2000 INSC 0292
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                             Medical Council of India

                                                           Vs.

                                               Diparani P. Deshmukh

                                        (B.N. Kirpal and S. S. Quadri JJ.)

                                                      28.02.2000

                                                       ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. Respondent No. 1 was admitted into MBBS Course of Bharati Vidyapeeth Medical College, Pune
in June 1995. On 27th December, 1997, she passed 1st MBBS Examination on second attempt from
the said College and in April 1998 she moved an application for migration to the Medical College,
Aurangabad. The Migration Sub-Committee of the Medical Council of India rejected this
application whereupon a writ petition was filed on 30th July, 1998 in the High Court. By order
dated 26th March, 1999, respondent No. 1 was allowed to attend the 2nd Year MBBS classes at the
Government Medical College, Aurangabad and it is this order which is challenged in the present
case.

3. The Regulation framed by the Medical Council of India pertaining to migration is Regulation 6.
It inter alia provides that migration from one medical college to another is not a right of a student. It
is only in exceptional cases on extreme compassionate grounds that migration can be allowed. Sub-
clause (iii) of Note 1 in Regulation 6 stipulates that Medical Council reserves the right not to
entertain any application which is not under the prescribed compassionate grounds. Note 2. reads as
follows:

Note 2: Compassionate grounds criteria:

(i) Death of a supporting guardian.

(ii) Illness of the candidate causing disability.

(iii) Disturbed conditions as declared by Government in the Medical College area.

4. As we read the said Regulation and Note 2 in particular, it is clear that the extreme compassionate
grounds criteria contemplated by the said Regulation are only three, namely, death of a supporting
guardian, illness of the candidate causing disability and lastly disturbed conditions as declared by
the Government in the medical college area. In Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Another etc. v. State of
M.P. and Ors. etc. , this Court has held that these Regulations are mandatory.

5. The case of the respondent for migration did not fall under any of these three categories. The
reason stated by her for claiming migration was that there was matrimonial dispute which had
resulted in a divorce with her husband and she felt threatened if she continued to stay in Pune. Even
if this plea be correct, it does not in any circumstance fall within any of the categories of extreme
compassionate grounds. The High Court, in our opinion, erred in granting relief to the respondent.
We are conscious of the fact that the respondent had attended classes possibly for one year, but that
does not make any difference and we expect the authorities concerned to take into consideration on
her repatriation to Pune the attendance of the respondent in the Medical College. Aurangabad, for
the purpose of enabling her to take the 2nd MBBS Course Examination in the Medical College,
Pune.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed and the interim order passed by the High Court is
set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court stands dismissed.