ORDER
Y. S. Jahagirdar, J.
1. The petition is filed by a student taking education in an unrecognised medical college by name M. A. E. E. R.’s Medical College, Talegaon, Dabhade, Pune. The grievance in the petition is that the Authorities are declining to grant transfer to the petitioner from M. A. A. E. R.’s medical college to B.J. Medical College which is a college recognised by Medical Council of India.
2. Mr. Bhagalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that though M. A. A. E. R.’s Medical College is not a recognised College, the petitioner had opted against M. A. A. E. R.’s Medical College, Talegaon, Dabhade, Pune, status “A” is shown indicating that the said college was a approved college and according to Mr. Bhagalia, the said status has to be equated to the status of recognised Medical College, especially after the amendment which was introduced by the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993, inserting Sections 10A, 10B and other relevant Sections. Mr. Bhagalia contends that the procedure prescribed under the ameded provisions of Sections 10A or 10C once followed, eliminates a need of action giving a formal recognition by Medical Council of India. This, in effect is the main plank of Mr. Bhagalia’s submission and based on this submission, he contended that M.A. E. E. R.’s Medical College having been shown as approved status and the procedure under Section 10A as introduced by amendment having been followed, the said College must be deemed to be recognised by the Medical Council of India and thus, there was no reason why the request for transfer should be declined on the ground that the M. A. E. E.R.’s Medical College is not recognised and, therefore, transfer from non-recognised College to recognised College should not be permitted. Mr. Bhagalia, in support of his contentions, has relied on the following decisions:–
(1) Dr. Ku. Nilofar Insaf v. State of Madhya Pradesh, .
(2) Unni Krishnan, J. P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported is .
(3) .
(4) .
3. Mr. Rane, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents Nos. 1 to 3, has submitted that there is an essential distinction between a College being “approved” and “recognised”. According to Mr. Rane, amendment as per Section 10A deals only with establishment of new Medical Colleges or starting of new course of study in College which is already established and has nothing to do with the procedure for granting recognition by Medical Council of India. Mr. Rane pointed out that the M. A. E. E. R.’s Medical College had started in 1995-96 and the status was shown in the rules for 1995-96 as College which is approved “A” and the petitioner has opted for the said College knowing fully well that the word “approved” does not mean recognised since in the rules against all recognised Colleges the status shown is “R”. Mr. Rane pointed out the rules for transfer and elegibility therefore and the other relevant rules. Rule (B) reads as under:–
“(B) Eligibility / Selection
1. No. migration / transfer shall be permitted from a college which is not recognised by Medical Council of India.”
Mr. Rane submits that the Apex Court in two judgments delivered in the cases of Shirish Govind Prabhudesai v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 351 of 1992) with Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4902 of 1992 Miss Gauri Gulati v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and Civil Appeal Nos. 3 and 4 of 1991 The Medical Council of India v. Rajendra S. Sankpal () has clearly dealt with this issue and has in fact finally concluded by observing that movement of students has to be permitted only from recognised Colleges inter se.
4. Mr. Chaterjee, learned counsel for respondent No. 7 The Medical Council of India, has argued that there is still a state of granting recognition to a Medical College established under the provisions of Section 10A as amended and the said recognition is formally granted after watching the performance of the College for the period of 2/3 years. Mr. Chaterjee, has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Thirumuruce Karupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundra Swamgal Medical Education & Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu, and has emphasised that there is a clear distinction between permission for establishment of an institution and granting recognition of affiliation as observed in the said judgment.
5. We have carefully gone through the judgments which have been cited by the parties and also adverted ourselves to the submissions made by the counsels and we have no hesitation in rejecting the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, the basis premise that permission to establish an institution under Section 10A is equivalent to grant of recognition itself is erroneous. Section 10A speaks only of permission for establishment of new medical college, new courses of study etc. Thus, all that the amendment has done is to empower the Central Government to grant the permission for establishing a new medical college or even to start a new course in the college which is already established. According to the statement of objects and reasons, the object underlying enactment of Section 10A is to curb the mushroom growth of medical colleges in the country. It has been the matter of concern that the State Governments were giving approval for opening of new medical colleges without insisting the basic prerequisitee. It was with a view to curb this mushroom growth of medical colleges, Section 10A was introduced and it has nothing to do with grant of recognition by the medical Council of India. It would be relevant and extremely of importance to reproduce the statement of objects and reasons for the purpose.
“….. it had been noticed that some State Governments were giving approval for the opening of new medical colleges on their own, without insisting on the provision of basic prerequisites of hospital, equipment, laboratories or qualified faculty members etc. In certain cases, after the college gave admission to students they began exercising combined pressure on the Government for grant of approval to the medical colleges by the Medical Council of India.
In order to curb such mushroom growth of medical colleges, the President promulgated an ordinance on 27-8-1992 to amend the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 by incorporating therein provisions for prior permission of the Central Government for establishing any new medical college and for starting any new or higher course of study in an existing medical college or increasing admission capacity in any course of study of training including postgraduate course of study.
The Bill Seeks to replace the aforesaid ordinance.”
6. The Apex Court in (supra) has clearly observed (at p.2391 of AIR):
” …..that the right to establish an educational institution does not carry with it the right to recognition or the right to affiliation, as the case may be, and that it is open to the State or the university according affiliation and recognition to impose such conditions as they think appropriate in the interest of fairness, merit maintenance of standards of education and so on. It is no doubt true that recognition or affiliation of any institution has to be distinguished from the establishment of an institution.”
Thus, introduction of procedure for establishment of medical college is not tantamount to grant of recognition by the Medical Council of India.
7. The said fact is further made clear by the regulation framed in 1993; after amendment of the Act. The said regulations were framed under Section 10A read with Section 33 of the Medical Council Act, 1956 and regulations were styled as Establishment of New Medical Colleges Regulation 1993, Mr. Rane has, with full justification, relied on the regulation titled as “Grant of Permission”. The said regulation also spoke of granting “formal recognition” of medical college by the Medical Council of India. The relevant portion of the said regulation reads as follows:-
“The above permission to establish a new medical college and admit students will be granted initially for a period of one year and will be renewed on yearly basis subject to verification of the achievements of annual targets and revalidation of the performance bank guarantees. This process of renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities is completed and a ‘formal recognition’ of the medical college by the Medical Council of India is granted. Further admissions are liable to be stopped at any stage unless the requirement for various steps of development are to be satisfaction of Medical Council of India.”
Thus, it is abundantly clear that permission to establish a medical college does not tantamount to a automatic recognition there of as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once this submission is rejected then we find no faule with the Authorities rejecting the application for transfer of the petitioner from M.A.E.E.R.’s Medical College to B.J. Medical College relying on the rules framed for the purpose of transfer or migration.
8. In fact, the controversy can be said to be concluded by the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Shirish Govind Prabudesai’s case (supra) wherein it has been observed that no student dehors the rules governing transfer or migration has any inherent right of transfer. Such right must flow from the rules framed for the said purpose. It is also established that if the recognized medical college chooses not to take any student by transfer or migration from another medical college which is not recognised, it cannot be compelled to do so much less by the writ of the Court. The said principle of restricting the grant of permission to migration or transfer from unrecognized college to recognized college has also been approved to prevent indirect entry into recognised medical colleges of the students who had initially failed to secure entry into recognised medical colleges of the students who had initially failed to secure entry into recognised medical colleges. Thus, viewed from any angle, the right to ask for transfer only from the rules and if the rules do not permit transfer from unrecognized medical college to recognised medical college, we fail to see how a Court can issue a writ as prayed for in the present petition. Once we come to the conclusion that introduction of Section 10A by the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993, has not done away with stage of granting formal recognition, the rule prohibiting transfer from unrecognized college to recognised college is justifiably relied upon by the Authorities. Thus, we find no substance in the Petition. Petition fails and is rejected. Adinterim order stands vacated.
Petition dismissed.