S. SODHI, J. ( 1 ) THE matter here concerns admissions to Government Medical Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh by migration or transfer from various recognised and unrecognised Medical Colleges outside the State. It arises in the context of a bunch of 139 petitions, which came up before the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal against interlocutory orders, of this Court directing admissions to Government Medical Colleges in the State by migration/transfer, which as the Supreme Court observed, "prima facie indicate too liberal a judicial attitude to matters which should have required the application of settled principles of interlocutory relief" and further that the submissions during arguments "embarrassingly indicated a widely shared apprehension as to the bona fides of the transfers and possible abuse of the process of Court" and that "the present interlocutory orders do lack visible legal support. " ( 2 ) MOST of the writ petitions now before us comprise the said bunch of 139 petitions besides several others too. Save just a few, in all these matters there were interlocutory orders directing admission by migration transfer from Medical Colleges, recognised and unrecognised, outside the State, to recognised Government Medical Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh. For dealing with them the Supreme Court classified such interlocutory orders into three broad categories, namely, migration from-1. unrecognised Medical Colleges, 2. recognised private Medical Colleges, and 3. recognised Government Medical Colleges. As mentioned earlier admissions in all these three categories were to be recognised Government Medical Colleges. The interlocutory orders passed in all these categories were vacated but as regards the third, namely, migration/transfer from recognised Government Medical Colleges, it was, however, directed that if the petitioners were already pursuing their studies in the transferee colleges they may be permitted to continue their studies till the disposal of the writ petitions subject to the ultimate outcome of the writ petitions and further that if there were any purported cancellations of such admissions, in relation to this class of transfers, such orders shall not affect the continuance of their studies till the disposal of the main matters. It was, however, added that if ultimately the writ petitions fail such cancellations would take effect from the date of their original orders. It was, however, added that if ultimately the writ petitions fail such cancellations would take effect from the date of their original orders. It was, at the same time, also observed:- "in this category of cases it as a result of our earlier stay order any of the candidates has missed any examination and if ultimately the High Court finally allows the writ petitions on the merits, whatever they may have been deprived of shall be made good by appropriate direction for holding, if necessary, special examination. " ( 3 ) HAVING said this and set aside the impugned interlocutor orders, the Supreme Court desired that all the writ petitions before it and other similar writ petitions be heard and finally disposed of as expeditiously as possible. It is in this background that these matters have now come up before us. ( 4 ) THE issue that confronts us, at the very threshold is whether there enures, in a student of a Medical College, an inherent right to seek admission to another Medical College by migration/ transfer. Put as broadly as this, it cannot but admit of only one answer, namely, in the negative, there being no statutory provision, rule or even any legal principle to support a claim to any such right. Such was also the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Shirish Givind Prabhudesai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 SC 1736 where it was held that there is no right to migration / transfer of students from one medical College to another dehors the conditions subject to which migration/transfer is permitted. The Court went on further to say (para 6): "it is also not disputed that in case a recognised medical college chooses not to take any student by migration/ transfer from another medical college, it cannot be compelled to do so. It follows that unless a recognised medical college offers to admit by migration/transfer some students from another medical college no student can claim as of right admission by migration/transfer to that medical college. It follows that unless a recognised medical college offers to admit by migration/transfer some students from another medical college no student can claim as of right admission by migration/transfer to that medical college. " ( 5 ) FACED with this situation, counsel for the petitioners sought to rest their claim for admission by migration/transfer upon the provisions of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and particular on Chapter V of "the recommendations of the Medical Council of India on Graduate Medical Education" concerning "migration/transfer of students from one Medical College to another. " ( 6 ) THE Act, as observed by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1994) 2 JT 662 : (1994 AIR SCW 2515) was enacted by Parliament to provide for the reconstitution of the Medical Council of India, maintenance of a medical register for India and for matters connected therewith. Section 11 (1) says that the medical qualifications granted by any University or medical institution in India which are included in the First Schedule shall be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of this Act. Section 12 (1) says that the medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India which are included in the Second Schedule shall also be medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act. Section 13 says that the medical qualifications granted by certain other medical institutions in India not included in the First Schedule but included in Third Schedule shall as well be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act. Section 15 provides that the medical qualifications included in the Schedules to the Act shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State medical register. It further declares that save as provided in Section 25, no person other than a medical practitioner, enrolled on a State medical register shall hold office as physician or surgeon under the Government or under any other institution maintained by a local or other authority. He shall also not be entitled to practice medicine in any State nor shall he be entitled to issue any certificate or give evidence in any matter relating to medicine. Any person acting in contravention of the said provision is made liable for punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or both. He shall also not be entitled to practice medicine in any State nor shall he be entitled to issue any certificate or give evidence in any matter relating to medicine. Any person acting in contravention of the said provision is made liable for punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or both. Section 16 empowers the Indian Medical Council to call upon every university and medical institution of India which grants a recognised medical qualification to furnish such information with respect to the courses of study and examinations to be undertaken in order to obtain such qualification, as to the ages at which such courses of study and examinations are required to be undergone and such qualification is conferred and generally as to the requisites for obtaining such qualification. Section 17 empowers the executive committee of the Indian Medical Council to appoint such number of medical inspectors as it may deem necessary to inspect any medical institution, college, hospital or other institution where medical education is imparted and to attend any examination held by it. Section 18 confers upon the council the power to appoint visitors to inspect such institutions. Section 19 empowers the council to withdraw recognition in case the courses of study and examination to be undergone in, or the proficiency required from the candidates at any examination held by any university or medical institution do not conform to the prescribed standards. Recognition can also be withdrawn where the staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities or instruction and training provided in such, institution do not conform to the prescribes standards. Section 19-A empowers the Council to prescribe the minimum standards of education required for granting recognised medical qualifications (other than post, graduate medical qualification) by universities or medical institutions in India". Section 20 empowers the council to prescribe the standards of post graduate medical education for the guidance of universities and to advise universities in the matter of securing uniform standards for post-graduate Medical Education throughout India. For this purpose, the council can constitute a post-graduate medical education committee. Section 20-A empowers the council to prescribe the standards for professional conduct and etiquette and code of ethics for medical practitioners and to ensure their observance. Section 21 requires the council to maintain the Indian medical register. Sections 22 to 28 deal with matters relating to the said register. Section 20-A empowers the council to prescribe the standards for professional conduct and etiquette and code of ethics for medical practitioners and to ensure their observance. Section 21 requires the council to maintain the Indian medical register. Sections 22 to 28 deal with matters relating to the said register. Section 29 obliges the Council to furnish such reports, accounts and other information as the Central Government may require. Section 32 empowers the Central Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act whereas Section 33 empowers the Council to make Regulations, with the previous approval of the Central Government, generally to carry out the purposes of the Act, Section 33 also specifies the several matters which can be provided by Regulations. The matters so, specified include (j) the courses and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the subjects of examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be obtained, in Universities or medical institutions for grant of recognised medical qualifications. By Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, Sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C were added. These sections deal with establishment of new medical colleges or opening of new or higher courses of study or training in existing medical institutions. " ( 7 ) OF significant relevance is Chapter V of "the recommendations of the Medical Council of India on Graduate Medical Education" (referred to hereafter as "the Medical Council recommendations") which deals with migration/ transfer of the students from one Medical College to another, in terms of which: " (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 a 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% of its intake in any one medical college in one year. The number of students migrating/ transferring to from any one medical college should not exceed the limit of 5% 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 students into any medical college should be sent to the Council forthwith. " ( 8 ) MR. S. N. Verma, Senior Advocate, appearing for some of the petitioners, sought to contend that, in the context of the provisions of the Act, it was Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations that conferred a right upon the petitioners to seek migration/transfer to other Medical Colleges. The argument being that though described as "recommendations" the medical Council recommendations were in fact regulations made by the Medical Council of India under the Act and as the Act had been made by Parliament under Entry 66 of the Union list the Medical Council recommendations would have overriding effect over any Government orders that may have been issued by the State Government in this behalf. Counsel went on further to argue that admissions to Medical Colleges by migration/transfer fall within the ambit of Entry 66 of List I, as it empowers Parliament to make laws with respect to co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific behalf, that as determination of standards of higher education in various medical institutions in the country and their co-ordination could only be done by an apex body, which in terms of the provisions of the Act was the Medical Council of India, therefore, this matter, that is, of admission of students by migration/ transfer, could not be covered by Entry 25 of List III. In other words, it came exclusively within the ambit of Entry 66 of List I. ( 9 ) TO emphasize, the respective fields of Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III reference was made to Osmania University Teachers Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 2034 where the legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh legislature to enact the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986 under Entry 25 of List III was challenged, on the ground, that in the context of the provisions of the University Grants Commission 1956, it encroached upon the field of Entry 66 of List I. In upholding this challenge the Court held that the Andhra Pradesh Act had been drawn, by and large, in the same terms as the University Grants Commission Act though it contained some more provisions than the former. Both the enactments, however, dealt with the same subject matter, that is, with co-ordination and determination of excellence of standards of teaching and examination in the University. The encroachment by the State legislature upon the Union List was thus held to be patent and obvious and the impugned legislative enactment was consequently declared void and inoperative. ( 10 ) TURNING to the provisions of Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations, counsel attempted, with great emphasis, to construe the word may in clause (a) thereof, to mean shall in order that the provisions of this Chapter are read in imperative form rather than merely as an enabling provision. Here again, the argument was founded upon the plea, though put in a different way, namely, that clause (a) conferred a discretion to permit migration/transfer, but it was coupled with an obligation to consider such claim when made. Seen in this light, it was contended, the word may had to be read as shall. Reference was, in this behalf, made to two judgments of the Supreme Court where the word may occurring in the relevant provisions was read as shall. These judgments being State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh, AIR 1963 SC 1618 and L. Hirday Narain v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly, AIR 1971 SC 33 . Reference was, in this behalf, made to two judgments of the Supreme Court where the word may occurring in the relevant provisions was read as shall. These judgments being State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh, AIR 1963 SC 1618 and L. Hirday Narain v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly, AIR 1971 SC 33 . ( 11 ) COMING back to the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that though described as "recommendations" the Medical Council of India had, in fact, prescribed "regulations" governing migration/transfer of students from one Medical College to another, it was said that the Supreme Court too had taken them to be "regulations" and not mere "recommendations". In support reference was made to the judgment in Medical Council of India v. Silas Nelson, AIR 1994 SC 777 . The matter there concerned migration from an unrecognised Medical Institution to a recognise Medical College. In dealing with this matter, the Court while referring to clause V of the Medical Council recommendations called it "regulation V". Stress was also laid upon clause E of the Medical Council recommendations being described, by the High Court, to be "mandatory recommendations approved under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956". 11a. A plain reading of Silas Nelsons case ( AIR 1994 SC 777 ) (supra) cannot, however, but bring out the tenuous nature of the contention raised. The expression "regulation" was no doubt used, but without, in any manner, going into the distinction between "regulations" and "recommendations,, in the context of the provisions of Chapter V of the Medical Council Recommendations, No occasion, in fact, arose for the Court to consider, much less decide, whether the Medical Council recommendations in this behalf were "recommendations" or "regulations". ( 12 ) FURTHER, as regards the said Chapter V, counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S. N. Verma, also argued that it conferred a right upon a student to invoke the exercise of its provisions and to thereby seek migration/ transfer from one Medical College to another and this in turn, cast a corresponding obligation upon the State to consider such a claim when put forth by a student and to thereafter allow it or to reject it, in fair and reasonable manner, but not arbitrarily. The contention, in other words, being that it could not be said "i have the power but I will not exercise it. The contention, in other words, being that it could not be said "i have the power but I will not exercise it. the contention raised was thus designed to mean that as there vests power with the State to permit migration/transfer of a student from one Medical College to another, a student had a corresponding right to invoke the exercise of it and if invoked, it would be incumbent upon the State to consider such a claim. ( 13 ) AN argument was next raised that even if it be taken that admission to Medical Colleges came within the ambit of Entry 25 of List III, migration/transfer, it was said, was not admission" as it came after admission had been granted. Considered in this light, it was contended, the State Government was not empowered to prescribe any conditions for migration/transfer contrary to those in Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations. In other words, the said Chapter V rendered such admission permissible. ( 14 ) REFERENCE in passing was also made to the aspect of national integration, involved in the transfer of medical students from a college outside the State to one in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Counsel, in this behalf, cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suman Gupta v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1984 UP LBEC 98 where the question raised was with regard to the scheme of the State Government to select by nomination candidates for admission to seats reserved in Medical Colleges outside the State. This matter was dealt with on the assumption that national integration, which was a "highly commendable and laudable objective" could be effectively served by a policy encouraging the admission of candidates of State to seats in the Medical Colleges of another State. ( 15 ) ANOTHER Senior counsel, Mr. This matter was dealt with on the assumption that national integration, which was a "highly commendable and laudable objective" could be effectively served by a policy encouraging the admission of candidates of State to seats in the Medical Colleges of another State. ( 15 ) ANOTHER Senior counsel, Mr. K. N. Tripathi, appearing for some of the other petitioners, chose to put across a similar point but in a somewhat different manner, namely, that admission, he argued meant only initial entry to a course and as under Section 33 (2) of the Act, the Medical Council was empowered to recognise or permit the various parts of the M. B. B. S. course to be completed in different Medical Colleges, it must be taken to have within its ambit the requisite power and authority to regulate and permit migration/ transfer of students and this being so, the State could, either under Entry 25 of List III nor by recourse to the provisions of Article 162 of the Constitution, prescribe conditions for or deny migration/ transfer. ( 16 ) THE Medical Council of India, on its part, took the stand that the Regulations pertaining to migration/ transfer came within the ambit of Entry 66 of List I and further that the provisions of Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations had statutory force, having been framed under Section 33 of the Act. Emphasis, in this behalf, was placed upon the letter to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of 30/11/1977, whereby approval of the Central Government was conveyed for the recommendations of the Expert Body on graduate medical education except Chapter II thereof, which dealt with selection of students. Approval to this chapter too was later granted by the Central Government by its letter of 15/10/1979. The argument thus being that the said Chapter V had been framed under Section 33 of the Act after approval of the Central Government. ( 17 ) MR. V. K. S. Chaudhary, appearing for the Medical Council of India, however, went on to add that though the provisions of Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations were statutory in nature, no student could claim migration/transfer thereunder as of right. ( 18 ) A wholly divergent stance was taken up by the Advocate General. ( 17 ) MR. V. K. S. Chaudhary, appearing for the Medical Council of India, however, went on to add that though the provisions of Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations were statutory in nature, no student could claim migration/transfer thereunder as of right. ( 18 ) A wholly divergent stance was taken up by the Advocate General. The plea put forth on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh being that the provisions of Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations pertaining to migration/ transfer were neither Rules or Regulations framed under Section 33 of the Act. They were thus neither statutory nor mandatory, but were rather merely recommendatory and directory in nature. 18a. It will be seen that two questions thus emerge :-1. Whether the power to frame Rules or Regulations pertaining to migration/ transfer comes within the scope and field of Entry 66 of List I, and 2. If it is so, whether the provisions of the said Chapter V have been framed under the Regulation making powers conferred by Section 33 of the Act. ( 19 ) THE contentions raised regarding admission by migration/transfer founded upon the provisions of the Act and particularly Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations, though attractive on the face of it, recede into oblivion in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (1994) 2 JT 662 : (1994 AIR SCW 2515), where it was held that the power to regulate admission to courses of study in medicine is traceable to Entry 25 of List III and the States, which establish and maintain medical institutions, have the power to regulate all aspects and affairs of these institutions except to the extent provided for by Entries 63 to 66 of List I. It being observed in this context "while regulation of admission to these medical courses may be incidental to the power under Entry 66 of List I it is integral to the power contained in Entry 25 of List III. The State which has established and is maintaining these institutions out of public funds must be held to possess the power to regulate the admission policy consistent with Article 14. Such power is an integral component of the power to maintain and administer these institutions. The State which has established and is maintaining these institutions out of public funds must be held to possess the power to regulate the admission policy consistent with Article 14. Such power is an integral component of the power to maintain and administer these institutions. " Further, it was held that none of the Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 19-A, 22 and 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 "empowered the Council to regulate or prescribe qualifications or conditions for admission to such courses of study. No other provision in the Act does. It is thus clear that the Act does not purport to deal with, regulate or provide for admission to graduate or post-graduate medical courses. " ( 20 ) NEXT to note is State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kumari Nivedita Jain, AIR 1981 SC 2045 , where it was held that Regulation I of the Medical Council recommendations, which lays down the conditions or qualifications for admission to medical courses, comes within the competence of the Medical Council under Section 33 of the Act and it is thus mandatory; whereas Regulation II, which deals with process or procedure for selection from amongst eligible candidates for admission, was merely in the nature of a recommendation and was directory, as laying down the process or procedure of selection for admission of the candidates out of the candidates eligible or qualified for admission under Regulation I. Regulation II recommending the process for selection was thus outside the authority of the Medical Council under Section 33 of the Act. ( 21 ) FACED with this situation, counsel for the Medical Council of India sought to persuade us to hold that migration/ transfer from one Medical College to another was not "admission" and, therefore, Parliament was empowered to legislate with regard to it and further that Section 33 of the Act specifically authorised the framing of Regulations with regard to it. In other words, it was under sub-sections (j), (k) and (l) of Section 33 of the Act, that Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations had been framed. An attempt was made here to press in aid the observations in Navedita Jains case ( AIR 1981 SC 2045 ) (supra) "sub-sections (j), (k) and (l) relate to post admission stages and the period of study after admission in Medical Colleges". An attempt was made here to press in aid the observations in Navedita Jains case ( AIR 1981 SC 2045 ) (supra) "sub-sections (j), (k) and (l) relate to post admission stages and the period of study after admission in Medical Colleges". The argument being that as migration/ transfer was a post admission stage, the provisions of the said Chapter V were clearly Regulations framed under sub-sections (j), (k) and (l) of Section 33 of the Act. Before proceeding further, reference may be made to the provisions of Section 33, sub-sections (j), (k) and (l) thereof. These sub-sections read as under:- " (j) the courses and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the subject of examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be obtained in Universities or medical institutions for grant of recognised medical qualifications; (k) the standards of staff, equipment, accommodation training and other facilities for medical education; (l) the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners, and the conditions of admission to such examination. " ( 22 ) A plain reading of these subsections leaves no manner of doubt that Regulations relating to migration or transfer of students from one Medical College to another, do not come within the regulation making field carved out for the Medical Council of India, under the Act. The nearest that can come to admission by migration/ transfer are perhaps the words "the conditions of admission to such examination" in sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act, but migration/ transfer can by no means, be construed as a condition for admission to as a Medical Course. ( 23 ) THE other distinction sought to be drawn between initial admission to a medical course and admission by migration/ transfer, was on the ground that whereas the initial admission was to a medical course, admission by migration/ transfer was to another medical institution. This too cannot stand scrutiny, as admission to a course in a particular college cannot by itself permit continuance of that course in another medical institution, unless a student is allowed to take or complete the course in the other medical institution. This can obviously be done only by admission to that institution. This too cannot stand scrutiny, as admission to a course in a particular college cannot by itself permit continuance of that course in another medical institution, unless a student is allowed to take or complete the course in the other medical institution. This can obviously be done only by admission to that institution. ( 24 ) IT follows, therefore, that the power to regulate admission to Medical Colleges is not the one covered by Entry 66 of List I, but one which falls within the ambit of Entry 25 of List III. This being so, it lies within the competence and authority of the State Government to frame Regulations regarding admissions and further, that the Act does not deal with nor does it provide for, admission to Medical Colleges and more specifically that it does not authorise the framing of Regulations for admission by migration/transfer. ( 25 ) IT is also pertinent to note that in its language too, the provisions of Clause V are couched in just such terms. Besides clause (a) of Chapter V which says that students may be allowed to migrate/transfer to another recognised Medical College, clause (d) goes on to say that admission of students by migration/ transfer "should not exceed the limit of 5 per cent of its in take in any one medical college in one year". In other words a maximum limit is indicated, leaving it to the state to fix that, or any lower limit, if at all, it chooses to permit such admissions. It is apparent, therefore, that both in law and by its intent, as expressed by the Medical Council in the said Chapter V, what is stated there, cannot but be taken to be merely recommendatory. ( 26 ) BEFORE parting with the plea regarding the right of a student to claim admission by migration/ transfer, mention must be made of the contention which, to use the colloquial expression, "takes the cake" was as put forth by Mr. S. K. Verma, counsel for Ankit Mehrotra, petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 3223 of l991, namely, that the right to admission by migration/transfer accrued to the petitioners by the interlocutory orders passed by this Court on the basis of which such admissions had been granted. S. K. Verma, counsel for Ankit Mehrotra, petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 3223 of l991, namely, that the right to admission by migration/transfer accrued to the petitioners by the interlocutory orders passed by this Court on the basis of which such admissions had been granted. Counsel, in fact, went further and sought to invoke the maxim "actus Curie Neminem Gravabit" (an act of the Court shall prejudice no man) founded upon the premise that the Court by granting the petitioners the interim relief of admission by migration/transfer, prejudiced them, in the sense that if now it is held that they were not entitled to such admission and it has thus to be cancelled, they would lose the years of study put in by them since then. The prejudice, in other words, being the grant by the court of the interim relief claimed by the petitioners. ( 27 ) IT would indeed the straining ones the credibility to hold that a person, who approaches the Court for relief, must be deemed to have been prejudiced by the relief claimed being granted to him. There could be no plea more untenabe and lacking in any semblance of merit than that the grant of interim relief, which the petitioners were not entitled to, conferred upon them an enforceable right to such relief, when their petitions are taken up for final hearing. This contention has obviously, to be stated, merely to be repelled. ( 28 ) THE inevitable conclusion that emerges is that no student has an inherent right to obtain admission by migration/transfer to another Medical College. Such admission, as the Supreme Court in Prabhu Desais case ( AIR 1993 SC 1736 ) (supra) put it, being "subject to which (conditions) migration/ transfer is permitted. " ( 29 ) FURTHER, the provisions of the Act and the Medical Council recommendations, including Chapter V thereof, are, in this context, to be read to be merely advisory or directory in nature, as it is for the State, which establishes and maintains the Medical Colleges, to lay down the mode and criteria for such admissions and this the State Government is competent to do in the exercise, both, of its legislative power under Entry 25 of List III as also executive power under Art. 162 of the Constitution. This, being so, whether the word may occurring in Chapter V, Cl. This, being so, whether the word may occurring in Chapter V, Cl. (a) is read as may not shall loses its relevance. These provisions are thus to be taken to be merely enabling and recommendatory in nature. ( 30 ) IT follows, therefore, that in laying down the rules or guidelines governing admission by migration/transfer, the State Government may deviate from what is prescribed in Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations even to the extent of prohibiting altogether admissions by migration/ transfer. In other words, it would be well within the power and competence of the State Government to provide that all seats in Medical Colleges shall be filled only on the basis of the common entrance test. . ( 31 ) HAVING said this, we must, however, hasten to add, that even though directory in nature, the recommendations of the Medical Council of India as contained in Chapter V are entitled to, nay must be given, due weight and consideration, coming as they do, from the apex body of the medical profession in the country and being founded upon the deliberations and opinion of an expert body thereof and also it appears, having the approval of the Central Government too. ( 32 ) THE only aspect of the said Chapter V that now survives for comment is Cl. (e) thereof, which the Advocate-General sought to brand as being an unbridled power, arrogated to itself by the Medical Council of India, without any guidelines or Rules to govern its exercise. ( 33 ) IT will be recalled that Cl. (e) of Chapter V enables the Medical Council of India to consider cases for migration/transfer "on individual merits. " It does not go further to mention any guidelines or criteria for considering such "individual merits. ( 33 ) IT will be recalled that Cl. (e) of Chapter V enables the Medical Council of India to consider cases for migration/transfer "on individual merits. " It does not go further to mention any guidelines or criteria for considering such "individual merits. " ( 34 ) THE procedure adopted by the Medical Council of India, while dealing with applications of students seeking migration, has however been set forth in its Vth Supplementary affidavit where it is stated: " (a) If a student who is studying in a recognised medical college applies for migration/ transfer within 3 months after the first professional examination along with required no objection certificates from the relieving and the transferee medical colleges within the permissible 5% migration quota, then the MCI has only to give the formal no objection which in such cases may be issued by the officer of the MCI dealing with these matter. (b) All cases of request by medical students for migration/transfer, which do not satisfy all the conditions in sub-cls. (a) to (d), are referred to the Migration Sub-Committee duly constituted under the Act. (c) All these applications falling under sub-cl. (e) received by the MCI from the concerned students/ authorities received before the meeting of the Migration Sub-Committee are formatted giving details regarding the cases and are incorporated in the agenda circulated to members of the Migration Sub-Committee. As a normal practice, a separate clause put in the agenda for discussion of any matter with the permission of the Chair. Further all these applications which fall under sub-cl. (e) of Cl. (v) or require reference to the Migration Sub-Committee received after the agenda is circulated, but before the date of the meeting, are also placed before the Sub-Committee. This is done only with a view to avoid any hardship and delay in the case of deserving candidates. Further all these applications which fall under sub-cl. (e) of Cl. (v) or require reference to the Migration Sub-Committee received after the agenda is circulated, but before the date of the meeting, are also placed before the Sub-Committee. This is done only with a view to avoid any hardship and delay in the case of deserving candidates. " ( 35 ) FURTHER, students seeking migration are required to furnish information as set out in a pro forma prepared by the Medical Council of India, which is reproduced hereunder: "sir/ Madam, This is to acknowledge the receipt of your letter No - - - - - - - dt - - - - -- - - - - - in connection with migration of M/miss - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - from - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Medical College, -- - - - - - - to - - - - - - - - - - - Medical College, -- - - - - - -. 2. You are requested to kindly forward the following documents for consideration of this migration by this Council. (i) No Objection Certificate from relieving college - - - - - - - - - - - stating that the migration is within 5% migration quota. (ii) No Objection Certificate from - - - - - - - Medical College, --- - - - - - - to which you wish to migrate stating that the migration is within 5% quota of annual admission. (iii)Reasons for not applying within 3 months after passing the Ist Professional Examination. (iv) You have not enclosed photocopy of mark-sheet of Ist Professional Examination passed by you. (v)Reasons for migration with documentary proof have not been mentioned. (vi) Your application has not been routed through proper channel i. e. College where migration is sought for. 3. Since - - - - - - - - - - - Medical College - - - - - - - - - - - - - is not recognised by the Medical Council of India, your application for migration cannot be considered. 3. Since - - - - - - - - - - - Medical College - - - - - - - - - - - - - is not recognised by the Medical Council of India, your application for migration cannot be considered. " ( 36 ) THE affidavit goes on to say that applications of the students seeking migration, after scrutiny, are placed before the Migration Sub-Committee which then considers the cases on individual merits. The Executive Committee of the Medical Council of India, which is an elected body under the Act, may also take up cases of migration, besides others, which the Migration Sub-Committee may refer to it. ( 37 ) WHAT is important to note is, that at its meeting held on 8/07/1988, the Migration Sub-Committee framed certain guidelines for considering the cases of migration. These guidelines being:- " (i) Serious illness of the student warranting change of place duly supported by proper medical certificates. (ii) Serious illness/ death of the parents warranting the students to be with the parents or nearest to the place of residence of the parents. (iii) Marriage of the students warranting to live with the spouse at the place of migration. (iv) Circumstances which may lead to the danger, to the life of the candidate in case he continues to study in the parent institution. " It was, however, further added:"there may be further special circumstances, for example break up of the USSR which forced the students reading in medical colleges of USSR to come to their motherland or the militancy in Kashmir or Srilanka resulting in students exodus. In such cases fresh guidelines apart from the aforesaid, may be adopted; or the Migration Sub-Committee is free to adopt other norms suitable to the conditions arising out of extraordinary situation. Often in extraordinary circumstances, the Central Government issues directions/ requests to the States for sympathetic consideration of the placement of the candidates involved. " ( 38 ) SEEN in the context of the guidelines adopted by the Medical Council of India and the procedure it has laid down for dealing with applications for migration there can be no escape from the conclusion that a very fair and reasonable manner of dealing with such applications has been evolved and is being followed. " ( 38 ) SEEN in the context of the guidelines adopted by the Medical Council of India and the procedure it has laid down for dealing with applications for migration there can be no escape from the conclusion that a very fair and reasonable manner of dealing with such applications has been evolved and is being followed. At any rate, as held earlier, the provisions of Chapter V do not have statutory force and are merely recommendatory in nature. This being so, we are not persuaded to hold that clause (e) of Chapter V deserves to, be struck down as conferring unwarranted power and authority for intrusion into the field of migration of students or that it is capable of arbitrary use. It of course goes without saying that, if in any particular case, migration of a student is recommended, for reasons which cannot be justified, the Courts can certainly steps in to provide the requisite legal remedy. ( 39 ) SUCH being the law, we turn now to the three orders issued by the State Government pertaining to admissions, in Medical Colleges by migration/ transfer from Medical Colleges outside the State. These being of December 31, 198 6/09/1991 and 13/04/1993 (for brevity, referred to hereinafter, as the 1986, 1991 and 1993 Order, respectively ). ( 40 ) ACCORDING to the 1986 Order, admission by migration/transfer was restricted to female students and that too only from "those outside colleges where the admission is not given on the basis of capitation fee or differential fee. " ( 41 ) FURTHER, the facility of migration/ transfer was, in the first instance, to be given to the students of the U. P. State Medical Colleges and it was only for the remaining seats, if any, from "the transfer limit prescribed by Medical Council of India" that girls from medical colleges outside the State could be given admission. Not only this, such migration/transfer of female students from outside the State was confined, to only two medical colleges, namely, those of Jhansi and Gorakhpur "where the admissions have been given only to the students securing minimum marks in this State in C. P. M. T. Examination. " ( 42 ) THE 1986 Order held the field till it came to be replaced by the 1991 Order, which imposed a complete ban on admissions by migration/transfer from outside the State. " ( 42 ) THE 1986 Order held the field till it came to be replaced by the 1991 Order, which imposed a complete ban on admissions by migration/transfer from outside the State. This ban remained in force for two years, till the 1993 Order again permitted such admissions, of course, subject to the conditions contained therein. This Order provides:- " (1) Migration or transfer shall be allowed only within three months of passing of first professional examination. (2) During any one year a maximum of five per cent students of the intake capacity of any of the Government Medical Colleges or the King Georges Medical College, Lucknow may be allowed to migrate or transfer to and from a recognised medical college subject to a maximum of five students in any of the Government Medical Colleges or the King Georges Medical College, Lucknow, in one year; provided that no additional seat shall be created in any government Medical College or the King Georges Medical College, Lucknow, as a result of migration or transfer. " ( 43 ) THE order in which migration/transfer is to be allowed being: " (a) students selected through Combined Pre-Medical Test or All India Entrance Examination for admission to under-graduate medical/ dental course conducted by Central Board of Secondary Education and studying in any of the Government Medical Colleges or the King Georges Medical, College, Lucknow; (b) students selected through, All India Entrance examination for admission to under-graduate medical/dental course conducted by Central Board of Secondary Education and, studying in any recognised medical college outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. (c) students selected through competitive examination and studying in any recognized medical college outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. (d) M. B. B. S. students other than those mentioned in sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) studying in any recognised medical college outside State of Uttar Pradesh. " ( 44 ) THIS order further goes on to provide that applications for migration/ transfer shall be decided "strictly on merit to be determined on the basis of marks obtained in the first professional examination and keeping in view of the choice of the candidate. " ( 45 ) A concerted attack was launched by the counsel for the petitioners on the legal validity of these three orders, namely, those of 1986, 1991 and 1993. " ( 45 ) A concerted attack was launched by the counsel for the petitioners on the legal validity of these three orders, namely, those of 1986, 1991 and 1993. To begin with, the aspect of the legislative competence of the State Government was again reverted to, this time, of course, with regard to the issuance of these orders. Reference was also again made to several judgments of the Supreme Court with a view to show that regulation of admission to Medical Colleges by migration/ transfer fell exclusively within the domain of Entry 66 of List I. Further, the distinction, in this behalf, was sought to be repeated, between initial admission to a Medical College and by migration/transfer, implying thereby that joining a Medical College by migration/ transfer was not "admission. " It will be recalled that both these points have already, been considered and dealt with and, therefore, call for no further discussion. As shown earlier, the former clearly stands answered by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Singhs case (supra), while the latter patently lacks backing of any reason or logic. ( 46 ) THERE can be no manner of doubt that the power to regulate admission to Medical Colleges falls, not under Entry 66 of List I, but comes within the ambit of Entry 25 of List III. This being so, the State Government possesses the requisite authority and power to frame regulations regarding such admission. What is more, the Act neither deals with nor provides for admissions to Medical Colleges. Both, on this account, as also on a plain reading of its provisions, Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations cannot but be treated as merely directory and recommendatory in nature. Once it is so held, no infirmity can be imputed to an order merely on the ground of it not being in confirmity with the provisions of the said Chapter V. ( 47 ) BEFORE proceeding further it would be appropriate here to get out of the way the related plea put forth by the Counsel for the petitioners pertaining to admissions by migration/transfer, namely, that regulation of such admissions by the State Government could not be carried to the extent of completely barring them, as was done by the 1991 order. In other words, regulation must fall short of prohibition. In other words, regulation must fall short of prohibition. To lend weight to this argument, Counsel cited State of U. P. v. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation, AIR 1979 SC 1459 . The matter there concerned the regulation of supply of electricity under the Electricity Act, 1910 and the U. P. Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) Order. An argument was raised that what the State Government was authorised to do was to make an order providing for regulating the supply, distribution, consumption or use of energy, but it had not been conferred the power to; prohibit the supply of energy to any consumer. In dealing with this contentions the Court observed :- "it appears that a distinction between regulation and restriction or prohibition has always been drawn, ever since Municipal Corporation of the City of Toronto v. Virgo, 1896 AC 88. regulation promotes the freedom or the facility which is required to be regulated in the interest of all concerned, whereas prohibition obstructs or shuts off, or denies it to those to whom it is applied. The Oxford English Dictionary does not define "regulate" to include prohibition so that if it had been the intention to prohibit the supply, distribution, consumption or use of energy, the Legislature would not have contended itself with the use of the word "regulating" without using the word "prohibiting" or some such word, to bring out that effect. " ( 48 ) THE support of these observations stands severely whittled down by the later judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone, AIR 1981 SC 711 where in dealing with the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, reference was made to Section 15 thereof, which authorised making of rules and regulations for the grant of mining leases. The contention was raised that such rules could not provide for prohibition of the grant of mining leases. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation (supra) was also referred to in this behalf. It was, however, held that regulation does not have "that rigidity of meaning as never to take in prohibition. Much depends on the context in which the expression is used in the statute and the object sought to be achieved by the contemplated regulation. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation (supra) was also referred to in this behalf. It was, however, held that regulation does not have "that rigidity of meaning as never to take in prohibition. Much depends on the context in which the expression is used in the statute and the object sought to be achieved by the contemplated regulation. " ( 49 ) SEEN in this light and considering that provisions of Chapter V of the Medical Council recommendations are merely recommendatory in nature, no bar or restriction can be taken to have been placed upon the power of the State, Government to completely bar admissions by migration/ transfer. ( 50 ) SEVERAL counsel for the petitioners also vexed eloquent on the legal infirmity they attributed, particularly, to the 1986 and 1991 orders, on the ground that they had not been notified in the Gazette as required by law. The argument being that sub-section (5) of Section 28 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1973 Act"), under which these orders had been issued, rendered it imperative that they be notified and in terms of the definition of "notification" or "publication" as contained in Section 4 (29a) of the U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (in abbreviation "the 1904 Act"), such notification could only be by publication in the Gazette. As admittedly this had not been done, in the case of either of these orders, they were thus said to lack legal validity and this being so, they could not, therefore, stand in the way of students seeking admission by migration/transfer. . .