1. Migration from one medical college to another was sought on grounds of matrimonial dispute and divorce. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 453
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : S.S.M.Quadri
Medical Council Of India
Versus
Diparani P.Deshmukh
Case No. : 1808 of 2000
Date of Decision : 2/28/00
Migration between medical colleges is not a right and is permitted only under specific, mandatory compassionate grounds. As these regulations are exhaustive, grounds such as matrimonial disputes, which fall outside the stipulated categories, cannot justify a migration request.
Headnote:(A) Medical Education Regulations - Regulation 6 - Migration from one medical college to another - Not a right of a student - Permissible only in exceptional cases on extreme compassionate grounds - Specific criteria for compassionate grounds include: (i) death of a supporting guardian, (ii) illness of the candidate causing disability, and (iii) disturbed conditions as declared by Government in the medical college area - Such regulations are mandatory. (Paras 3, 4)
(B) Repatriation of student - Attendance recorded at a college attended during an interim period of migration may be taken into consideration by the original college to enable the student to take the required examinations. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
A student of a medical course applied for migration from one college to another on the grounds of a matrimonial dispute and divorce, alleging safety threats at the current location. The regulatory body rejected the application, but the High Court subsequently allowed the student to attend classes at the destination college. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plea based on matrimonial disputes and divorce does not fall within the three specific categories of extreme compassionate grounds prescribed by the regulations. Consequently, the High Court erred in granting relief to the student.
Issues: Whether a matrimonial dispute and subsequent divorce qualify as "extreme compassionate grounds" under the regulations governing migration between medical colleges.
Ratio Decidendi: The regulations prescribing the grounds for migration are mandatory and exhaustive. Migration is only permissible if the candidate's situation fits one of the three specified categories: death of a supporting guardian, disability of the candidate, or government-declared disturbances in the area. Grounds outside these categories cannot be used to justify migration. (Paras 4, 5)
Result: Appeal allowed; interim order set aside and writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Respondent claimed migration due to matrimonial dispute; Medical Council argued it did not fall under prescribed compassionate grounds. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. The prescribed compassionate grounds for migration are only three; a matrimonial dispute does not fall within them. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Regulation 6 of the Medical Council of India prescribing only three specific compassionate grounds for migration is mandatory. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; writ petition dismissed. (Para 6 )
6. What are the permissible grounds for migration of a medical student under the Medical Council of India Regulations?
Only three extreme compassionate grounds: death of a supporting guardian, illness of the candidate causing disability, or disturbed conditions declared by the Government in the college area. (Para 3 , 4 )
7. Are the Medical Council of India Regulations regarding student migration mandatory?
Yes, the Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava held that these Regulations are mandatory. (Para 4 )
8. Can a matrimonial dispute constitute a valid ground for migration under the compassionate grounds criteria?
No, a matrimonial dispute does not fall within any of the three prescribed categories of extreme compassionate grounds. (Para 5 )
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) RESPONDENT No. 1 was admitted into MBBS Course of Bharati Vidyapeeth Medical College, Pune in June 1995 On 27th December, 1997, she passed 1st MBBS Examination on second attempt from the said College and in April 1998 she moved an application for migration to the Medical College, Aurangabad. The Migration Subcommittee of the Medical Council of India rejected this application whereupon a writ petition was filed on 30th July, 1998 in the High Court. By order dated 26th March, 1999, respondent No. 1 was allowed to attend the 2nd Year MBBS classes at the Government Medical College, Aurangabad and it is this order which is challenged in the present case.
(3) THE Regulation framed by the Medical Council of India pertaining to migration is Regulation 6. It inter alia provides that migration from one medical college to another is not a right of a student. It is only in exceptional cases on extreme compassionate grounds that migration can be allowed. Sub-Clause (iii) of Note 1 in Regulation 6 stipulates that Medical Council reserves the right not to entertain any application which is not under the prescribed compassionate grounds. Note 2. reads as follows: "Note 2: Compassionate grounds criteria: (i) Death of a supporting guardian. (ii) Illness of the candidate causing disability. (iii) Disturbed conditions as declared by Government in the Medical College area."
(4) AS we read the said Regulation and Note 2 in particular, it is clear that the extreme compassionate grounds criteria contemplated by the said Regulation are only three, namely, death of a supporting guardian, illness of the candidate causing disability and lastly disturbed conditions as declared by the Government in the medical college area. In Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Another etc. v. State of M.P. and Others etc. [JT 1999 (5) SC 498 = 1997 (7) SCC 120, this court has held that these Regulations are mandatory.
(5) THE case of the respondent for migration did not fall under any of these three categories. The reason stated by her for claiming migration was that there was matrimonial dispute which had resulted in a divorce with her husband and she felt threatened if she continued to stay in Pune. Even if this plea be correct, it does not in any circumstance fall within any of the categories of extreme compassionate grounds. The High Court, in our opinion, erred in granting relief to the respondent. We are conscious of the fact that the respondent had attended classes possibly for one year, but that does not make any difference and we expect the authorities concerned to take into consideration on her repatriation to Pune the attendance of the respondent in the Medical College. Aurangabad, for the purpose of enabling her to take the 2nd MBBS Course Examination in the Medical College, Pune.
(6) FOR the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed and the interim order passed by the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court stands dismissed.
