Mandeep Kadian Vs Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health and Sciences and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.@mdashThe petitioner, who is student of MBBS, Ist Professional at Maharaja Aggarsain Medical College, Agroha, has filed this writ petition, seeking direction for his migration to Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health & Sciences, Rohtak (respondent No. 3). As per the petitioner, he is a chronic patient of bronchial asthma and on account of unfair climatic condition at Hisar, he has suffered several attacks while he was travelling during night time. The petitioner further avers that it is fatal for his life as his present Institution is located in cold region and is surrounded by agriculture land. The petitioner also claims that his mother is a war widow and being old remains ill. There is no one to look after her and, thus, she is residing alone at Rohtak. He accordingly would serve her better if migration is allowed.

2. Migration from one College to another is permitted and is regulated by the Regulations framed by Medical Council of India. It is prescribed in Clause 6(1) (ii) of the Regulations that the migration of a student from one college to another is permissible subject to the condition that it shall not result in increase in the sanctioned intake capacity for the academic year concerned. As per the petitioner, this clause has been wrongly interpreted and the prayer of the petitioner declined on the ground that no student had left the M.B.B.S. Course and hence 150 seats are full in second year professional M.B.B.S. Course at respondent No. 3-Institution. The petitioner has given certain names where migration has been permitted to some of the students. Accordingly, he has challenged the action of the respondent-University in declining the prayer.

3. When this case came up for hearing before this Court, the Counsel for the petitioner was asked to make submission if there would be any right to seek migration and whether such a right would be justiciable right. No submission in this regard is made, except for making reference to the judgments in the cases of Shirish Govind Prabhudesai v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1992 (5) SLR 625 and Vivek Bhatia Vs. State of Punjab and others, . In Shirish Govind Prabhudesai''s case (Supra), the prayer for migration was declined as refusal was neither found unreasonable or arbitrary. Even in Vivek Bhatia''s case (supra), the migration, which had been allowed on compassionate ground, was not the main issue but the challenge was to the action when the petitioner therein was not allowed to join classes, unless he appeared in the entrance test. This was held not proper. No doubt, any action which is arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair or discriminatory could be put to challenge but right to seek migration as such, may not be a right, which is justiciable as such. In the present case, the petitioner has simply challenged the refusal without pleading in any manner as to how the refusal is arbitrary or discriminatory. The ground of climatic condition apparently has been advanced as a reason as there is not much difference in the climate at Hisar and Rohtak.

4. There is, thus, no cause made for interference and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.