The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18310 of 2025 Anshuman Nayak …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.– Mr. Arnav Behera, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.– Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, AGA (for opposite parties No.1 & 4)
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Order No.
Decision
ORDER 07.08.2025 (Hybrid mode) 1. The petitioner a student of first MBBS having got admission after he qualified in the NEET and took admission in MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur for his Undergraduate studies, three months back. He has approached this Court challenging the validity of Regulation 18 of Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 2023 framed under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the writ petition with the following prayers:- “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Opposite Parties to constitute a Medical Board comprising qualified specialists in psychiatry from the a government medical college Petitioner’s mental health condition and furnish a report as to the necessity and appropriateness of migration on health ground; to clinically evaluate Page 1 of 6 (b) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Opposite Parties to permit migration of the Petitioner to a Government or private medical college in Cuttack or Bhubaneswar which is reasonably proximate to the Petitioner’s home and has requisite psychiatric treatment infrastructure, without suggesting any particular institution. (c) Declare the Regulation 18 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 insofar as it imposes an absolute and unqualified bar on migration without exception for serious medical hardship and is liable to be read down or struck down as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of constitutional rights; (d) Pass such other or further order(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”. 3. Sum and substance of the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that Regulation 18 of the Medical Education Regulation is arbitrary, illegal and is violative of Article-14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. For convenience of reference Regulation 18 is reproduced herein: - “18. Student migration-No student designated to a Medical Institution, notwithstanding anything stating in these regulations, shall seek migration to any other Medical Institution.” 4. Apparently, the Regulation 18 comes within the Chapter III –“Admission, Counselling, Migration etc.” Regulation 16 prohibits a student seeking admission in any other way than counselling. Regulation 16 is also reproduced herein:- “16. The prohibition for any student seeking admission any other way than counselling-No medical institute shall admit any candidate in contravention of these regulations; the Graduate Medical Education course to Provided the Medical Institution granting admission to any student in contravention of these Regulations, shall be liable to be fined Rupees one crore or free for the entire course duration, Page 2 of 6 whichever is higher, per seat for the first time and for the second time of non-compliance, Rupees two crore or double the amount of fees for the entire course duration whichever is higher per seat, and continued contravention the Medical Institute shall be barred from granting admissions to any student from the next academic year; subsequent non-compliance or for any Provided further that such Student admitted in contravention of this mandate shall be discharged from the Medical College and double the number of seats shall be reduced for one or more years.” 5. After taking admission in the MKCG Medical College which is one of the premier Medical College and Hospital of State for Undergraduate and Postgraduate studies in Medicine the petitioner has got himself treated in the Department of Psychiatric in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Bhubaneswar and Dr. Debabrata Mohapatra, Associate Professor of the Department has issued certificate dated 27th May, 2025 which indicates the following:- “TO WHOM SO EVER IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that Master Anshuman Nayak, S/o. Dr. Bibhuti Nayak residing at Cuttack is under my treatment from January 2025 with a diagnosis of adjustment disorder. For recovery he needs pharmacotherapy as well as psychotherapy at regular intervals. The symptoms started after he joined as a MBBS student at MKCG Medical College, Berhampur, in November 2024. Subsequent efforts to reintegrate him into MKCG Medical college were unsuccessful and led to a worsening of his condition. He is currently under my clinical care and ongoing treatment. In my professional opinion, Master Anshuman Nayak would greatly benefit from continued parental support and a familiar home environment, which are important therapeutic factors in his recovery. He needs continued support from family members and regular psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for improvement in his condition.” Page 3 of 6 6. It is submitted by Mr. Behera, learned counsel that in view the certificate issued by the Associate Professor, the treating Doctor of AIIMS, the petitioner cannot continue his MBBS studies in MKCG Medical College and Hospital and the petitioner-student wishes to migrate to study at any other Medical College of his choice. 7. Though the petitioner has not averred where he is interested to study or the facilities that would be available in such institution for his wellbeing as alleged, several grounds have been taken in paragraph captioned as ‘grounds’ i.e. N, O, P, Q and R. The paragraphs are reproduced herein:- “N. That repeated efforts by the Petitioner to rejoin academic life at the current institution have aggravated his condition. This is confirmed by the treating psychiatrist at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar. The institution’s failure to provide a medically suitable environment necessitates judicial intervention. O. That the migration sought is not institution-specific, but to a Government or private medical college located reasonably nearer to the Petitioner’s family residence, and equipped with in-patient psychiatric facilities and structured counselling infrastructure. The relief sought is not for convenience, but is medically essential for recovery and academic reintegration. The relief sought is based solely on clinical necessity and is essential to the Petitioner’s long-term recovery and continuation of medical education. P. That the Petitioner’s attendance has fallen below the minimum due to untreated illness, and the continuation in the present environment threatens irretrievable loss of the academic year. The injury is through monetary immediate, compensation. severe, and not remediable Q. That having submitted a medically substantiated request and clinical records, the Petitioner had a legitimate expectation that the authorities would assess his case reasonably and fairly. The denial of any such consideration defeats that expectation and amounts to administrative arbitrariness. R. That denial of migration would not only irreparably harm the Petitioner’s health but also effectively result in loss of an entire Page 4 of 6 academic year, amounting to educational exclusion by reason of illness.” 8. Further challenge to the provisions contended in the Regulation, 2023 is in the premises that the petitioner strongly presumes, if he applies for migration that will not be granted, though, he has not approached any authority much less the National Medical Counsel (NMC) seeking migration on the grounds stated in the writ petition. It is strenuously argued by the learned counsel Mr. Behera that applying for migration would be an empty formality. Though he fairly concedes that the petitioner has never applied for migration nor there has been any consideration regarding migration by any authority on whatsoever ground. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the order dated 19.12.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.30257 of 2024 and very fairly refers to the conclusion of the Coordinate Bench that the Coordinate Bench directed “this order shall therefore not be considered to be a precedent any other case regarding applicability of the regulation”. He also clarifies that the student in that case had taken admission, when 1997 Regulations were prevalent and therefore, the Court applied 1997 Regulation to grant migration of the students who are suffering from Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (SR) and it was held in that particular case, that for treatment of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia(SR), better facility would be available at the SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack as compared to Shri Jagannath Medical College & Hospital, Puri. 10. Having gone through the said decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench, we find that opposite party No.2- Director, Medical Education and Training had not taken any step for approval of migration of the Petitioner that was pending for his consideration. Page 5 of 6 In the case at hand, it is fairly conceded that the petitioner- student has never approached any authority for migration from one College to other College, this Court at this stage cannot predicate what the statutory authorities will do, if any such application is made by the petitioner. 11. The learned AGA appearing for opposite parties No.1 and 4 refers to the prayer made in the writ petition to submit that the prayers made at ‘proper’ (a) and (b) cannot co-exist. As the prayer (a), the petitioner himself seeks to be examined by Medical Board who shall certify him to be medically unfit to continue his study at MKCG and if he is declared unfit, then prayer (b) can be available for consideration/ adjudication. It is further submitted that the prayers and the contentions raised in the writ petition at best can be made before the authority. Thus, response of the authorities that may can be a subject matter of judicial scrutiny. 12. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Judge (Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge. Narayan/Ranjeeta (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Aug-2025 18:57:20 Page 6 of 6