MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIAversusSARANG AND ORS.

                      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 Govind Prabhudesai v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1993( I
    sec 211, referred to.
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                 Civil Appeal No. 202 of
    2000

F        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.

G          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 on the ground of mental depression and on the
   additional ground that his father was having angina problem. He also filed a
   Misc. Application in the said writ petition stating that he was suffering from     B
   acute renal failure and his father was suffering from hypertension and unstable
   angina. The High Court directed the appellant to re-examine the case of
.. respondent No. I for migration on the basis of the medical certificate issued
   on 2.10.1998. The appellant again examined the case of respondent No. I and
   declined to grant migration by communication sent on 7.1.1999. However,
   on 13.1.1999, on account of some misunderstanding of the matter, the learned       C
   counsel for the appellant, who appeared before the High Court, stated that the
   appellant had permitted the migration which was in fact contrary to the
   communication sent on 7.1.1999 to the Assistant Registrar of the High Court.
   On the basis of the statement made in the High Court, the High Court directed
   the provisional admission of respondent No. I in the medical college at
   Aurangabad. The High Court was informed on 21.1.1999 that the statement            D
   made by the appellant's counsel was incorrect. However, no modification was
   made in the order of the High Court. By order dated 12.2.1999, the High
   Court again directed that the copies of the latest test reports along with the
   report of the Civil Surgeon be sent to the appellant for re-consideration of the
   matter. On 15.4.1999, the appellant made an order allowing migration of            E
   respondent No. I subject to the condition provided in Regulation 6(5) of the
   Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997
   that he should appear for the !Ind professional MBBS examination only after
   completing 18 months study in the transferee college from the date of migration
   and affidavit to that effect be obtained from respondent No. I. The High
   Court, by an order made on 29.4.1999, construed Regulation 6(5) does not           F
   require the study of 18 months at the transferee medical college after the date
   of migration before appearing for the Ilnd professional MBBS examination,
   and thus allowed the writ petition.

       On appeal by special leave, this Court granted leave and stayed the
 order of the High Court but without affecting the benefit derived by respondent      G
 No.I.

       It must be made clear in this case that respondent No. I has already
 passed the Ilnd professional examination and also cleared the Illrd professional
 examination and whatever may be the outcome of the present case, he will
                                                                                      H
    278                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A not be affected adversely by the order of this Court. The appellant is more
    interested in interpretation of Regulation 6(5) framed by it.

        Regulation 6(5) provides that a student will pursue 18 months of
  prescribed study before appearing at the !Ind professional examination at the
  transferee medical college. However, the High Court took the view that the
B proper construction of this regulation should be that a student, who has
  migrated from one University to another University, should have completed
  18 months study in both the colleges together, that is, from the College he
  has migrated and in the transferee college. In other words, if he completes 18
  months study altogether he will be eligible to appear for the examination.
  The High Court has thus held that the appellant has erroneously interpreted
C the said regulation tci mean that in the transferee college the student should
  have completed 18 months study and such an interpretation is unjust because
  after passing the examination of the first year MBBS the candidate has to
  submit the application through the college to the Medical Council of India
  seeking migration under Regulation 6 and unless and until the migration is
D permitted under Regulation 6, the said candidate cannot give up the college
  where he has already been admitted and he cannot join the transferee college
  located in other University area where the migration has been sought and if
  the Medical Council of India takes some time for taking the decision the
  student will have to lose one academic year of the MBBS course.

E          Thus, the following comparison can be drawn between Regulation 6(5),
    as it stands, vis-a-vis interpretation given to it by the High Court:

      Regulation 6(5), as it stands          Regulation 6(5), as interpreted by the
                                             High Court
          The applicant candidate must         The applicant candidate must
F submit an affidavit stating that he/she
                                          submit an affidavit at the transferee
  will pursue 18 months of prescribed        college stating that he/she will pursue
  study before appearing at llnd             18 months of prescribed study before
  professional Bachelor ofMedicine and       appearing for the Ilnd professional
  Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS)                 Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor
G examination at the transferee college,     of Surgery (MBBS) examination,
  which should be duly certified ~y the      which should be duly certified by the
  Registrar of the concerned University      Registrar of the concerned University
  in which he/she is seeking transfer. The   in which he/she is seeking a transfer.
  transfer will be applicable only after     The transfer will be applicable only
  receipt of the affidavit.                  after receipt of the affidavit.
H
      MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. SARANG [RAJENDRA BABU, J.]            279

       In matters of academic standards, courts should not normally interfere A
or interpret the rules and such· matters should be left to the experts in the
field. This position has been made clear by this Court in The University of
Mysore and Anr. v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr., [ 1964] 4 SCR 575; State of
Kera/av. Kumari TP. Roshana and Anr., (1979] 2 SCR 974 and Shirish
Govind Prabhudesai v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1993] 1 SCC 211.
The object of the said regulation appears to be that although the course of B
study leading to Ilnd professional examination is common to all medical
colleges, the sequence of coverage of subjects varies from college to college.
Therefore, the requirement of 18 months of study in the college from which
the student wants to appear in the examination is appropriately insisted upon.
Migration is not normally aJlowed and has got to be given in exceptional C
circumstances. In the absence of such a stipulation as contained in Regulation
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 pennissible. Thus we
disagree with the view taken by the High Court and. state that the correct D
interpretation is as given by the Medical Council of India set forth above by
us.

      In the circumstances of the case, though we do not interfere with the
order made by Jhe High Court, we make it clear that the declaration of law     E
made by the High Court is incorrect and to that extent the order shall stand
modified. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

T.N.A.                                                 Appeal disposed of.