- (1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to the migration of respondent No.5 from Government Medical College, Faridkot to Government Medical College, Patiala, for MBBS course and for a direction that the petitioner should be permitted to migrate from Government Medical College, Amritsar to Government Medical College, Patiala, in preference to respondent No.5, in view of more meritorious claim on the basis of marks and personal health problems.
(2.) THE whole issue rotates around the application for migration received from the petitioner and respondent No.5 and which has been recommended in favour of respondent No.5 by the Minister heading the Medical Education and Research Department, who considered both the cases of the petitioner and that of respondent No.5 and came to the following conclusion: "It is mentioned in Rule (Annex. A) of Medical Council regarding Migration that Migration can be made on any genuine and deserving case. On inspecting the file that N.O.C. for Migration has been issued to Akriti Kalra on dated 20.9.2013 vide letter No.2293. After this N.O.C. has been issued on dated 25.9.2013 vide letter No.2418 to other student Harmanpreet Kaur. Akriti Kalra has present the O.P.D. Card of her mother in which the treatment of her mother regarding depression from the year 2008 at Govt. College and Hospital and certificate regarding her eyes problem and Harmanpreet Kaur has presented her Skin problem Certificate issued by (Private Doctor) regarding the year 2012. On the basis of these facts the application of Akriti Kalra is seems very genuine and deserving and as such orders for her migration be issued at Patiala in this regard."
(3.) THE abovesaid decision is the subject matter of challenge by the petitioner on the ground that as per the policy of migration of the students from one Government Medical College to another is to be done on a genuine ground, subject to the vacancy in the College where the migration is sought, after the declaration of the 1st professional MBBS examination. In the present case, scramble for migration to Patiala started on the declaration of the 1st Professional MBBS examination on 06.09.2013. It is the case of the petitioner that she applied on 09.09.2013 to her College at Amritsar and thereafter, applied to the Government Medical College, Patiala on 10.09.2013 (Annexure P3). She was successful in getting the no objection certificate from respondent No.3 -College only on 25.09.2013 in which it was mentioned that there was only one seat vacant and the NOC had already been received by respondent No.5. The University, thereafter, issued the NOC on 26.09.2013 wherein again, a condition was put that there was only one vacant seat at Patiala and two NOC's had been issued in favour of the petitioner and respondent No.5 and with the said certificate, representation was made to the Director, Research and Medical Education on 27.09.2013 on the ground that the petitioner has skin problem and also suffering from depression for which, she had been undergoing treatment for the last more than one year. It is pointed out that respondent No.5 did not follow the prescribed procedure and applied directly to the Vice -Chancellor on 19.09.2013, on the ground that she was resident of Nabha and her mother was suffering from depression and there was nobody to care for her and therefore, she should be allowed to shift to the Government Medical College, Patiala as it was near her home and it would be easy to look after her. Accordingly, NOC was asked for from all the four authorities, at the same point of time. The NOC was issued to respondent No.5 on 20.09.2013 by the College at Patiala and similarly by the University on 27.09.2013. It was further contended that while applying, a recommendation had been got made from the Minister In -charge, at that point of time, by respondent No.5 and NOC had been granted by the College at Patiala on 20.09.2013 whereas the petitioner had applied on 10.09.2013 itself but her migration certificate was held up till 25.09.2013 due to the influence of respondent No.5. It was further submitted that the Minister, having recommended the case, had taken a decision on 08.10.2013, as reproduced above and therefore, the said decision was vitiated. It was also contended that in the case of the petitioner, her health was an issue as she had a skin problem and she is suffering from depression whereas, in the case of respondent No.5, it was her mother who was ill and it was not clear as to what type of disease she was suffering from. It is also submitted that the petitioner had 409 marks out of 600 as compared to 389 marks of respondent No.5. Accordingly, it was contended that if there was a genuine ground for migration, it was the case of the petitioner which was more favourable and accordingly, it was prayed that the decision to grant migration to respondent No.5 be quashed and the petitioner be granted the said benefit.;