Premium
This is an archive article published on April 25, 1999

HC throws the rule book at medical college

AURANGABAD, April 24: Should a student be denied permission to take the second year MBBS final examination when his failure to comply wit...

.

AURANGABAD, April 24: Should a student be denied permission to take the second year MBBS final examination when his failure to comply with the rules is completely beyond his control. Apparently not.

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled in favour of a student, whose application form for the second year MBBS final examination was rejected by the Mahatma Gandhi Mission8217;s medical college here on the ground that he had not completed the mandatory 18 months with the institution after the Medical Council of India MCI cleared his migration from the University of Mumbai.

A division bench, comprising Justice M B Mase and Justice B B Vagyani, on April 20 directed the Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University and the dean of the MGM8217;s medical college here to accept and process the examination form of Sarang Choube, who had sought migration from Mumbai in January 1998.

While paving the way for the student to take the examination, the court has also directed the MCI chairperson to remainpresent in court on April 29, to explain the rationale behind the 18-month rule and other details pertaining to migration.

Sarang Choube, enrolled with the MGM8217;s medical college at Vashi in Navi Mumbai had applied for migration soon after completing his first year MBBS exam through the University of Mumbai in January 1998. He said he was afflicted with renal failure, which rendered him disabled and since his parents reside in Aurangabad, it would be easier for him to take the medical treatment recommended by doctors if he lived with them.

However, since the MCI had kept his application pending, Choube moved court, which directed the council to take a speedy decision. Meanwhile, Choube continued with his course at the MGM8217;s medical college in Navi Mumbai.However, on February 18, 1998, the MCI refused permission for migration saying, 8220;the reasons stated by the student were not covered by the provisions of the rules for migration set by the council8221;.

The council held that it does not accept migration as8220;a right that a medical student can claim and grants it only in exceptional cases on extreme compassionate grounds like death of a supportive guardian of the student, illness causing disability to the student and to students studying in areas declared as distrubed by the government8221;.

Story continues below this ad

Choube therefore moved court again, with the latter directing the MCI to reconsider its decision as its rejection was not accompanied by specific reasons. The MCI reopened the case and this time asked Choube to get a report on his health from the district civil surgeon.

Finally, on April 15, 1999, the MCI cleared Choube8217;s migration but by that time the last date for submission of the second year MBBS examination forms at the Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University had lapsed. Choube moved court once again, praying that the university be directed to accept his application. But the college, which had earlier issued him no-objection certificates when he sought migration, said it could not forward his examination form tothe university as he had not completed a term of 18 months with it from the date of being granted migration.

Taking strong exception to this rule, the bench said since the matter had been pending with the MCI for a long time and thereafter was being argued in court, there was no way the student could put in the mandatory 18 months at the new college before taking the exam. It therefore directed the college to accept and process Choube8217;s examination form.

It also directed the MCI counsel to ask the council8217;s chairperson to be present in court on April 20. The MCI chairperson, however, failed to turn up in court nor did he send any application explaining his absence.

Story continues below this ad

Taken aback by the chairperson8217;s casual response, the division bench said it would issue a non-bailable arrest warrant to ensure his presence before it. However his counsel gave an undertaking that he would ensure his presence at the next hearing, scheduled for April 29. Advocate N N Shinde appeared on behalf of the petitioner while AdvocateS S Choudhari represented the MCI.

 

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement