those of 1986,1991 and 1993, were legal and valid and migration/ transfer could, therefore, only be sought and obtained in terms thereof.
65. To conclude discussion on the three Government Orders concerning admision by migration, reference may be made to the other pleas raised with regard to them. Mr. R.N. Singh, counsel for one of the petitioners, while conceding that a student had no inherent statutory right to seek admission by migration, however, contended that a student, at ay rate, had a right to be considered for admision. We fail to see, however, how such a plea can advance the case of any petitioner, as even if it is taken to be so, it could, at best, invite an order that the claim of the petitioner for such admission be considered, but unless and until a student is able to show his entitlement to admission by migration under the relevant Government Orders, such consideration would clearly be of no avail.
66. There was then an attempt on the part of some of the counsel for the petitioners to have retrospective effect to be given to the 1993 Order, with the obvious purpose of having a kind of ex post facto legality conferred upon admisions granted by virtue of interlocutory orders passed by this Court pertaining to the period when the 1986 or the 1991 Orders were in force. This indeed is an untenable contention. The right or thefacility of admission by migration has to be seen with refrence to the law prevailing at the time when admission is sought and not what it may be in the subsequent years. As is well-known, each year's admission is separate and distinct from that of any other.
67. Finally, there was the contention raised, with much vehemence, and on which great stress was laid, namely, that the Government blantantly disregarded its own orders, meaning thereby the 1986 and 1991 Orders, and having done so, how could it now turn round and insist upon its compliance from the other students. It would be discriminatory, it was contended, if Government was allowed to adopt such 'doubt standards', as it were. Reference, in some of the writ petitions, was made to several such instances. The replies of the State Government as contained in the affidavit of Sri T.N. Tandon in Writ Petition 10189 of 1992 -- (Km. Saumya Verma v. State of U.P.) would suggest that practically all these instances were of admissions granted by virtue of interlocutory orders of this Court or they were transfers within the State of Uttar Pradesh from one Government Medical College to another. The other category of such transfers being upon the special request of the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir to the Government of India, where some studnets, after obtaining the no objection certificates form the Medical Council of India, were admitted due to the special circumstances existing in that State. We refrain from going into this matter any further as the State Government has already ordered an enquiry and the report thereof is to be placed before the Supreme Court. The other aspect of this plea of discrimination is that even if it be taken that Government had, contrary to its own orders, wrongly permitted admission by migration, no enforceable right can be taken to have been created thereby in other students to obtain admission by migration, when otherwise not entitled to it.
68. Having dealt with the legal issues, when we turn now to consider the claim of each individual petitioner for admission by migration/transfer on merits, the strikingly glaring feature of this bunch of writ petitions that emerges is that none amongst them was legally entitled to this relief -- And yet, save just a few out of this large group before us, all the other petitioners were, by virtue of interlocutory orders passed by this Court, granted provisional admission by migration. This unfortunately must inevitably lend credence to what was said in the Supreme Court, namely, that such admissions "virtually make a mockery of the standard that a common entrance examination in the State was intended to ensure". What makes it worse is the many years that have gone by, in these matters, coming up for hearing now, as, in the meanwhile, many of the petitioners have already completed their M.B.B.S. Final Examination and more too, besides sevreal others, who are now in their final year. In other words, we are confronted with a virtual fait accompali, as it were. We cannot help but look back with anguish on the nature, type and number of interlocutory orders that were passed granting admission by migration to those who did not deserve such relief. Equally distrubing is the inaction of the State authorities like the Secretray Health, Director of Medical Education and the Principals of the Medical Colleges concerned, in allowing the situation to assume such proportions without initiating the requisite steps the situation demanded. No wonder, the finger of suspicion in this matter points to them.
69. In the context of admissions to medical courses, it will be recalled that it was over 10 years ago that the Supreme Court in Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow, AIR 1984 SC 186 observed (Para 3) :--
"..... Whenever a writ petition is filed provisional admission should not be given as a matter of course on the petition being admitted unless the court is fully satified that the petitioner has a cast iron case which is bound to succeed or the error is so gross or apparent that no other conclusion is possible."
70. What stands out so conspicuously here is the disregard of the Rule in Krishna Priya Ganguly's case (AIR 1984 SC 186) (supra). Had it been applied none of the petitioners could have been granted interim orders directing their provisional admission by migration.
71. Illustrative of the interlocutory orders passed in the matters before us is that in Writ Petition 21751 of 1992:
"Hon'ble A.S. Tripathi,J.
Heard.
Issue notice to the respondents calling for counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List for admission in the week commencing 21st Sept. 1992.
Meanwhile, the petitioner shall provisionally be admitted by respndent No. 2 in the 1st Professional M.B.B.S. Course in Baba Raghav Das Medical College, Gorakhpur, provided there is vacancy within the limit, as prescribed by the Medical Council of India.
D/- 18-6-1992 Sd/- A.S. Tripathi, J." Another being in Writ Petition No. 2905 of 1991: "Hon'ble M.L. Bhat, J. Issue notice.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, 1 hereby order that respondent No. 3, M.L.N, Medical College, Allahabad, will provisionally admit the petitioner Amit Kumar Gupta, provided there is a vacancy within the scope of 5%.
D/- 30-1-1991 Sd/- M.L. Bhat, J." Next, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 12003 of 1992: "Hon'ble M.P. Kenia, J.
Learned Standing Counsel has accepted service of notice of the petition on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3.
Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the several orders passed in various matters quoted in paragraphs 24 and 37 (both inclusive) of the writ petition.
In the light of the various earlier orders quoted and in the light of the facts and circumstances, respondents, 1 and 2 are directed to provisionally admit the petitioner, Sony Thomas, in the First Professional M.B.B.S. Course in the M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad, provided there is vacancy within the scope of 5 per cent, quota reserved for outside studens as mentioned in the recommendations of the Medical Council of India. This order may be varied or modified on application by the respondents concerned after filing their respective counter-affidavits.
Petition to be listed for admission on 20th July, 1992.
D/- 13th Apr. 1992. Sd/- M.P. Kenia, J."
72. A similar order was passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 42682 of 1992 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition 42671 of 1992:
"Hon'ble Vijay Bahuguna, J.
Standing Counsel is granted a month's time to file a counter-affidavit.
List for admission in the second week of January, 1993.
Meanwhile the respondents are direted to give provisional ad mission to the petitioner, if seat is vacant in the first year professional M.B.B.S. Course in M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad keeping in mind recomendations made in Annexure "1" and "1 -A" to the writ petition.
The respondents shall comply with this order within two weeks from the date of copy of this order is served upon them.
D/- 27-11-1992. Sd/- V. Bahuguna, J."
73. All these and several other similar interlocutory orders were passed pertaining to admissions by migration from unreconized Medical Colleges outside the State to recognized Government Medical Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The fig leaf of legal cover for such orders being the recommendations of the Medical Cuncil of India. It deserves note that even according to the provisions of Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations, migration was permissible only from recognised Medical Colleges and not unrecognized one and yet contrary to this too, such interlocutory orders directed admission by migration from unrecognized Medical Colleges.
74. Not only this, but the recommendations of the Medical Council of India also clearly provided for admission by migration only after the passing of the First Professional M.B.B.S. Examination and here admission was being directed to the First Professional M.B.B.S. Course, which was again contrary to the very recommendations on the basis of which these interim orders were purported to be founded. It will be seen, therefore, that there was not even a semblance of regard to the rule in Krishna Priya Gangully's case (AIR 1984 SC 196) (supra).
75. Turning next to the other category of cases, namely, claims for admission from recognised private Medical Colleges outside the State to recognized Government Medical Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh, a similar picture is revealed, as would be apparent from the interim order passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 11735 of 1990:
"Hon'ble Anshuman Singh, J.
Issue notice.
The respondents are directed to admit the petitioner and to continue his studies in Second Professional M.B.B.S. Course, in Moti Lal Nehru Medical College Allahabad provided the seat is available.
D/ 18-5-1990. Sd/-A. Singh, J."
and in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 8840 of 1990:
"Hon'ble Anshuman Singh, J.
Issue notice.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner and in view of the various orders passed in similar matters by this Court which have been quoted in the stay application I hereby directed the Principal, S.N. Medical College, Agra, to admit the petitioner in IIIrd semester of Ist year profesional course and permit him to appear in the examination which shall commence from May 3) 1990.
D/- 25-4-1990. Sd/- A. Singh, J."
76. Next, there is the order in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 42646 of 1992 and the writ petitions mentioned below :--
"Hon'ble Vijay Bahuguna, J.
Learned Standing Counsel is granted one month time to file a counter-affidavit. List this petition for admission is the 2nd week of January, 1993.
Meanwhile the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to give provisional admission to the petitioner in the 2nd professional M.B.B.S. Course within a period of 15 days from the date the certified copy of this order is placed before them. However, this provisional admission will be given within the scope of 5% and the merit criteria.
D/- 25-11-1992. Sd/- V. Bahuguna, J."
and in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 3223 of 1991:
"Hon'ble M.L. Bhat, J.
Respondents 1 and 3 are represented by Standing Counsel. Let respondent No. 2 and 4 be served. List for admission after service is complete.
It is directed that the respondent No. 2 shall admit the petitioner in the 1st Professional M.B.B.S. Course in the S. N. Medical College, Agra, provided there is a vacancy within the scope of 5%. If he is admitted, he may be permitted to appear in the ensuing examination.
D/-8-2-1991 Sd/-M.L. Bhat, J." Civil Misc. Writ Petition 10189 of 1992: "Hon'ble M.P. Singh, J.
List this writ petition along with the record of Writ Petitions No. 13248 of and 12039 of 1987 in the week commencing 18th May, 1992. In the mean time the learned Standing Counsel may file a counter-affidavit in this case.
Respondent No. 3 is directed to admit the petitioner provisionally in II Final professional M.B.B.S. Course in Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad within a period of two weeks from the date of the filing of the certified copy of this order before him.
However, this order will be subject to the final result of the writ petition.
D/- 31-3-1992. Sd/- M.P. Singh, J."
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 20905 of 1990 "Hon'ble S.D. Agarwala, J.
Learned Standing Counsel is granted three weeks' time to file a counter affidavit.
Until further orders of this Court, the respondent No. 4, the Principal, Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College Jhansi, is directed to admit the petitioner provisionally in the second year M.B.B.S. Course, provided there is a vancay within the scope of 5% in reference to the conditions laid down by the Medical Council of India.
D/-17-12-1990 Sd/-S.D. Agarwala, J."
77. In these and the several other similar orders too, it will be seen that it was while issuing notice to the respondents that directions were issued to admit the petitioners. Not only this, as mentioend earlier, even though according to the Medical Council recommendations migration could only be after the First Professional Examination, admissions were directed ' to the First Professional Course. Here again non-compliance with the rule in Krishna Priya Ganguly's case (AIR 1984 SC 186) (supra) stands out in bold relief.
78. A reference to the interlocutory orders passed in such cases bring out another aspect of the matter, namely, the non-compliance by the Principals of the Medical Colleges concerned of the conditions prescribed in the orders of this Court directing admission by migration. One such order being that passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 17941 of 1992:
"Hon'ble S.P. Srivastava, J.
List this petition along with the record of writ petition No. 13248 of 12039 of 1987 in the week commencing 20th July, 1992. In the meanwhile the learned Standing Counsel may file a counter affidavit.
The respondent No. 3 is direceed to admit the petitioner provisionally in IInd Professional M.B.B.S. Course in Moti Lal Nehru Medical College Allahabad within a period of two weeks from the date of filing a certified copy of this order before him, provided the petitioner satisfies the requirements contemplated under the relevant regulation in force, framed by the Medical Council of India, and a vacant seat is available.
It may, however, be clarified that the Principal, respondent No. 3 shall grant the provisional admission strictly on merit determined on the basis of marks secured in the entrance examination after considering all the applications for transfers which have been received by him till today.
In case, the petitioner is not found entitled to provisional admission in Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad in that event the respondent No. 4 shall consider his case for provisional admission in S. N. Medical College, Agra, in accordance with the directions given above.
The provisional admission, if granted to the petitioner, shall be subject to the further orders of this Court.
D/- 21-5-1992 Sd/- S.P. Srivastava, J."
79. A readingw of the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent State in Writ Petition 10189 of 1992 (Saumy Verma v. State of U.P.), would show that there is much to be said in defence from the side of the State. The explanation put forth being that the petitioners after securing interim orders for admissions adopted "Pressure tactics and threats of contempt proceedings against the concerned officials with a view to secure admission wihtout allowing time and opportunity to the official con-
cerned to scrutinise and verify and to satisfy about the said conditions". It was said that the petitioner rushed to this Court and filed contempt proceedings on which notices were issued requiring personal presence of the respondents. Giving particular instances, reference was made to Writ Petition 1004! of 1992 -- Sameer Gupta v. State and the interim order passed therein on April 7, 1992, which directed the Principal of the Medical College, Allahabad, to admit the petitioner within two weeks, provided he satisfied the requirements of the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India. The petitioner, however, did not fulfil the conditions of the interim order or the Regulations of the Medical Council of India. What is more, a copy of this order was received by the Government after over two and half months. Before a copy of the interim order was received by the State Government, a contempt petition was filed against the Secretary to the Government, Director Medical Health and the Principal of the college concerned. When the matter came up before S.C. Verma, J. on August 3,1992, the respondents were directed to appear in person before him on August 18, 1992, on which date one of the respondents filed his counter affidavit, while the others did so on the next date of hearing, which was August 31, 1992. Along with one of the counter affidavit was filed a Circular Order issued by the Director Medical Health to the Principals of the Medical Colleges to comply with such orders of the High Court. The Court in turn directed the respondents to file "compliance reports" with regard to the individual cases where interim orders had been passed and the case was directed to be listed for Sept. 22, 1992. This was done.
80. Not ony this, reference in this counter affidavit was also made to the Principal of a Medical College having to admit 8 students against only 5 vacancies that were available with one of the students admitted not being eligible for such admission.
81. Turning to the interlocutory orders, obtained by some students of the Katihar Medical College, Katihar, which is an unrecognized Medical College, like those in Writ Petition 25929 of 1991 -- Ashish Kumar v. State, Writ Petition 12003 of 1992 -- Soni Thomas v. State and Writ Petition 12004 of 1992 -- Pankaj Kumar Saxena v. State and other similar cases where the petitioners were, by virtue of interlocutory orders, directed to be given admissions by migration, these admissions, it was said, being in contravention of the State policy, were cancelled by the State Government, whereupon the petitioners filed petitions for contempt and personal appearance of the respondents was directed. The respondents then approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by its order of March, 1993, stayed the contempt proceedings as also the interim orders directing admission of the petitioners. The matter was disposed of with the direction to the High Court to decide the writ petitions as expediti-ously as possible.
82. Next, reference was made to the interim order passed by S.C. Verma, J. on April, 17, 1992 in Writ Petition 8763 of 1992 Ishita Misra v. State of U.P., directing the petitioner to be provisionally admitted in the 5 per cent vacancies in accordance with the Regulations of Medical Council of India. By a subsequent order of July 10, 1992, admission was directed to be granted within three days of a copy of the order being served upon the respondents. Pursuant to this order provisional admission was consequently granted to the petitioner, but it was avened that the order passed was contrary to law.
83. In another matter, to which specific refrence was made, was Writ Petition 1948 of 1993 -- Afzal Jamal Nayer v. State of U.P. -- Where S.H.A. Raza, J. of the Lucknow Bench, by his order of August 20, 1993, directed the admission of the petitioner by migration to the Medical College, Kanpur, in the Third Year of the Professional Clinic Course. The petitioner had sought his transfer from' Jhelam Valley Medical College, Srinagar, which is not a recongnized Medical College and what is more, even according to the recommendations of the Medical Council of India, transfer to the Third Year M.B.B.S. Course, where clinic subjects are taught, was not permissible. The review petition filed against this order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Judge. In the meanwhile, the petitioner Afzal Jamal Nayer filed a contempt Petition in the High Court and the respondents were thus left with no alternative but to provisionally admit the petitioner. An Appeal was then filed to the Supreme Court, which was remanded with the direction that the writ petition be disposed of expeditiously.
84. Such instances of admissions by migration followed by proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act being initiated against the respondents even when as per the conditions set out in the interlocutory order itself the petitioners were not entitled to provisional admission, do indeed lend plausibility to the explanation put forth for granting provisional admisions without going into the condition under which admissions had been directed to be given.
85. What deserves special mention is the Interlocutory order passed in Writ Petition 87763 of 1992. Km. Ishita Misra v. State of U.P. -- on July 10, 1992. At the interlocutory stage it was held by S.C. Verma, J. that the 1991 Order was beyond the competence of the State Government as it encroached upon and infringed the powers of the Central Government and Parliament under Entry 66 of List I and further that this order was also repugnant to the Regulations framed under Section 33 of the Act. The learned Judge consequently held that he was "prima facie of the view that the petitioner is entitled to seek transfer on 5% seats available for this purpose." With respect, we cannot but observe that this view of the learned Judge is clearly untenable in law for reasons as have already been discussed.
86. It would be apt to quote here the observations made by Chief Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, AIR 19993 SC 2412 while dealing with a matter pertaining to admission to the Internship Course by virtue of interim orders in the writ petition (para 6):
"We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly mis-
placed, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the crtiticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it. leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications might ensue from the interim order itself."
87. Interlocutory orders similar to the ones, as quoted above, abound in this bunch of writ petitions, even with regard to the other-categories of cases, not excluding migration/ transfer from recognized Government Medical Colleges outside the State to such Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The enormity of the damage done by them and the prejudice caused to those who sought admissions to Medical College in a regular way by competition can very well be visualised. It is our earnest hope that what had happend was but an aberration never to be allowed to recur. We say this not only with reference to admissions to Medical Colleges, but also in other institutions as it would be equally relevant there.
88. What now confronts us is the situation vis-a-vis the petitioners brought about by so much time having elapsed between the date when they were provisionally admitted to Medical Colleges in Uttar Pradesh and these matters coming up for final hearing before this Court. As pointed out earlier, they were, no doubt, not entitled to admission by migration/transfer, but the fact remains that having been granted it, many have in the intervening period, even passed the M.B.B.S. Final Examination, indeed some have also completed their internship, while several others are in the Final Year now having passed their II Professional Examination from the Colleges where they had obtained such admissions by transfer. An interim order is, no doubt, not one on which, so to say"
castles can be built" as it in peril of being set aside or modified during the pendency of the proceedings and it is, at any rate, subject to the final decision of the court, but there are, however, judicial precendents where the Courts have permitted students to complete their studies in institutions where they were somehow admitted even though they were not entitled to such admission. These, the petitioners pressed in aid.
89. The Advocate General and the counsel for the Medical Council of India were, on the other hand, equally vehement in opposing the prayer of the petitioners either that the degrees obtained by them be regularised or that they may be allowed to continue and complete their studies in the colleges where they had obtained admissions by virtue of the interlocutory orders of this Court. Mr. V. K. S. Chaudhary, counsel for the Medical Council of India, contended, in this behalf, that no question of any sympathy or equity arose in favour of the petitioners who were not entitled to such admissions, keeping in view, the highly competitive nature of the rush for such admissions. The Advocate General on his part, contended that it would be in the larger national interest that such relief is denied to those who were not entitled to admission by migration as the petitioners, in these cases.
90. In dealing with this aspect of the matter, we cannot help but observe that Court are far too often faced with similar situations as we now have before us, namely, of admissions being granted, by interlocutory orders passed by the Courts, to persons who are eventually found not entitled to such admissions but who, as pointed out earlier, by the time the matter comes up for final hearing have either completed their course or are nearing its completion. In other words, the Court has before it a virtual fait accompli. Similar is the situation here.
91. Kapil Kumar Juneja, the petitioner in Writ Petition 18063 of 1989 was admitted to the Adichunchanagiri Institute of Medical Sciences Belaur Mandya in Karnataka in August, 1987. He passed the First Professional Examination from this College on February 10, 1989, before seeking admission by migration to the Government Medical College at Kanpur. In pursuance of the interim order passed therein on May 16,1990, he was admitted to Medical College Kanpur on July 11, 1990. At Kanpur he passed the Second Professional Examination in January, 1992 and the M. B. B. S. Final in March, 1993 and then went on to complete Internship too in March, 1994. He is also registered with the Medical Council of India.
92. Sheme Jain of Writ Petition 11716 of 1990 is the other petitioner, who had joined the Adichunchanagiri Institute of Medical Sciences in Belaur Mandya. She was admitted there in August, 1987 and passed her First Professional Examination in August, 1989. On the basis of the interim order passed in this petition on May 16,1990, she was admitted to the Medical College Kanpur on June 5, 1990. She passed the Second Professional Examination in June, 1992 and the M.B.B.S. Final in March, 1993. She has also completed her Internship.
93. While dealing with the cases of Kapil Kumar Juneja and Sheme Jain, it deserves note that the Adichunchanagiri Institute of Medical Sciences, Belaur Mandya, where they had been originally admitted, was not a recognised medical institute till October 17, 1993. In other words, it was an unrecognised Medical College both at the time when they were admitted as also when they passed their First Professional Examination from there, These are incidentally some instances of persons coming from an unrecognised Medical College having completed by now the M.B.B.S. Final, after admission by migration in pursuance of interlocutory orders passed by this Court.
94. Turning to admissions by migration/ transfer from recognised Medical Colleges, whether private or Government, outside the State of Uttar Pradesh to recognised Government Medical Colleges in this State, there is the case of Sri.Anand Misra, Writ Petition 11735 of 1990. He was admitted to the J.J.M. Medical College Devengere in Karnataka in 1988. He passed the First Professional Exa-mination from the college in February, 1990 and thereafter filed the present writ petition and on the basis of the interim order passed on May 18, 1990, he was admitted to the Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, from where he passed the M. B. B. S. Final Examination on March 29, 1993 and also completed his internship in May, 1994.
95. Km. Himani Agarwal, the petitioner in Writ Petition 11809 of 1990, was admitted to the M. R. Medical College, Gulberga in Karnataka during the 1988-89 session. She passed the First Professional Examination from that College in January, 1990 and then filed the present writ petition on May 21, 1990. By virtue of the interim order passed on that day she was admitted to the Medical College, Meerut on May 31, 1990, from where she passed the Second Professional Examination in March, 1992 and the M. B. B. S. Final in March, 1993. She also completed her internship in March, 1994.
96. Km. Anurita Babeja, the petitioner in Writ Petition 20434 of 1990, joined the Kasturba Medical College, Manipal in Karnataka in August, 1988. She passed the First Professional Examination from that college in February, 1990 and thereafter filed the present writ petition on August 18, 1990. On the next day, that is, on August 19, 1990, she obtained an interim order on the basis of which she was admitted to the Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. She passed the Second Professional Examination in November, 1991 and the M. B. B. S. Final in March, 1993. She also completed her internship in March, 1994.
97. U. N. Gupta, the petitioner in writ petition 11825 of 1990, joined the J. J. M. Medical College, Devangere in 1987 and passed the First Professional Examination from that College in August, 1989. He then filed the present writ petition on May 21, 1990 and by virtue of the interim order passed on that date, was admitted to the S. N. Medical College, Agra on May 29,1990. He passed the Second Professional Examination in July; 1992 and the M. B. B. S. Final in March, 1993. He has also completed his internship in March, 1994.
98. Piyush Kumar Upadhya, the petitioner in Writ Petition 13518 of 1991, joined the J. J. M. Medical College, Devangere in August, 1989. He passed the First Professional Examination from there in February, 1991. On filing the present Writ Petition in this Court on June 5, 1991, he obtained an interim order by virtue of which he was admitted to the Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. He passed the Second Professional Examination in February, 1993 and the M. B. B. S. Final in March, 1994.
99. Km. Vimi Khanjua, the petitioner of Writ Petition 18026 of 1989, joined the P. D. M. Medical College, Amravati in 1987 and passed the First Professional Examination from there in May, 1989. The present writ petition was filed on October 30, 1989 and by virtue of an interim order passed in May 16, 1990, she was admitted to the Medical College at Kanpur in June, 1990. She passed the Second Professional Examination in April, 1992 and the M. B. B. S. Final in February, 1993. She has also completed her internship.
100. Waseem Anwar of Writ Petition 19623 of 1991 had joined the J.J.M. Medical College Devangere from where he passed the First Professional Examination in March, 1991. He joined the L.L.R. Medical College, Meerut by virtue of the interim order passed in this writ petition on July 27, 1991. He passed the Second Professional Examination in March, 1993 and the M. B. B. S. Final in March, 1994.
101. Girja Shander Singh, the petitioner in Writ Petition 11614 of 1990, joined Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Medical College, Bangalore in the 1986-87 session. He passed the First Professional Examination from there in February, 1990 and then by virtue of the interim order in this writ petition on May 14, 1990, he obtained admission in the Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. He passed the Second Professional Examination in April, 1992 and the M. B. B. S. Final in July, 1993. He has also completed his internship.
102. Ashutosh Pandey, the petitioner in Writ Petition 13652 of 1991 was admitted to the Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Medical College, Bangalore in August, 1989. He passed the First Professional Examination in April, 1991, and then by virtue of an interlocutory order passed in this writ petition on May 9, 1991, lie was admitted to the Medical College, Allahabad in July, 1991. He passed the Second Professional Examination in April, 1993 and the M. B. B. S. Final in March, 1994.
103. Akshat, the petitioner in Writ Petition 11830 of 1991, joined the J. L. M. Medical College, Belgaun in 1989 and passed the First Professional Examination from there in January, 1991. By virtue of the interim order passed in this petition he was admitted to the Medical College, Meerut on May 7, 1991 from where he passed the Second Professional Examination in November, 1992 and the M. B. B. S. Final in April, 1994.
104. Rajiv Misra of Writ Petition 26135 of 1990 had been admitted to the Kasturba Medical College, Manglaur in Karnataka in September, 1988. He passed the First Professional Examination from there on August
16. 1990. Later, on the basis of the interim order obtained in this petition on December
17. 1990, he was admitted to the Medical College, Gorakhpur in the same month, that is December, 1990. He passed the Second Professional Examination in 1992 and the M. B. B. S. Final in December, 1993.
105. Ajai Chandra Sharma of Writ Petition 18018 of 1990 had joined the J. L. N. Medical College, Relgaum in January, 1989. He passed the First Professional Examination in May, 1990. Later, by virtue of the interlocutory order passed on July 17, 1990, he was admitted to the Medical College, Agra from where he passed the Second Professional Examination in February, 1992 and the M. B. B. S. Final in September, 1993.
106. Km. Shalini Bajaj of Writ Petition 12039 of 1987 had joined the J.L.N. Medical College, Karnataka in the 1985-86 session. She passed the First Professional Examination from there in July, 1987. Later, by an interim order passed in this writ petition on July 6, 1987, she was admitted to the Medical College, Allahabad on July 15, 1987. She passed the Second Professional Examination in April, 1989 and the M. B. B. S. Filial in June, 1990. She has also completed her internship.
107. Vijai Mathur of Writ Petition 11403 of 1987 was admitted to the J.J.M. Medical College, Devangere in 1985. He passed the First Professional Examination in February, 1987. By virtue of the interim order passed in this petition on July 6, 1987, he was admitted in the Medical College, Allahabad on July 16, 1987. He passed the Second Professional Examination in November, 1988 and the M. B. B. S. Final in November, 1990. He has also completed his internship.
108. Vinod Kumar Singh of Writ Petition 4324 of 1988 had joined theJ. J. M. Medical College, Devangere during the 1986-87 session. He passed the First Professional Examination from there in February, 1988 and then on the basis of the interim order obtained by him in this petition on March 9, 1988, he joined the Medical College, Allahabad from where he passed the Second Professional Examination and then his M. B. B. S. Final too in April, 1993. He has also completed his internship.
109. Sharad Jain of Writ Petition 18730 of 1990 was admitted to the M. R. Medical College, Gulbarga in August, 1988. He passed his First Professional Examination from there in July, 1990 and by virtue of the interlocutory order passed in this petition he was admitted to the Medical College, Allahabad in August, 1990. He passed the Second Professional Examination in September, 1992 and the M. B. B. S. Final in March, 1994.
110. Rakesh Singh of Writ Petition 8931 of 1988 joined the J. J. M. Medical College, Devangere in the 1986-87 session. He passed the First Professional Examination from there in February, 1988 and then by virtue of the interim order passed in this petition on May 9, 1988, he was admitted to the Medical College, Gorakhpur from where he passed the Second Professional Examination in 1989 and the M.B.B.S. Final in September, 1991. He has also completed his internship.
111. Mahesh Chandra Dubey of Writ Petition 5446 of 1989 had joined the M. S. Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore in the 1987-88 session. He passed the First Professional Examination from there in February, 1989 and then by virtue of the interim order passed in this petition on March 13, 1989, he was admitted to, the M. L. N. Medical College, Allahabad in July, 1989. He passed the Second Professional Examination in December, 1991 and the M. B. B. S. Final in January, 1993. He has also completed his internship.
112. Siddeshwar Dayal of Writ Petition 5817 of 1989 had joined Kasturba Medical College, Manipalin 1987. He passed the First Professional Examination from there in March, 1989 and then on the basis of the interim order passed in this petition on April 3, 1989, he was admitted to the S. N. Medical College, Agra in April, 1989. He passed the Second. Professional Examination in January, 1991 and the M. B. B. S. Final in Novem-'ber, 1992. He has also completed his internship.
113. Vinay Chandra Srivastava of Writ Petition 1735 of 1987 was admitted to the J.L.N. Medical College, Belgaum in 1985. He passed the First Professional Examination from there in December, 1986. Later, by virtue of an interlocutory order passed in this petition, he was admitted to the King's George Medical College, Lucknow on May 12, 1987. He passed the Second Professional Examination in February, 1989 and the M. B. B. S. Final in August, 1990. He has also completed his internship.
114. Km. Deepali Chawla of Writ Petition 23117 of 1991 joined Madurai Medical College, Madurai in February, 1990 and passed the First Professional Examination from there in June, 1991. It was by an interim order passed on August 30, 1991, that she joined Medical College, Meerut on September 2, 1991. The Second Professional Examination was passed by her in November, 1992 and the M. B. B. S. Final in April, 1994.
115. Wasim Ahmad Siddiqui of Writ Petition 13571 of 1991 joined J. J. M. Medical College, Devangere in August, 1989. He passed the First Professional Examination from there in Febraury, 1991 and then by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court on May 6, 1991, was admitted to Medical College, Allahabad on June 3, 1991. He passed the Second Professional Examination in November, 1992 and the M. B. B. S. Final in March, 1994.
116. Km. Rakhi Seth of Writ Petition 837 of 1991 joined the M. R. Medical College, Gulberga in the 1988-89 session and passed the First Professional Examination in May, 1990. By an interim order passed in this petition on January 11, 1991, she was admitted to the Medical College, Meerut on January 16, 1991. It was in April, 1992 that she passed the Second Professional Examination and in November, 1993, the M. B. B. S. Final.
117. Km. Sarita of Writ Petition 20905 of 1990 joined the B. R. Ambedkar Medical College, Bangalore in the 1988-89 session. She passed the First Professional Examination from there in August, 1990 and then by virtue of the interim order passed in this petition on December 17, 1990, she was admitted to the Medical College, Jhansi on February 14, 1991. She passed the Second Professional Examination in July, 1992 and the M. B. B. S. Final in April, 1994.
118. Dushyant Singh of Writ Petition 9353 of 1989 joined the J. J. M. Medical College, Denvangere in the 1987-88 session. He passed the First Professional Examination from there in Febraury, 1989 and then on the basis of an interim order passed by this Court on May 8, 1989, he was admitted to the Medical College, Gorakhpur on May 16, 1989. He passed the Second Professional Examination in October, 1991 and the M.B.B.S. Final in August, 1992. He has also completed his internship.
119. Anshu Pandey of Writ Petition 11639 of 1990 joined the J. J. M. Medical College, Devangere in 1988 and passed his First Professional Examination from there in February, 1990. Later, by an interim order passed in this petition on May 15, 1990, he joined the Medical College, Allahabad on August 19, 1990. It was in February, 1992, that he passed the Second Professional Examination and in March, 1994 the M. B. B. S. Final. He has also completed his internship.
120. Imtiaz Ashraff of Writ Petition 26190 of 1990 joined the J. J. M. Medical College, Devangere in July, 1988. He passed the First Professional Examination in August, 1990 and then by the order of this Court of October 9, 1990, he joined the Medical College, Gorakhpur on October 15, 1990. He passed his Second Professional Examination in May, 1992 and the M. B. B. S. Final in March, 1994.
121. Shubhra Bajaj of Writ Petition 5311 of 1987 joined the J. L. N. Medical College, Belgaum in the 1985-86 session. She passed the First Professional Examination from there in December, 1986 and then on the basis of an interim order passed by this Court on March 23, 1987, she joined the Medical College, Allahabad. She passed her M. B. B. S. Final in July, 1990 and has also completed her Internship.
122. Sanjiv Agarwal of Writ Petition 26080 of 1994 joined the J. L. N. Medical College, Belgaum in July 1985. He passed his First Professional Examination from there in December, 1986 and then on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court on March 4, 1987, he was admitted to the King's George Medical College, Lucknow, on March 24, 1987. He passed the Second Professional Examination in March, 1989 and the M.B. B. S. Final in September, 1990. He has also completed his internship.
123. Vikram Agarwal of Writ Petition 4325 of 1988 (of the Lucknow Bench) joined the J. J. M. Medical College, Devangere during the 1986-87 session. He passed his First Professional Examination from there in February, 1988. Later on, the basis of the interim order passed by this Court on March 9, 1988, he was admitted to the Medical College, Allahabad from where he passed the Second Professional Examination in February, 1990 and the M. B. B. S. Final in April, 1991. He has also completed his internship.
124. Next come a set of cases pertaining to migration of students from one Government Medical College in this State to another.
125. VineetVarma of Writ Petition 12677 of 1987 was admitted to the Medical College, Jhansi on the basis of the C. P. M. T. Examination held in 1985. After passing the First Professional Examination from that College in August, 1987, he was, by virtue of an interim order passed in this petition on September 8, 1987 admitted to Medical College, Agra from where he passed both, the Second Professional Examination as also the M.B. B. S. Final. This final examination was passed in November, 1990. He has also completed his internship.
126. Anil Kumar Mudgal of Writ Petition 12071 of 1987 was admitted to the Medical College, Kanpur on the basis of the C.P.M.T. Examination held in 1985. He passed the First Professional Examination from there in 1987 and then on the basis of an interim order passed in July, 1987, he was admitted to the Medical College, Agra, from where he passed the M.B. 8. S. Final in February, 1991. He has also completed his internship.
127. Abhilasha Khare of Writ Petition 25252 of 1991 was admitted to the Medical College, Gorakhpur in October, 1989. She passed the First Professional Examination from there in July, 1991, and then on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court on September 5, 1991, joined the Medical College, Allahabad on October 10, 1991. She passed the Second Professional Examination in 1993 and her M. B. B. S. Final in March, 1994.
128. Amit Srivastava of Writ Petition 20614 of 1990 was admitted to the Medical College, Jhansi in 1989, from where he passed the First Professional Examination in August, 1990. By an interim order passed on August 23, 1990, he was admitted to the Medical College, Agra from where he passed the Second Professional Examination in March, 1992 and the M.B. B.S. Final in November, 1993.
129. Km. Jyotsna Sawhney of Writ Petition 24064 of 1994 was admitted to the Medical College, Aligarh in September, 1986. She passed her First Professional Examination from there in June, 1988 and then on the basis of the order passed by this Court on September 23, 1988, she joined the King's George Medical College, Lucknow on December 15, 1988. She passed her Second Professional Examination in October, 1990 and the M.B. B.S. Final in October, 1991. She has also completed her internship.
130. Ajit Dult Sharma of Writ Petition 6099 of 1987 was admited to the Medical College, Allahabad in 1985. After passing his First Professional Examination from there in January, 1987, he filed the present writ petition and by virtue of the interim order he was admitted to the Medical College, Agra from where he passed the Second Professional Examination in August, 1989 and then his M. B. B. S. Final in December, 1990. He has since, by now, left the country and is working as a Resident in a Hospital at Rochester, New York, after obtaining certificate of practice in the U. S. in 1992.
131. We now turn to cases where the petitioners, after their admission by migration, have passed their Second Professional Examination from recognised Medical Colleges.
132. V. R. Goel of Writ Petition 825 of 1991 joined the B. R. D. Medical College, Gorakhpur in 1989. He passed the First Professional Examination from there in July, 1990 and then by virtue of the interim order passed on January 11, 1991, he was admitted to the Medical College, Agra from where he passed the Second Professional Examination in July, 1992. He was due to take M. B. B. S. Final Examination in August-September, 1994.
133. Ashish Kumar of Writ Petition 23067 of 1991 joined the Gauhati Medical College in November, 1989. He passed the First Professional Examination from there in August, 1991 and then by virtue of the interim order passed on August 20, 1991, he was admitted to the Medical College, Kanpur on September 13, 1991. He passed his Second Professional Examination in February, 1993 and has also since appeared in the M. B. B. S. Final Examination, but the result has not been declared.
134. Km. Shiksha Goel of Writ Petition 25325 of 1991 joined the S. S. Medical College, Rewa in Madhya Pradesh in February, 1990. She passed the First Professional Examination from there in August, 1991 and then by virtue of an interlocutory order passed on September 5, 1991, was admitted to the Medical College, Meerut from where she passed her Second Professional Examination on April 21, 1993.
135. Shamir Misra of Writ Petition 21337 of 1991 joined the Bardwan Medical College in February, 1990 and passed his First Professional Examination from there in May, 1991. By an interlocutory order passed on August 5, 1991, he was admitted to the Medical College, Kanpur on September 7, 1991. He passed the First Professional Examination in February, 1993. It is also said that he appeared in the M. B. B. S. Final Examination in July-August, 1994, but the result is still awaited.
136. Manmohan Sharma, the petitioner in Writ Petition 40526 of 1992 joined Silchar Medical College in February 1991. He passed his First Professional Examination in July, 1992 and then on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court on November 23, 1992, obtained admission in Medical College, Jhansi. He passed his Second Professional Examination in March, 1994.
137. Km. Sandhya Dubey, the petitioner in Writ Petition 25581 of 1991, joined the Gauhati Medical College in January, 1990. She passed the First Professional Examination from there in August, 1991 and then by the interim order passed on September 12, 1991, was admitted to the Medical College, Gorakhpur on September 17, 1991. She passed her Second Professional Examination in June, 1993.
138. Suresh Chand Agarwal, the petitioner in Writ Petition 15357 of 1991, joined the Medical College, Gorakhpur in 1990 from where he passed the First Professional Examination in January, 1991. Later, on the basis of the interim order passed on July 8, 1991, he joined the Medical College, Agra from where he passed his Second Professional Examination in February, 1993.
139. Km. Poonam Bahal, the petitioner of writ petition 25933 of 1992, was admitted to the Medical College Coimbatore in December, 1990 from where she passed the First Professional Examination in May, 1992. She then, on the basis of the interim order passed on July 21, 1992, joined the Medical College Kanpur on October 7, 1992. She passed her Second Professional Examination in November, 1993.
140. Shakti Prasad Bhargava, the petitioner in Writ Petition 24752 of 1991, joined the Medical College Jhansi in 1989 from where he passed his First Professional Examination in August, 1991. Later, by virtue of the interim order passed on August 29, 1991, he joined the Medical College Kanpur on September 11, 1991. He passed the Second Professional Examination on June 11, 1993.
141. Km. Manisha Bansal of Writ Petition 13648 of 1991 was admitted to the M. R. Medical College Gulberga in July 1988. She passed the First Professional Examination from there on February 19, 1991 and then on the basis of the interim order passed on May 9, 1991, she was admitted to the Medical College Agra on May 29, 1991. She passed her Second Professional Examination on February 22, 1993.
142. Dinesh Kalra of Writ Petition 13649 of 1991 joined Kasturba Medical College Mangalore in 1988. He passed the First Professional Examination from there in April, 1991 and then by virtue of an interim order passed on May 10, 1991, he joined the Medical College Agra on May 31, 1991. He passed the Second Professional Examination in September, 1993.
143. Anikit Mehrortra of Writ Petition 3223 of 1991 joined J. J. M. Medical College Devengere and before passing his First Professional Examination he obtained an interlocutory order on February 8, 1991, on the basis of which he was admitted to the Medical College Agra on February 13, 1991. The date of passing the First Professional Examination is not available, but he passed the Second Professional Examination in February, 1993.
144. Rajiv Kumar Gupta of Writ Petition 25383 of 1991 joined the B. R. Ambedkar Medical College Bangalore in August, 1988. He passed the First Professional Examination from there in August, 1991. By virtue of an interlocutory order passed on September 9, 1991, he was admitted to the Medical College Allahabad on September 17, 1992. He passed the Second Professional Examination on April 18, 1993.
145. Smt. Reeta Pandey of Writ Petition 21333 of 1991 was admitted to the J. J. M. Medical College Devangere in 1990. She passed the First Professional Examination from there in February, 1991 and then on the basis of the interim order of August 4, 1991, was admitted to the Medical College Go-rakhpur on August 20, 1991. She passed the Second Professional Examination on June 10, 1993.
146. Prateek Nalwa of Writ Petition 13299 of 1991 joined the J. J.M. Nalwa of Writ Petition 13299 of January, 1989. She passed the First Professional Examination from there in January, 1991. On the basis of an interim order passed on April 29, 1991, she joined the King's George Medical College Lucknow on June 3, 1991. She passed the Second Professional Examination in December, 93.
147. Km. Monika Gupta of Writ Petition 10227 of 1992 joined (he M. R. Medical College Gulbarga in 1990. She passed the First Professional Examination from there in February, 1992 and then on the basis of the interim order of this Court of April 1, 1992, she was admitted to the Medical College Allahabad on August 1, 1992. She passed her Second Professional Examination on April 8, 1994.
148. Rohel Goal of Writ Petition 11930 of 1992 was admitted to the M. R. Medical College Gulbarga in 1990. He passed the First Professional Examination in February, 1992 and thereafter on the basis or the interim order passed on April 28, 1992, joined the Medical College Agra on October 16, 1992. He passed the Second Professional Examination on February 23, 1994.
149. Sameer Gupta of Writ Petition 10041 of 1992 was admitted to the M. R. Medical College Gulbarga in 1990. He passed the First Professional Examination from there in February, 1992. By the interim order passed on April 7, 1992, he was admitted to the Medical College Allahabad on August 27, 1992. He passed the Second Professional Examination on March 3, 1994.
150. Naveen Tandon of Writ Petition 22852 of 1990 joined the J.J.M. Medical College Devangere for the 1989-90 Session. He passed the First Professional Examination in August, 1990. By virtue of the interim order passed on May 7, 1991, he was admitted to the Medical College Agra on May 14, 1991. He passed the Second Professional Examination in September, 1993.
151. Rakesh Sibbal of Writ Petition 19309 of 1991 was admitted to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Medical College Bangalore in July, 1989. He passed his First Professional Examination from there in April, 1991 and then by virtue of the interim order passed on July 11, 1991, he was admitted to the Medical College, Allahabad on April 8, 1992. He passed the Second Professional Examination on March 3, 1994.
152. Rohit Narang of Writ Petition 11958 of 1992 was admitted to the B.L.D. Medical College Bijapur in 1989. He passed the First Professional Examination from there in January, 1992. On the basis of the interim order passed on April 22, 1992, he was admitted to the Medical College Allahabad from where he passed the Second Professional Examination in November, 1993.
153. Sayed Firoz of Writ Petition 31331 of 1990 was admitted to the B. R. Ambedkar Medical College Bangalore in 1990. He passed the First Professional Examination from there in March, 1992. On the basis of the interim order passed on December 12, 1990, he joined Medical College Allahabad on August 30, 1992."
154. Km. Sumya Verma of Writ Petition 10189 of 1992 was admitted to the J.S.S. Medical College Mysore in August, 1990. She passed the First Professional Examination in March, 1992. By virtue of the interim order passed on March 31, 1992, she was admitted to the Medical College Allahabad on August 13, 1992. She passed the Second Professional Examination in March, 1994.
155. Km. Isheta Misra of Writ Petition 8763 of 1992 joined the Kasturba Medical College Mangalore from where she passed the First Professional Examination in April, 1992. By virtue of interim orders passed on April 7, 1992 and July 10, 1992, she was admitted to the Medical College Allahabad on August 13, 1992. She passed her Second Professional Examination on March 3, 1994.
156. Akhilesh Singh of Writ Petition 26018 of 1991 was admitted to the M. S. Ramaih Medical College Bangalore from where he passed the First Professional Examination in August, 1991. On the basis of the interim order passed on September 10, 1991, he obtained admission in the Medical College Allahabad in September, 1991. He passed the Second Professional Examination in April, 1993.
157. Finally, in this category is the case of Vishal Chauhan-Writ Petition 30702 of 1992. He was admitted to the Odessa Pirogov Medical Institute in the Ukraine. He had been admitted there on the basis of a competitive examination conducted by the Medical Council of India. The petitioner joined this College in July, 1991 and passed the First Professional Examination in July, 1992. By the interim orders passed on October 14, 1992 and November 7, 1992, he was admitted to the Medical College Jhansi in January, 1993. It was from there that he passed the Second Professional Examination on March 15, 1994.
158. Besides this, there are three other cases where, after admission by migration, the petitioners sat for the Second Professional Examination, but the result thereof has not been announced in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court of May 18, 1994. The first being Writ Petition 14266 of 1992 where the petitioner Anwar Sayeed, after his admission to the S.R.T.R. Medical College Ambajogai in Maharashtra in August, 1990 and after having passed his First Professional Examination from there in January, 1992, was admitted to the Medical College Kanpur on migration by virtue of the interim order passed on May 23, 1992. He was admitted to the Medical College Kanpur on September 23, 1992. It is stated that the result of the Second Professional Examination has not been declared on account of the order of the Supreme Court.
159. The other case is of the Dinesh Chand Gupta Writ Petition 13569 of 1991. In September, 1989, he was admitted to the J.L.N. Medical College Belgaun from where he passed the First Professional Examination in May, 1991. It was by virtue of the interlocutory order passed on May 7, 1991 that he was admitted to the S. N. Medical College Agraon May 15,1991. He too is said to have taken the Second Professional Examination, the result of which has, however, been withheld.
160. The third is Writ Petition 37612 of 1992 where the Petitioner Km. Rajani Arivind was admitted to the S.R.T.R. Medical College Ambajogai in Maharashtra in February, 1991. She passed the First Professional Examination from there is July, 1992 and then by virtue of the interim order passed on December 3, 1992, she joined the Medical College Kanpur on January 17,1993. She too has appeared in the Second Professional Examination, the result of which has been withheld.
161. The vexed issue that now arises is, what relief, if any, we can or should extend to the petitioners, who have passed the M.B.B.S. Final or the Second Professional Examination or those who have appeared in the Second Professional Examination but their results have not been declared in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court. It is indeed an extraordinary situation that has come to be of such a large number of persons being granted admission by migration to Medical Colleges. When they were clearly not entitled to such admission. In dealing with this aspect of the matter, we also cannot lose sight of the fact that if after all the period of study that such petitioners have undergone, their admissions are now cancelled, not only would it all stand at naught, but the further, and more, telling consideration that must weigh with us is, that they may have nowhere else to go, in the sense that the seats vacated by them must by now have been filled by other students. These considerations impel us, purely as a matter of concession, to regularise, the degrees obtained by those who have passed the M.B.B.S. Final Examination as also to regularise the admissions of those who have passed the Second Professional Examination and to permit them to complete their studies in the Colleges where they were admitted by migration. As regards the three petitioners, namely, Anwar Sayeed, Dinesh Chand Gupta and Km. Rajani Arvind, who have appeared in the Second Professional Examination but their result has not been declared suitable directions be issued to put them at par with those petitioners who have passed their Second Professional Examination.
162. As a consequence, we hereby allow the following Writ Petitions where the Petitioners have passed the M.B.B.S. Final with the Direction that their admissions to the Colleges, where they had obtained admissions by migration, be regularised as also the degree obtained by them from there. These writ petitions being:--
1. Writ Petition 18063 of 1989 -- Kapil Kumar Juneja.
2. Writ Petition 11716 of 1990 -- Sheme Jain.
3. Writ Petition 11785 of 1990 -- Anand Misra.
4. Writ Petition 11809 of 1990 -- Km. Himani Agarwal.
5. Writ Petition 20434 of 1990 -- Km. Anurita Babeja.
6. Writ Petition 11825 of 1990 -- U. N. Gupta.
7. Writ Petition 13518 of 1991 -- Piyush Kumar Upadhya.
8. Writ Petition 18026 of 1989 -- Km. Vimi Khanuja.
9. Writ Petition 19623 of 1991 -- Waseem Anwar.
10. Writ Petition 11614 of 1990 -- Girja Shankar Singh.
11. Writ Petition 13652 of 1991 -- Ashu-tosh Pandey.
12. Writ Petition 11830 of 1991 -- Akshat.
13. Writ Petition 26135 of 1990 -- Rajeev Misra.
14. Writ Petition 18018 of 1990 -- Ajai Chandra Sharma.
15. Writ Petition 12039 of 1987 -- Km. Shalini Bajaj.
16. Writ Petition 11403 of 1987 -- Vijai Mathur.
17. Writ Petition 4324 of 1988 -- Vinod Kumar Singh.
18. Writ Petition 18730 of 1990 -- Sharad Jain.
19. Writ Petition 8931 of 1988 -- Rakesh Singh.
20. Writ Petition 5446 of 1989 -- Mahesh Chandra Dubey.
21. Writ Petition 5817 of 1989 -- Sid-dheshwar Dayal.
22. Writ Petition 1735 of 1987 -- Vinay Chandra Srivastava.,
23. Writ Petition 23117 of 1991 -- Km. Deepali Chawla.
24. Writ Petition 13571 of 1991 -- Waseem Ahmad Siddiqui.
25. Writ Petition 837 of 1991 -- Km. Rakhi Seth.
26. Writ Petition 20905 of 1990 -- Km. Sarita.
27. Writ Petition 9353 of 1989 -- Dushyant Singh.
28. Writ Petition 11639 of 1990 -- Anshu Pandey.
29. Writ Petition 26190 of 1990 -- Imtiaz Ashraff.
30. Writ Petition 5311 of 1987 -- Shubhra Bajaj.
31. Writ Petition 26080 of 1994 -- Sanjiv Agarwal.
32. Writ Petition 4325 of 1988 -- Vikaram Agarwal.
33. Writ Petition 12677 of 1987 -- Vineet Verma.
34. Writ Petition 12071 of 1987 -- Anil Kumar Mudgal.
35. Writ Petition 25252 of 1991 -- Abhi-lasha Khare.
36. Writ Petition 20614 of 1990 -- Amit Srivastava.
37. Writ Petition 24064 of 1994 -- Km. Jyotsna Sawhney.
38. Writ Petition 6099 of 1987 -- Ajit Dull Sharma.
39. Writ Petition 825 of 1991 -- V. K. Goel.
163. We also hereby accept the undermentioned writ petitions of those who have passed the Second Professional Examination with the direction that the admissions of the petitioners therein be regularised and they be permitted to complete their studies in the colleges where they have been admitted.
1. Writ Petition 825 of 1991 -- V. K. God.
2. Writ Petition 23067 of 1991 -- Ashish Kumar.
3. Writ Petition 25325 of 1991 -- Km. Shiksha Goel.
4. Writ Petition 21337 of 1991 -- Shamir Misra.
5. Writ Petition 40526 of 1992 -- Manmohan Sharma.
6. Writ Petition 25581 of 1991 -- Km. Sandhya Dubey.
7. Writ Petition 15357 of 1991 -- Suresh Chand Agarwal.
8. Writ Petition 25933 of 1992 -- Km. Poonam Bahal.
9. Writ Petition 24752 of 1991 -- Shakti Prasad Bhargava.
10. Writ Petition 13648 of 1991 -- Km. Manisha Bansal.
11. Writ Petition 13649 of 1991 -- Dinesh Kalra.
12. Writ Petition 3223 of 1991 -- Ankit Mehrotra.
13. Writ Petition 25383 of 1991 -- Rajiv Kumar Gupta.
14. Writ Petition 21333 of 1991 -- Smt. Reta Pandey.
15. Writ Petition 13299 of 1991 -- Prateek Nalwa.
16. Writ Petition 10227 of 1992 -- Km. Monika Gupta.
17. Writ Petition 11930 of 1992 -- Rohel God.
18. Writ Petition 10041 of 1992 -- Sameer Gupta.
19. Writ Petition 22852 of 1990 -- Naveen Tandon.
20. Writ Petition 19309 of 1991 -- Rakesh Sibbal.
21. Writ Petition 11958 of 1992 -- Rohit Narang.
22. Writ Petition 31331 of 1990 -- Sayed Firoz.
23. Writ Petition 10189 of 1992 -- Km. Sumya Verma.
24. Writ Petition 8763 of 1992 -- Km. Isheta Misra.
25. Writ Petition 26018 of 1991 -- Akhilesh Singh.
26. Writ Petition 30702 of 1991 -- Vishal Chauhan.
164. As regards Writ Petition 14266 of 1992, (Anwar Sayeed), 13569 of 1991 (Dinesh Chand Gupta) and 37612 of 1992 (Km. Rajani Arvind), these are accepted with the direction that the result of the petitioners for the Second Professional Examination be declared and, if their result entitles them to pursue further studies in the College, their admission be regularised and they be permitted to continue their studies. If, however, their result does not entitle them to continue their studies for the next or higher course, their writ petitions shall stand dismissed.
165. Having granted these reliefs to the petitioners, interests of justice clearly render it incumbent that directions be issued to the Medical Colleges concerned, which we hereby so issue, that appropriate steps may be taken to, as far as possible, enable the petitioners to make good what they may have been deprived of by the vacation by the Supreme Court of the interim orders passed by this Court in their favour, by either holding special examination for them or by making it possible for them to appear in the next examination, as the college authorities may find feasible.
166. We must again emphasise that grant of relief in these cases is by no means to be treated as a precedent. Those who obtain admissions to educational or technical institutions by interlocutory orders passed by the Court, when they were in fact, not entitled to it, they may pursue their studies after such admission, only at their peril. Seeing the persistent tendency to seek admission by interlocutory orders when not entitled to such relief, time has now come that regardless of the hardship that may be entailed, admissions wrongly made must be set aside. What we have seen in this bunch of writ petitions must never happen again.
167. We turn now to the case of Rohit Gupta, the petitioner in writ petition 8840 of 1990, which calls for special mention. Rohit Gupta was admitted to the J.L.N. Medical College Belgaum in 1990. Before passing his First Professional Examination he filed the present writ petition and by virtue of the interim order passed therein on April 25, 1990, he was admitted to the Medical College Agra. He passed his First Professional Examination from there in August, 1990, the Second Professional Examination in March, 1992 and his M.B.B.S. Final in November, 1993. What deserves pointed note here is the fact that he obtained admission by migration before passing the First Professional Examination and that too on the basis not only of the interim order passed by this Court; but also a recommendation in that behalf from the Medical Council of India. A reference to the letter of the Secretary of the Medical Council of India, Sri P. S. Jain of February, 1990 (Annexure 5) to the father of the petitioner, Dr. M. C. Gupta, shows that the Executive Committee of the Medical Council had decided that the migration of the peti-tioner "can be allowed as a special case under compassionate grounds." The significant omission here is of the last sentence of the decision of the Executive Committee of the Medical Council, which read: "The candidate is requested to obtain no objection certificate from both the Colleges". The Principal of the College had, by his letter of April 12, 1990, clearly mentioned that migration of the petitioner would be subject to the 1986 Order. In terms of this 1986 Order the petitioner was patently not entitled to admission before passing the First Professional Examination. On the face of it, it would appear that there was a deliberate atlempt on the part of both, the father of the petitioner Dr. M.C. Gupta as also the Secretary of the Medical Council of India Sri P. S. Jain, to omit this sentence? with a view to put "under the carpet as it were, the ineligibility of the petitioner for such admission by migration. This cannot but invite adverse comment. It would, however, perhaps be too harsh to take away from the petitioner, on this account, the qualifications that he has acquired in the intervening period, as what has been done may have been done without his knowledge or, at any rale, under the influence of his father. We consequently regularise his admission too to the Medical College Agra with permission to continue his further studies in that College.
168. The case of Manish Mohan, the petitioner in Writ Petitions 26191 of 1990 and 25440 of 1991, reveals a clear case of forgery. He was admitted to the Kasturba Medical College Mangalore in 1989. Later on the basis of a forged certificate showing that he had passed the First Professional Examination from that College on August 16, 1990, he, by virtue of the interim order passed on October 9, 1990, obtained admission to the Medical College Gorakhpur where his father was the Principal. It was on July 12, 1991, when a fellow student at the Medical College Gorakhpur wrote a letter against the petitioner to the Health Minister that it came to light that he had obtained admission on the basis of a forged certificate. The marks-sheet (An-nexure 1} of August 16, 1990 as also the no dues certificate (Annexure 2) and the no objection certificate (Annexure 3), all appear to be forged. The Principal of the Medical College Gorakhpur was thereupon impelled to cancel the admission of the petitioner and it was against this order that he filed the second writ petition 25440 of 1991 wherein he made no mention of the earlier writ petition. By an interim order passed on September 12, 1991 the letter of the Principal of the College of August 8, 1991, was stayed and the petitioner was permitted to appear in the First Professional Examination.
169. When these petitions came up for hearing, Mr. R. B. Singhal, counsel for the petitioner, prayed that both these petitions may be dismissed as not pressed. Seeing, however, the blatant forgery in this case, we are constrained to mention these facts, with a direction to the Director Medical Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh to lake appropriate action in the matter, in accordance with law.
170. The writ petitions that we are now left with have all to be dismissed as none of the petitioners are entitled to the relief of admission by migration as had been claimed by them. These writ petitions being:
1. Writ Petition 21751 of 1992 -- Anuj Ram Sharma.
2. Writ Petition 12003 of 1992 -- Soni Thomas.
3. Writ Petition 25929 of 1992 -- Ashish Kumar.
4. Writ Petition 12004 of 1992 -- Pankaj Saxena.
5. Writ Petition 21740 of 1992 -- Manoj Gaur.
6. Writ Petition 10252 of 1992 -- Km. Ritu Sahai.
7. Writ Petition 31079 of 1992 -- Shibagni Nath.
8. Writ Petition 32625 of 1992 -- Umesh Monga.
9. Writ Petition 2972 of 1991 -- Sanjay Kumar.
10. Writ Petition 37612 of 1992 -- Km. Rajni Arvind.
11. Writ Petition 158 of 1994 -- Km. Shivali Agarwal.
12. Writ Petition 19589 of 1991 -- Mohd. Afsar Khan.
13. Writ Petition 29247 of 1990 -- Anuj Gupta.
14. Writ Petition 10569 of 1994 -- Schin Khanduri.
15. Writ Petition 508 of 1994 -- U. Shankar.
16. Writ Petition 27859 of 1991 -- Manish Nigam
17. Writ Petition 10791 of 1994 -- Km. Ashiya Matin.
18. Writ Petition 95 of 1994 -- Suman Pathak.
19. Writ Petition 28295 of 1992 -- Manish Burman.
20. Writ Petition 11608 of 1992 -- Anuj Kumar Gupta.
21. Writ Petition 31165 of 1993 -- Km. Kamayani Raghav.
22. Writ Petition 17804 of 1994 -- Jang Bahadur Singh.
23. Writ Petition 17807 of 1994 Writ Petition 17819 of 1994 -- Mukesh Malan-Halia.
24. Writ Petition 45188 of 1992 -- Sonia Srivastava.
25. Writ Petition 17851 of 1992 -- Sweta Srivastava.
26. Writ Petition 28794 of 1992 -- Neeraj Agarwal.
27. Writ Petition 14871 of 1991 -- Ritu Nigam.
28. Writ Petition 17796 of 1992 -- Akshay Mehra.
29. Writ Petition 28819 of 1990 -- Uttam Kumar Jaiswal.
30. Writ Petition 3099 of 1990 -- Ajay Kumar Sharma.
31. Writ Petition 15000 of 1991 -- Alpana Sarkar.
32. Writ Petition 11898 of 1992 -- Ravi Kalra.
33. Writ Petition 26020 of 1990 -- Dharmendra Kumar.
34. Writ Petition 14226 of 1992 -- Anwar Sayeed.
35. Writ Petition 24096 of 1992 -- Km. Hitu Mahendra.
36. Writ Petition 3901 of 1991 -- Anurag.
37. Writ Petition 13248 of 1967 -- Deoi Bhadra Singh.
38. Writ Petition 1128 of 1993 -- Yogesh Kaushal.
39. Writ Petition 15475 of 1992 -- Ruchi Mehrotra.
40. Writ Petition 13569 of 1991 -- Dinesh Chand Yadav.
41. Writ Petition 1808 of 1989 -- Narendra Pratap Singh.
42. Writ Petition 5544 of 1989 -- Bhanu Pratap Singh.
43. Writ Petition 27024 of 1994 -- Km. Zaya Rizvi.
44. Writ Petition 27033 of 1994 -- Km. Sabina Ashraf.
45. Writ Petition 27032 of 1994 -- Kunwar Kant Singh.
46. Writ Petition 26085 of 1994 -- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava.
47. Writ Petition 26083 of 1994 -- K. Mala Jain.
48. Writ Petition 26082 of 1994 -- Bhartendu Agarwal.
49. Writ Petition 26086 of 1994 -- Nitin Dhavan.
50. Writ Petition 26079 of 1994 -- Km. Nidhi Gupta.
51. Writ Petition 26076 of 1994 -- Bilal Ahmad.
52. Writ Petition 26008 of 1994 -- Afjal Zamal Naiye.
53. Writ Petition 26080 of 1994 -- Sanjeev Agarwal.
54. Writ Petition 4325 of 1988 -- Vikram Agarwal.
171. While dismissing these petitions it is our earnest hope that the Colleges, where these petitioners had originally been ad mitted, would readmit them and permit them to pursue their studies thereby condoning their absence from the College on account of the admission by migration obtained by them.
We would also request the Medical Council of India to lend such assistance, in this behalf, as it can to enable them to be readmitted in their respective Colleges.
172. A number of writ petitions in this bunch were either not pressed or have become infructuous and have consequently to be dismissed as such. These being:--
1. Writ Petition 9837 of 1993 -- Km. Priti v. State.
2. Writ Petition 19589 of 1991 -- Mohd. Afsar v. State.
3. Writ Petition 25314 of 1991 -- Km. Anshu Agarwal.
4. Writ Petition 375 of 1993 -- Km. R. Gupta.
5. Writ Petition 29247 of 1990 -- Anuj Gupta.
6. Writ Petition 19082 of 1993 -- A. K. Pandey.
7. Writ Petition 37774 of 1992 -- Km. Shivali.
8. Writ Petition 27960 of 1991 -- Km. Soniea.
9. Writ Petition 6020 of 1994 -- Shamit Mehrotra
10. Writ Petition 17813 of 1994 -- Km. Shruti
11. Writ Petition 17806 of 1994 -- Km. Meena
12. Writ Petition 17815 of 1994 -- Jaiyesh Kumar
13. Writ Petition 17817 of 1994 -- Amitabh Upadhyay
14. Writ Petition 17814 of 1994 -- Sarjeet Bose
15. Writ Petition 17818 of 1994 -- Sid-dharth Goel
16. Writ Petition 31327 of 1990 -- Yogesh Dixit
17. Writ Petition 17941 of 1992 -- Km. Kiran
18. Writ Petition 380 of 1994 -- Km. Nishu
19. Writ Petition 19491 of 1993 --
Saurabh Dubey
20. Writ Petition 15448 of 1992 --
Dusnyant.
21. Writ Petition 23467 of 1993 -- Rakesh Kumar Agarwal
22. Writ Petition 42646 of 1992 -- Anup Mathur
23. Writ Petition 19616 of 1991 -- Sanjay Kapoor
24. Writ Petition 42803 of 1992 -- Satya Priya Batra
25. Writ Petition 42645 of 1992 - Atul Mittal
26. Writ Petition 17832 of 1992 -- Arvind Sharma
27. Writ Petition 42687 of 1992 -- Km. Surbhi Singh
28. Writ Petition 427778 of 1992 -- Rajesh Kucheria
29. Writ Petition 29026 of 1990 -- Mohd. Haseen
30. Writ Petition 42602 of 1992 -- Sandeep Kumar
31. Writ Petition 28539 of 1993 -- Arun Sarabhai
32. Writ Petition 25001 of 1993 -- Km. Shahni
33. Writ Petition 23847 of 1993 -- Rakesh Tripathi
34. Writ Petition 19532 of 1993 -- Amit Rawat
35. Writ Petition 31202 of 1993 -- Raghubir Sahai
36. Writ Petition 30'122 of 1991 -- Ramanand Misra
37. Writ Petition 4206 of 1992 -- A.K. Burnwal
38. Writ Petition 13248 of 1987 -- D.B. Singh
39. Writ Petition 32542 of 1992 -- Km. Ritu.
40. Writ Petition 855 of 1991 -- A.K. Singh
41. Writ Petition 22509 of 1994 -- Km. Puja
42. Writ Petition 17808 of 1994 -- Shambhu Agarwal
43. Writ Petition 17811 of 1994 -- V.S. Verma
44. Writ Petition 17809 of 1994 -- Devendra Chaddha
45. Writ Petition 17812 of 1994 -- Navin Bhalla
46. Writ Petition 17810 of 1994 -- Mayank Agarwal
47. Writ Petition 17803 of 1994 -- A.K. Singh
48. Writ Petition 26084 of 1994 -- S. Pandey
49. Writ Petition 26077 of 1994 -- Sajal Misra
50. Writ Petition 35260 of 1992 -- Km. Nivedita Nath
51. Writ Petition 42682 of 1992 -- Sharad Kumar Gangwar
52. Writ Petition 42652 of 1992 -- Vidhu Kaushal
53. Writ Petition 30704 of 1992 -- Km. Shung Chew Shis
54. Writ Petition 42686 of 1992 -- K.M. Tripathi
55. Writ Petition 10251 of 1992 -- Km. Swati Gupta
56. Writ Petition 299 of 1993 -- Navin Kumar Singh
57. Writ Petition 40527 of 1992 - Ritu Agarwal
58. Writ Petition 32411 of 1990 -- Umesh Chand Mohnani
59. Writ Petition 31218 of 1993 -- San- deep Raj
60. Writ Petition 24979 of 1993 -- Sharat Chaduka
61. Writ Petition 45238 of 1992 -- Indra Jeet Singh
62. Writ Petition 31643 of 1991 -- Anuj Mehrotra
63. Writ Petition 30494 of 1992 -- Km. Harshita Garg
64. Writ Petition 33610 of 1993 -- Km. Archana
65. Writ Petition 17816 of 1994 -- Richa Mehrotra
66. Writ Petition 29904 of 1991 -- Sanjeev Kumar Singh
67. Writ Petition 30601 of 1992 -- Anurag Dixit
68. Writ Petition 37691 of 1991 -- Sumit Nigam
69. Writ Petition 42831 of 1992 -- Babita Vasishta
70. Writ Petition 19571 of 191 -- Wasi Ahmad Siddiqu
71. Writ Petition 11927 of 1991 -- Waseem Ullah
72. Writ Petition 17802 of 1994 - Praveen Kumar
73. Writ Petition 17027 of 1989 -- Anurag Kapoor
74. Writ Petition 6065 of 1992 -- Kaushal Kishore Pandey
75. Writ Petition 25821 of 1991 -- Bhupendra Rai
76. Writ Petition 4324 of 1988 -- Vineet Kumar Singh
77. Writ Petition 25761 of 1991 --Ravindra Sharma
78. Writ Petition 19255 of 1991 -- Arun Sarabhai
79. Writ Petition 5827 of 1988 -- Arvind Singh
80. Writ Petition 6479 of 1989 -- Km. Vallery Shukla
81. Writ Petition 9327 of 1988 -- Km. Kauser Effendi
82. Writ Petition 22539 of 1994 -- Ajai Kumar Sharma
83. Writ Petition 8966 of 1991 -- Km. Babita Ghildiyal
84. Writ Petition 203 of 1993 -- R.K. Jain
85. Writ Petition 8 of 1993 -- Sauvik Banerji
86. Writ Petition 4237 of 1992 -- S.P. Singh
87. Writ Petition 17805 of 1994 -- Km. Ekta
88. Writ Petition 17802 of 1994 --Shailendra Kumar Shukla
89. Writ Petition 17801 of 1994 -- Gunjan Gupta
90. Writ Petition 27030 of 1994 -- Km. Ashiya Masood Siddiqui
91. Writ Petition 27028 of 1994 -- Amit Kumar Pundir
92. Writ Petition 27027 of 1994 -- Km. Vineeta
93. Writ Petition 27025 of 1994 -- Indranil Chatterjee
94. Writ Petition 31774 of 1991 -- Km. Sudha Singh
95. Writ Petition 27026 of 1994 -- Indranil Chatterjee
96. Writ Petition 26087 of 1994 -- Kiran Gupta
97. Writ Petition 26081 of 1994 -- Puneesh Tandon
98. Writ Petitipn 26074 of 1994 -- Parasah Agarwal
99. Writ Petition 9367 of 1989 -- Sanjay Rastogi
100. Writ Petition 5637 of 1989 -- Km. Smita Kumar
101. Writ Petition 27031 of 1994 -- Alok Sexena
102. Writ Petition 9432 of 1989 -- Sanjay Singh
103. Writ Petition 11639 of 1990 -- Anshu Pandey
104. Writ Petition 26076 of 1994 -- Vilal Ahmad
173. This bunch of writ petitions are thus disposed of in the manner indicated.
174. Order accordingly.