Letters Patent Appeal Nos.60 of 2007 with 62 of 2007 --------- Against the judgement and order dated 12-1-2007 passed by learned Single Judge in CWJC Nos. 13217 of 2006 and 13368 of 2006. -------- Letters Patent Appeal No.60 of 2007 ------- 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal, Patna Medical College, Patna 4. The Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna .....Appellants Versus 1. Rishabh Kumar, son of Dr. Sahajanand Prasad Singh, resident of Sahaj Surgery, Tilak Nagar, P.S. Kankarbag, District Patna 2. The Secretary, Medical Council of India, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Dehli,75 ......Respondents Letters Patent Appeal No.62 of 2007 ------- 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Secretary, Department of Health (Medical Education and Indian Medicine), Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Health (Medical Education and Indian Medicine), Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The Principal, Patna Medical College, Patna District Patna ....Appellants Versus 1. Neha Jha, daughter of Sri S. D. Jha, at present residing at A-3/26, Bailey Road, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District Patna 2. The Secretary, Medical Council of India, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Dehli,75 3. The Medical Council of India through the Secretary, Medical Council of India, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Dehli,75 .....Respondents ------------- For the appellants: Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General, Bihar Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the respondents/writ petitioners: Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate For MCI: Mr. Ajay, Advocate ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---------------- Shiva Kirti Singh & H. K. Srivastava, JJ. Heard learned Advocate General appearing for 2 the State of Bihar and its officials who are appellants in both these appeals. 2. The dispute involved in these two appeals preferred under clause 10 of Letters Patent of this court arises out of transfer of two medical students from two private Medical Colleges situated at Kishanganj and Katihar respectively to a Government Medical College that is, Patna Medical College, Patna. 3. When the State of Bihar noticed that the transfers which are described as migration by the Medical Council of India had taken place in disregard of criteria laid down by the Medical Council of India itself, it objected to the transfers or migrations already implemented. The students challenged the action of the State Government by preferring writ petitions which have been allowed by the writ court. Those orders passed by the writ court are subject matter of these appeals. 4. It is not in dispute that on account of migration orders issued by the Medical Council of India and on account of orders of writ court, both the students have virtually completed their courses of study in Patna Medical College. On that ground alone, this court does 3 not propose to go into the merits of the case against the individual beneficiaries of migration. 5. Learned Advocate General, however, drew our attention to the relevant provisions in Chapter 2 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”). The relevant provisions of Chapter II find mention on the reverse of migration application contained in annexure-9 of CWJC No. 13217/2006. From the provisions in Chapter II and Notes appended therein it is apparent that routine migration on other grounds is totally prohibited and migration from one Medical College to other is permissible only in exceptional cases on extreme compassionate grounds, provided the prescribed criteria are fulfilled. Besides prescribing the criteria in the Regulations, the Notes define the phrase “compassionate grounds” to cover only following 3 situations: - (i) death of a supporting guardian, (ii) illness of the candidate causing disability and (iii) disturbed conditions as declared by the Government in the Medical College area. 6. It is not in dispute that both the students sought migration which has been allowed by the 4 authorities of the Medical Council of India under the 3rd ground, that is, disturbed condition in the Medical College area. It is the case of State of Bihar that disturbed area can be declared by the State Government under the provisions of a Statute and no such declaration has been issued by the State Government in respect of Kishanganj or Katihar Medical College area. 7. As already indicated earlier, this court is not going to examine the matter on merits because students have now virtually completed their studies. Therefore, we desist from making detailed scrutiny and comments upon the merits of the decision taken by the Medical Council of India. It can only be indicated that the decision lacks careful scrutiny of the prescribed criteria and permissible grounds for migration. Hence, without interfering with the orders of migration issued by the Medical Council of India, we would like to observe that the Medical Council of India should be more careful in such matters in future so that undeserving students who somehow managed their admission in private Medical Colleges may not get the benefit of entry into prestigious Government Medical Colleges which may have been 5 denied to more meritorious students. Further, we have been told that for such transfers/migrations no objection is required from the concerned Government Medical College. In that view of the matter, the State Government will also be well advised to adopt fair and strict criteria in the matter of grant of such no objection in respect of claims for migration in future. With these observations, both the appeals are disposed of. Patna High Court The 17th August,, 2010 NAFR/BKS (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)