2001 JTR(SC) 1178
2001 AIR(SC) 3300 ; 2001 AIR(SCW) 3350 ; 2001 4 AWC 2936 ; 2002 3 BomCR(SC) 302 ; 2001 2 CurLJ 306 ; 2001 7 JT 103 ; 2001 5 Scale 542 ; 2001 8 SCC 427 ; 2001 SCR 275 ; 2001 4 SCT 332 ; 2001 6 SLT 193 ; 2002 1 UJ 50 ; 2001 WLC 757 ; 2001 KHC 1658 ; 2001 6 Supreme 521
2001(6) Supreme 521
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
Medical Council of India -Appellant
versus
Sarang & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 202 of 2000
Decided on 28-8-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate, A. Mariarputham, Maninder Singh, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Mrs. Pratibha M. Singh and Ms. Kavita Wadia, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mrs. V.D. Khanna and C.G. Sholshe, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
High Court has given strained meaning to Regulation 6(5) of Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 relating to migration from one Medical College to another. Interpretation given by Medical Council of India is correct.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226, Art.136
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA REGULATIONS ON GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION : Reg.6(5)
(A) The relevant regulations under the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, specifically Regulation 6(5), govern the conditions for student migration between medical colleges and prescribe that a candidate seeking to transfer must commit to completing eighteen months of prescribed study at the transferee college before appearing for the second professional MBBS examination. The applicant in this case sought migration on compassionate grounds, which were denied by the appellant authority. The applicant then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the denial and securing an interim direction for provisional admission based on a misunderstanding of the regulatory position. The central statutory interpretation issue before the Court concerned whether the eighteen-month requirement must be completed in the transferee college alone or in combination with the college of origin, and whether the High Court could reinterpret the regulation to alleviate perceived academic hardship. The Court also considered its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 read in tandem with Article 136 to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record without disturbing the merits already concluded by the authority.
(B) The case turns on the principles of statutory interpretation, particularly the doctrine that courts should not interfere with or distort technical regulatory schemes framed by expert bodies, and the scope of permissible High Court intervention through writ jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that where a regulation is clear and addresses the specific situation, a strained construction to circumvent practical difficulties is not permissible, and the original text must be upheld. The distinction between an authority's discretionary power to grant migration in exceptional circumstances and its procedural requirements for ensuring academic continuity was also pivotal.
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a medical student, sought migration from a medical college in New Mumbai to a college in his hometown of Aurangabad on medical grounds, which was rejected by the appellant authority. He subsequently filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay praying for a direction to permit migration on the grounds of mental depression and his father's angina, additionally stating in a miscellaneous application that he was suffering from acute renal failure and his father from hypertension and unstable angina. The High Court directed the appellant to re-examine the case on the basis of a medical certificate dated 2.10.1998. Although the appellant again declined migration, a misunderstanding led counsel for the appellant to inform the High Court that migration had been permitted, prompting the High Court to direct provisional admission. Upon learning of the error, the High Court proceeded to reconsider the application and ultimately directed that the applicant's recent reports and a civil surgeon's report be sent to the appellant for reconsideration. The appellant later issued an order allowing migration subject to the condition that the applicant complete eighteen months of study at the transferee college before appearing for the second professional MBBS examination and provide an affidavit to that effect. The High Court held that Regulation 6(5) did not require the eighteen months to be served at the transferee college after migration and allowed the writ petition, a conclusion challenged on appeal.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court clarified that respondent No. 1 had already passed the second and third professional examinations, so the outcome of the appeal would not adversely affect him. It held that the proper construction of Regulation 6(5) requires the applicant to submit an affidavit stating an intention to complete eighteen months of prescribed study at the transferee college before appearing for the second professional examination, with the transfer becoming effective only after the Medical Council of India processes the migration request. The Court found that the High Court's interpretation altered the language of the regulation and was not permissible, emphasizing that academic standards and regulatory schemes should not be ordinarily disturbed by courts. The correct approach, as per the Medical Council of India's regulation, was endorsed, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Issues:
Whether Regulation 6(5) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education requires eighteen months of study to be completed in the transferee college alone or in both the original and transferee colleges together.
Whether the High Court was justified in departing from the plain wording of the regulation to avoid an academic disadvantage to the student.
Whether courts can reinterpret technical regulatory provisions to alleviate practical hardships without explicit legislative or policy direction.
Ratio Decidendi:
The ratio decidendi is that Regulation 6(5) must be interpreted according to its plain meaning, requiring a student to complete eighteen months of prescribed study at the transferee medical college before appearing for the second professional MBBS examination, and that courts should not interfere with or distort such technical regulations, as the statutory scheme and academic continuity are matters for the expert authority and not for judicial rewriting.
Result:
The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is modified accordingly. The declaration of law made by the High Court is held to be incorrect to the extent of its deviation from the regulation, and no costs are awarded.
(A) The relevant regulations under the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, specifically Regulation 6(5), govern the conditions for student migration between medical colleges and prescribe that a candidate seeking to transfer must commit to completing eighteen months of prescribed study at the transferee college before appearing for the second professional MBBS examination. The applicant in this case sought migration on compassionate grounds, which were denied by the appellant authority. The applicant then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the denial and securing an interim direction for provisional admission based on a misunderstanding of the regulatory position. The central statutory interpretation issue before the Court concerned whether the eighteen-month requirement must be completed in the transferee college alone or in combination with the college of origin, and whether the High Court could reinterpret the regulation to alleviate perceived academic hardship. The Court also considered its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 read in tandem with Article 136 to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record without disturbing the merits already concluded by the authority.
(B) The case turns on the principles of statutory interpretation, particularly the doctrine that courts should not interfere with or distort technical regulatory schemes framed by expert bodies, and the scope of permissible High Court intervention through writ jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that where a regulation is clear and addresses the specific situation, a strained construction to circumvent practical difficulties is not permissible, and the original text must be upheld. The distinction between an authority's discretionary power to grant migration in exceptional circumstances and its procedural requirements for ensuring academic continuity was also pivotal.
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a medical student, sought migration from a medical college in New Mumbai to a college in his hometown of Aurangabad on medical grounds, which was rejected by the appellant authority. He subsequently filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay praying for a direction to permit migration on the grounds of mental depression and his father's angina, additionally stating in a miscellaneous application that he was suffering from acute renal failure and his father from hypertension and unstable angina. The High Court directed the appellant to re-examine the case on the basis of a medical certificate dated 2.10.1998. Although the appellant again declined migration, a misunderstanding led counsel for the appellant to inform the High Court that migration had been permitted, prompting the High Court to direct provisional admission. Upon learning of the error, the High Court proceeded to reconsider the application and ultimately directed that the applicant's recent reports and a civil surgeon's report be sent to the appellant for reconsideration. The appellant later issued an order allowing migration subject to the condition that the applicant complete eighteen months of study at the transferee college before appearing for the second professional MBBS examination and provide an affidavit to that effect. The High Court held that Regulation 6(5) did not require the eighteen months to be served at the transferee college after migration and allowed the writ petition, a conclusion challenged on appeal.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court clarified that respondent No. 1 had already passed the second and third professional examinations, so the outcome of the appeal would not adversely affect him. It held that the proper construction of Regulation 6(5) requires the applicant to submit an affidavit stating an intention to complete eighteen months of prescribed study at the transferee college before appearing for the second professional examination, with the transfer becoming effective only after the Medical Council of India processes the migration request. The Court found that the High Court's interpretation altered the language of the regulation and was not permissible, emphasizing that academic standards and regulatory schemes should not be ordinarily disturbed by courts. The correct approach, as per the Medical Council of India's regulation, was endorsed, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Issues:
Whether Regulation 6(5) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education requires eighteen months of study to be completed in the transferee college alone or in both the original and transferee colleges together.
Whether the High Court was justified in departing from the plain wording of the regulation to avoid an academic disadvantage to the student.
Whether courts can reinterpret technical regulatory provisions to alleviate practical hardships without explicit legislative or policy direction.
Ratio Decidendi:
The ratio decidendi is that Regulation 6(5) must be interpreted according to its plain meaning, requiring a student to complete eighteen months of prescribed study at the transferee medical college before appearing for the second professional MBBS examination, and that courts should not interfere with or distort such technical regulations, as the statutory scheme and academic continuity are matters for the expert authority and not for judicial rewriting.
Result:
The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is modified accordingly. The declaration of law made by the High Court is held to be incorrect to the extent of its deviation from the regulation, and no costs are awarded.
JUDGMENT
Rajendra Babu, J.-Respondent No. 1, being a student of medical college in New Mumbai, sought for migration to a medical college at Aurangabad, his home-town, on certain medical grounds. The appellant rejected the application as he did not fall within the purview of the compassionate grounds specified in the relevant regulations. Respondent No. 1 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 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. 1 for migration on the basis of the medical certificate issued on 2.10.1998. The appellant again examined the case of respondent No. 1 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 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. 1 in the medical college at Aurangabad. The High Court was informed on 21.1.1999 that the statement 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 respondent No. 1 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 IInd 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. 1. The High Court, by an order made on 29.4.1999, construed Regulation 6(5) does not require the study of 18 months at the transferee medical college after the date of migration before appearing for the IInd professional MBBS examination, and thus allowed the writ petition.
2. 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 No. 1.
3. It must be made clear in this case that respondent No.1 has already passed the IInd professional examination and also cleared the IIIrd professional examination and whatever may be the outcome of the present case, he will not be affected adversely by the order of this Court. The appellant is more interested in interpretation of Regulation 6(5) framed by it.
4. Regulation 6(5) provides that a student will pursue 18 months of prescribed study before appearing at the IInd professional examination at the transferee medical college. However, the High Court took the view that the 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 the said regulation to 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 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.
5. 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:
respondent No. 1. The High Court, by an order made on 29.4.1999, construed Regulation 6(5) does not require the study of 18 months at the transferee medical college after the date of migration before appearing for the IInd professional MBBS examination, and thus allowed the writ petition.
2. 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 No. 1.
3. It must be made clear in this case that respondent No.1 has already passed the IInd professional examination and also cleared the IIIrd professional examination and whatever may be the outcome of the present case, he will not be affected adversely by the order of this Court. The appellant is more interested in interpretation of Regulation 6(5) framed by it.
4. Regulation 6(5) provides that tion at the transferee medical college. However, the High Court took the view that the 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 the said regulation to 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 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.
5. 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
The applicant candidate must submit an affidavit stating that he/she will pursue 18 months of prescribed study before appearing at IInd professional Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) examination at the transferee college, which should be duly certified by the Registrar of the concerned University in which he/she is seeking transfer. The transfer will be applicable only after receipt of the affidavit.
Regulation 6(5), as interpreted by the High Court
The applicant candidate must submit an affidavit at the transferee college stating that he/she will pursue 18 months of prescribed study before appearing for the IInd professional Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) examination, which should be duly certified by the Registrar of the concerned University in which he/she is seeking a transfer. The transfer will be applicable only after receipt of the affidavit.
6. 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. This position has been made clear by this Court in The University of Mysore & Anr. v. C.D. Govinda Rao & Anr.1; State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana & Anr.2 and Shirish Govind Prabhudesai v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.3. The object of the said regulation appears to be that although the course of study 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 allowed and has got to be given in exceptional 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 permissible. Thus we disagree with the view taken by the High Court and state that the correct interpretation is as given by the Medical Council of India set forth above by us.
7. In the circumstances of the case, though we do not interfere with the order made by the High Court, we make it clear that the declaration of law made by the High Court is incorrect and to that extent the order shall stand modified. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(N.K.R.) Order accordingly.
***************