JUDGMENT S. K. Dhaon, J. 1. The prayer is that the Vice-Chancellor of the Banaras Hindu University and the Director, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University may be commanded to admit the petitioner in the second Professional MBBS. course in the Institute of Medical Sciences of the said University. 2. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the two respondents aforementioned. The petition has not been admitted as yet. However, with the consent of the learned counsel for parties we have heard this petition with a view to dispose it of finally. We are, therefore, proceeding to do so. The petitioner had been admitted to the M.B B.S. course in the Ganesh Shanker Vidyarathi Memorial Medical College, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Kanpur Medical College), He passed the first Professional M.B.B S. Examination and was studying in the third year as a First Term student in the second Professional MBB S. course in the said College. The petitioner was desirous of being permitted to migrate/transfer to the Institute of Medical Sciences of the Banaras Hindu University (hereinafter referred to as the Institute). 3. The Medical Council of India in March, 1981, adopted certain recommendations on Graduate Medical Education. The petitioner's sheet-anchor is the said recommendations. Paragraph S of the recommendations has the heading : Migration/Transfer of students from one Medical College to another. The recommendations under this head are : "(a) A student studying in a recognised medical college may be allowed to migrate/transfer to another recognised medical college under another/same University. (b) The migration/transfer can be allowed by the University concerned within three months after passing the 1st professional examination as per rule, (c) Migration/transfer of students during the course of their training for the clinical subjects should be avoided. (d) The number of students migrating/transferring from one medical college to another medical college during one year will be kept to the minimum so that the training of the regular students of that college is not adversely affected. The number of students migrating/transferring to/from any one medical college should not exceed the limit of 5 percent of its intake in any one medical college in one year. (e) Cases not covered under the above regulations are to be referred to the council for consideration on individual merits. The number of students migrating/transferring to/from any one medical college should not exceed the limit of 5 percent of its intake in any one medical college in one year. (e) Cases not covered under the above regulations are to be referred to the council for consideration on individual merits. (f) An intimation about the admission of migrated/transferred student into any medical college should be sent to the Council forthwith." It is not in dispute that only 3 students of other medical colleges could be permitted to migrate/transfer to the Institute under the quota of 5 percent referred to in (d) as quoted above. A competitive test was held to select three students. This competitive test has been described as the migration test in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the two respondents. 41 candidates, including the petitioner, appeared. On the basis of merit, i.e., the marks secured by the candidate in the migration test the three seats were filled up. The petitioner and the other candidates remained unsuccessful The position of the petitioner was 9th in the merit list. 4. The petitioner having failed to succeed in the migration test, his father, on 29th May, 1989, submitted an application to the Secretary of the Indian Medical Council through the Director of the Institute with a prayer that the Medical Council may permit the migration of the petitioner to the Institute. On 29th May, 1989, the Director of the Institute (Professor Vaidya) was not available. On that day the Acting Director forwarded the case of the petitioner for consideration under paragraph V (e) of the recommendations afore quoted It appears that on 30th June, 1989, the Secretary of the Medical Council of India inquired from the Director of the Institute of the number of students present in the First Term of the second MB BS. course. In reply, the Director wrote that 54 regular candidates were in the third year M B.B.S. class having passed the first year M.B.B.S. examination conducted by the Institute. 3 candidates had been selected in the migration test under *he 5 percent quota. Two of them had joined and the third was likely to join in the near future Upon his joining the total strength would be 57 students. 3 candidates had been selected in the migration test under *he 5 percent quota. Two of them had joined and the third was likely to join in the near future Upon his joining the total strength would be 57 students. On 27th July, 1989, the Secretary of the Medical Council of India wrote to the Director of the Institute that the Medical Council had no objection to migration of the petitioner from the Kanpur Medical College to the Institute in the first term of the second M.B.BS. course as a special case. The material averments in the counter affidavit are these. The Acting Director ought not to have forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Medical Council of India. The Vice-Chancellor, the Dean Faculty of Medicines and the Director of the Institute considered the case of the petitioner along with the case of some other similar candidates, who had sought migration as a special case and they decided not to permit the migration of any one. It will not be in the interest and reputation of the Institute to permit a back-door entry in the institute of a candidate who failed in the migration test. It will be unjust to permit the migration of the petitioner even though 8 candidates having higher merit than him are not being permitted to do so. A candidate, who has taken resort to a migration test, cannot be permitted to take resort to paragraph V (e). 5. Paragraph V (e) is confined to cases not covered by the preceding clauses of the said paragraph. Therefore, the question is whether paragraph V (e) is available at all to the petitioner ? We have already indicated that the petitioner availed of the terms of paragraph V (1), appeared in the migration test and remained unsuccessful therein in so far as 8 students had higher merit than him. Having considered the matter, we are of the opinion that a combind reading of clauses (d) and (e) does lead to the conclusion that a candidate cannot be permitted to avail of the benefit of both the provisions. The interpretation as canvassed on behalf of the petitioner may lead to anomalous results A candidate, who may have per formed miserably in the migration test, may be permitted to migrate oohis individual merit although candidates superior to him will not be permitted to do so. The interpretation as canvassed on behalf of the petitioner may lead to anomalous results A candidate, who may have per formed miserably in the migration test, may be permitted to migrate oohis individual merit although candidates superior to him will not be permitted to do so. It is noteworthy that the words used in clause (e) are "consideration on individual merits". "Merits" in clause (e) cannot and does not exclude academic merits, clause (e). therefore, is referable to these cases where an individual candidate having academic merits etc. desires migration but for some reason the other he was prevented to participate in the migration test. There appears to be force in the submission made on behalf of the respondents that if a candidate, who has remained unsuccessful in the migration test, is permitted 10 migrate on account of the operation of clause (e), such a migration would be nothing short of a back-door entry. Therefore, such a construction should be eschewed, if possible. In our opinion, there can be no difficulty in taking the view that clause (e) will not apply to a case where a candidate has availed of the benefit given in clause (d). It follows that the respondents were justified in not accepting the recommendations of the Medical Council of India. 6. Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), inter alia, authorises the Medical Council to make Regulations generally to carry out the purposes of the Act with the previous sanction of the Central Government. On behalf of the petitioner it is urged that the recommendations on Graduate Medical Education as adopted by the Medical Council of India are really Regulations made under section 33- We have not been shown any document to indicate that the said recommendations were adopted by the Medical Council of India with the approval of the Central Government. On the material on record, we are unable to record a finding that the recommendations have the force of Regulations within the meaning of section 33. Therefore paragraph V (e), even if applicable to the case of the petitioner, cannot entitle him (the petitioner) to seek a writ in the nature of mandamus from this court. On the material on record, we are unable to record a finding that the recommendations have the force of Regulations within the meaning of section 33. Therefore paragraph V (e), even if applicable to the case of the petitioner, cannot entitle him (the petitioner) to seek a writ in the nature of mandamus from this court. We are also satisfied that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the respondents neither acted arbitrarily nor irrationally in not accepting the recommendations of the Medical Counsel of India with regard to the migration of the petitioner from the Kanpur Medical College to the Institute The respondents acted in the interest of the Institute. They have merely shown their anxiety to preserve the reputation of the Institute. Admittedly, the petitioner is continuing his studies in the Kanpur Medical College. No injustice has been caused to him by the refusal of the respondents to permit his migration to the Institute. The action of the respondents in refusing migration is bonafide and on reasonable grounds. Therefore, merits apart, this, in our opinion, is not a fit case for interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. The petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.