LexMEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus SARANG AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA A v. SARANG AND ORS. AUGUST 28, 2001 [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] B Education Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997: c Medical student-Migration from one University to another-Condition provided for in Regulation 6(5)-/nterpretation of-Held before appearing in Jlnd Professional MB.B.S. Examination candidate should complete 18 months study in the transferee college-Not combined study of 18 months in college D from and to which transferred-Academic matters-Interference with by Courts-Permissibility of The respondent, a student of medical college in New Mumbai, sought migration to a medical college at Aurangabad. The appellant-Council allowed migration subject to the condition provided in Regulation 6(5) of the Medical E Council of India Regulation on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 viz. that he should appear for the llnd professional M.B.B.S. Examination only after completing 18 months study in the transferee college from the date of migration. The High Court held that the interpretation given by the Medical Council was erroneous and that the proper construction of the Regulation was that a student who has migrated from one University to another F University, should have completed 18 months study in both the colleges together, i.e. from the college he has migrated and in transferee college, before appearing for the Ilnd professional M.B.B.S. Examination. In appeal to this Court on the question of interpretation of Regulation G 6(5), the Court HELD: 1. The view taken by the High Court that the proper construction of Regulation 6(5) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 should be that a student, who has migrated from one University to another University, should have completed H 275 _ .. ~ 276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A 18 months study in both the colleges together, that is, from the College he has migrated and in the trasnferee college, cannot be agreed to. Regulation 6(5) provides that a student will pursue 18 months of prescribed study before appearing at the Ilnd professional examination at the transferee medical college. The object of the Regulation 6(5) appears to be that although the course of study leading to llnd professional examination is common to all B medical colleges, the sequence of coverage of subjects varies from college to college. Therefore, the requirement of18 months of study in the college from which the student wants to appear in the examination is appropriately insisted upon. Migration is not normally allowed and has got to be given in exceptional circumstances. In the absence of such a stipulation as contained in Regulation C 6(5), it is clear that the migrated student is likely to miss instruction and·study in some of the subjects, which will ultimately affect his academic attainments. Therefore, the strained meaning given by the High Court, which actually changes the language of Regulation 6(5), is not permissible. The interpretation as given by the Medical Council of India is correct. 1278-A, B; 279-B-D] D 2. In matters of academic standards, courts should not normally interfere or interpret the rules and such matters should be left to the experts in the field. 1279-A I The University of Mysore and Anr. v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr., 11964) 4 SCR 575; State of Kera/av. Kumari TP. Roshana and Anr., 11979) 2 SCR E 974 and Shirish Gov ind Prabhudesai v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., ( 1993( I sec 211, referred to. F G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 202 of 2000 From the Judgment ar I Order dated 29.4.99 of the Bombay High Court in W.P.No. 1659 of 1998. P.P. Rao, A. Mariarputham, Maninder Singh, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Pratibha M. Singh and Ms. Kavita Wadia for the Appellant. V.D. Khanna and C.G. Sholshe for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJENDRA BABU, J. Respondent No. I, being a student of medical college in New Mumbai, sought for migration to a medical college at H Aurangabad, his home-town, on certain medical grounds. The appellant MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. SARANG [RAJENDRA BABU, J.) 277 rejected the application as he did not fall within the purview of the A compassionate grounds specified in the relevant regulations. Respondent No. I filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay for a direction to the appellant to permit migration
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.