JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have invoked the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed to allow their mutual transfer from S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur to Government Medical College, Kota and vice-versa. 2. According to the facts mentioned in the writ petition, the petitioners passed P.M.T. examination conducted by the State of Rajasthan in the year 1994. The petitioners Durga Shankar and Miss Abhilasha Mehrda were respectively admitted in S.M.S Medical College, Jaipur and Govt. Medical College, Kota and at present they are studying in the IInd semester of first year M.B.B.S. Both the petitioners are desirous of mutual transfer from Jaipur to Kota and Kota to Jaipur in the respective medical colleges. They submitted an application on 24.8.95 for their mutual transfer and further sent reminder on 11.9.95 but no action was taken by the non-petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the non- petitioners, the petitioner have filed this writ petition on the ground that the inaction on the part of non- petitioner in not transferring the petitioners is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioners have incorporated the grounds in their application for mutual transfer (Annexure 2) and attempted to justify the said transfer. According to Annexure 2, father of petitioner Abhilasha Mehrda is insulin diabetic with constant blood pressure and suffering from heart disease. Her family is settled at Jaipur and being a girl she is facing many difficulties in Kota as well as in travelling from Kota to Jaipur to meet her family. On the other hand, health of parents of petitioner Durga Shanker is also not well and there is no one in his family to look after the parents who are settled at Kota. Father of petitioner Durga Shanker is a small shopkeeper with very low income and cannot afford his expences at Jaipur. 4. Non-petitioners have stated in the reply to the writ petition that the petitioners were given admissions as per their merit and they were allotted colleges at Jaipur and Kota strictly according to their merit. There is no provision for mutual transfer and as per guidelines of the Medical Council of India read with circular issued by the State Govt., the migration can be considered only within a period of three months from the date of declaration of result of M.B.B.S. first year. There is no provision for mutual transfer and as per guidelines of the Medical Council of India read with circular issued by the State Govt., the migration can be considered only within a period of three months from the date of declaration of result of M.B.B.S. first year. Petitioners have no legal right under any statutory rules and they are not entitled for mutual transfer. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. First of all I would like to discuss the various judgments of this court and the Apex Court pertaining to mutual transfer. 6. In Mahip Prakash v. State and ors., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4437 of 1992, 22.9.92) this court issued direction to transfer Mahip Prakash from S.N.T. Medical College, Udaipur to S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur and allowed Sh. Kuldeep Kawaria to be transferred from S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur to R.N.T. Medical College, Jodhpur (sic). The parents of Mahip Prakash lived at Jodhpur whereas the parents of Kuldeep Kawaria resided at Udaipur and in their interest mutual transfer was permitted as it was not going to affect both the institutions in any way. 7. In Miss. Sweta v. State and Ors., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5335/94 decided on 12.12.94) mutual transfer was permitted from S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur to Medical College, Kota and vice-versa. 8. In Miss Meena Kumari v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5757/92) this Court in para No. 10 of the said judgment observed as under : "The medical council of India has adopted certain regulations under which the transfer can-be allowed by the University concerned within three months from the first years M.B.B.S. examination. The migration/transfer can be allowed by the university concerned within three months after passing first professional examination as a rule. The transfer in my opinion, is not permissible even any cases seeking mutual transfer and though in some cases for mutual transfer by this Court have been allowed but in view of the aforesaid regulation of the Medical Council of India, it will not be proper for the court to intervene in such matters." 9. The transfer in my opinion, is not permissible even any cases seeking mutual transfer and though in some cases for mutual transfer by this Court have been allowed but in view of the aforesaid regulation of the Medical Council of India, it will not be proper for the court to intervene in such matters." 9. In Surbhi Jain v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5174/90 decided on 3.1.91) this court observed as under : "Merit and merit alone coupled with preference has to be given priority over the place of residence. The place of residence, therefore, has a secondary position and admissions cannot be based on that criteria unless the candidate himself chooses his place of residence to be the place of study." 10. In Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 718/94 decided on 19.10.94) this court observed as under:- "Barring legal pleas the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is another candidate who is prepared to go from Jaipur to Kota and this exchange/mutual transfer can be permitted. The learned Deputy Government Advocate has referred to some regulations framed under the Medical Council of India Act to show that the transfer from one place to another can be permitted only within a period of three months after the candidate has passed his first MBBS examination. It is not clear from the regulations produced by the Dy. Government Advocate as to whether this applies to migration of candidate from one University to another or to inter- college transfer, but it can be said that shifting of candidate should be done at a time when the study of the candidates are least disturbed and it is in the interest of the student that the transfer either mutual or on account of vacancy occurred for some reason should be done after the examination is over and the next course is about to begin. It cannot be said that there is a ban on transfer, but the transfers can be made in accordance with the regulations of the Medical Council of India and when the period has been fixed within which the transfers are to be made then the Government can allow the transfer during this period. It cannot be said that there is a ban on transfer, but the transfers can be made in accordance with the regulations of the Medical Council of India and when the period has been fixed within which the transfers are to be made then the Government can allow the transfer during this period. The petitioner should approach the Government for his transfer to the S.M..S. Medical College, Jaipur at the relevant time after clearing the First MBBS and it is expected that considering the physical condition of the petitioner the Government shall take a sympathetic view in the matter" 11. The Apex Court in Shirish Govind Prabhu Desai v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1993 (1) Supreme Court cases 211 observed as under : "The recommendations on Graduate Medical Education are by an expert body of the Medical Council of India which is entrusted with certain statutory functions relating to medical education by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Medical Council of India having chosen to accept these recommendations, such a condition of eligibility for migration/transfer from one medical college to another adopted by the recognised medical colleges cannot be termed unreasonable or artibrary. The quality difference between the non-recognised medical colleges generally as compared to the medical colleges recognised by the Medical Council of India, the recognition being based on certain objective standards relating to medical education, and the competitive merit forming the basis for admission to a recognised medical college justify as reasonable such a restriction for grant of permission for migration/transfer from one medical college to another. One of the purposes served by such a restriction is to permit this inter-college movement of students after passing the first MBBS examination only between students of recognised medical colleges and to prevent indirect entry into recognised medical colleges of students who had failed initially to secure entry into a recognised medical college. Movement of students between recognised medical colleges only is quite often to facilitate the students thereof in certain circumstances without conferring on them any additional benefit after the initial entry to a medical college duly recognised. Such a condition of eligibility for migration/transfer to a recognised medical college permitting only students of recognised medical colleges is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Movement of students between recognised medical colleges only is quite often to facilitate the students thereof in certain circumstances without conferring on them any additional benefit after the initial entry to a medical college duly recognised. Such a condition of eligibility for migration/transfer to a recognised medical college permitting only students of recognised medical colleges is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. There being no inherent right in a student admitted to a non-recognised medical college to claim such migration/transfer, this restriction for migration/transfer imposed by the recognised medical colleges on the basis of the recommendations adopted by the Medical Council of India, there is no foundation for the claim for such migration/transfer made by the students of non-recognised medical colleges." 12. The Apex Court in its latest judgment in Medical Council of India v. Tarun Vyas. (Special) Leave Petition No. 1985/95 decided on 6.11.95) , referring its earlier judgment in Shirish Govind's case has observed as under : "By the impugned order, the High Court has allotted migration of Respondent No. 1 from U.S.S.R. and directed his admission into the medical college in the State of Rajasthan. This petition has been examined. recently in several cases by this Court and it has been pointed out repeatedly that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not pass orders in respect of migration of students from one medical institution to another, because such migrations are governed by the statutory provisions managed by the Medical Council of India. Reference in this connection may be made to a decision of this court in the case of Shirish Govind Prabhu Desai v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 1993(1) SCC 211 . It was said in that case that the migration of students from one medial college to another is governed by the conditions adopted by the Medical Council of India. Normally, we would have quashed the impugned order passed by the High Court, but it was pointed out that the Special Leave Petition was filed after one year of passing of the order and respondent No. 1 has by now virtually completed the course." 13. In view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in Medical Council of India's case I am of the opinion that the view taken by the single bench of this court in Miss Meena Kumari's case (supra) seems more reasonable. 14. Mr. In view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in Medical Council of India's case I am of the opinion that the view taken by the single bench of this court in Miss Meena Kumari's case (supra) seems more reasonable. 14. Mr. Prem Asopa, the learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to distinguish the judgment of the Apex Court as well as of this court on the ground that the migration of the transfer rules given under Chapter 5th of the. Medical Council of India recommendation on 'Graduate Medical Education' are not applicable in the case of mutual transfer from one recognised medical college to another within the same university or the State. For the mutual transfer of the same semester, no vacancies required to be ascertained and the same will not further affect the working of the institution. The mutual transfer will be in the interest of the students who will efficiently continue their studies in the favourable conditions at their houses. Mr. Asopa, the learned counsel vehemently contended that one of the petitioner Miss Abhilasha Mehrda is an un-married girl and is facing problems and living separately from her family. He has, placed reliance on Anuja Garg v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (RLR 1993 II page 731) in which this court allowed the petition of transfer of an un-married girl who was medical student of first year MBBS and was resident of Jaipur. Her sister was studying in Medical College, Jaipur brother was studying in L.L.B. at Jaipur and she had given preference at Jaipur in application form. Her transfer from Ajmer to Jaipur was allowed on the ground that the seats at Jaipur were still vacant. But following the latest decision of the Apex Court in Medical Council of India v. Tarun Vyas (supra), I am of the considered view that this court cannot issue direction pertaining to mutual transfer in respect of the students from one medical college to another under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the regulation of the Medical Council of India, it will not be proper for this court to intervene in such matters. 15. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed with no order as to cost.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******