M. Jagannadha Rao ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by Mr. Hanspal Singh Bhinderagainst the judgment of the learned Single Judge in C. W. P. 1654/96dated 15. 11. 96. The 1st respondent is the University of Delhi and the 2nd respondent is the Medicalcouncil of India, Delhi. ( 2 ) THE case relates to the plea of the appellant for permission to migrate fromthe Kasturba Medical College, at Manipal, Kamataka to the Maulana Azad Medicalcollege at Delhi, or any other college at Delhi. ( 3 ) THE appellant belongs to Delhi and his parents are settled at Delhi. He hadall his education upto 10 plus 2 at Delhi. Admittedly, appellant appeared for the Premedical Entrance Test (DPMT) at Delhi for admission to MBBS/bds courses ofdelhi University and he did not pass the same and he was not placed in the meritlist. ( 4 ) APPELLANT had, however, appeared for the MBBS entrance test conductedby the Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE) and passed the same,secured rank No. 232 as per communication dated 18. 10. 94 and joined there. Thereafter, he passed the first professional examination with 55% marks in II Class. Then, appellant applied for transfer to Medical Colleges under the Delhi University. This was rejected on 9. 4. 96 staling that : "migration to MBBS/bds courses in this University have been stopped fromjanuary, 1991 onwards. "the writ petition was filed in April, 1996 and was dismissed on 15. 11. 96. ( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge held that the contention of the appellant that thedelhi University had no jurisdiction to refuse migration was not correct. There wasalso no merit in the contention that notification dated 17. 8. 95 amending Clause 3 ofordinance IV by the Delhi University was bad. We may here refer to the terms ofthe amendment dated 17. 6. 95 which had stopped migration altogether in Technology and Medicine. It is to the following effect :"clause 3. Migration of a student to the University in a course of study to thedegree Examination under the Faculty of Technology and Faculty of Medicalsciences shall not be permitted. ( 6 ) RELIANCE was placed before the learned Single Judge on the recommendationof the Medical Council of India on Undergraduate Medical Education to the effectthat migration from one college or University to another college or University notexceeding 5% of the intake may be permitted. ( 6 ) RELIANCE was placed before the learned Single Judge on the recommendationof the Medical Council of India on Undergraduate Medical Education to the effectthat migration from one college or University to another college or University notexceeding 5% of the intake may be permitted. The same was accepted by the Centralgovernment on 30. 11. 77 under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956{vide Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Letter No. V-11917/4/77-ME (O) dated 30. 11. 77 ). Appellant contended before the learned Singlejudge that the University of Delhi could not have amended Clause 3 of the Ordinanceiv contrary to the above notification and that this amendment was even otherwise,not in accordance with Sections 29 to 31 of the Delhi University Act, 1922 and thatthe reasons for issuing the amendment were arbitrary. ( 7 ) THE learned Single Judge rejected these contentions holding that the word"may" used in the recommendation of the Medical Council of India was not amandatory direction to medical colleges and that the Delhi University had barredmigration for Technology and Medical courses on the basis of a detailed review ofthe matter by a Committee of Experts called "medical Courses Admission Committee" on 19. 12. 89. An extract of the report of this Committee of the University has beengiven in the judgment under appeal. He held that the amendment to Clause 3 ofordinance IV did not also offend Sections 29,30 and 31, much less Section 29 (3) orsections 31 (1) and (4 ). The University clarified before the learned Single Judge thatthe amendment was submitted to the "court" and to the "visitor" of the University,as required by the above sub-clause of Sections 29 and 31 and even otherwise, itwould only be a procedural irregularity which has since been cured. The case inshirish Govind Prabhu Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 S. C. 1736, wasreferred to by the learned Single Judge. There the question was whether therestrictions on migration were arbitrary or unreasonable. On the facts of that case,migration from a non-recognised college to another recognised medical college washeld not permissible. It was also accepted that a medical college cannot be compelledto accept the recommendation of the Medical Council of India in relation tomigration. Learned Judge also held that as appellant had not passed the Delhiuniversity Entrance test, he could not be permitted to get in through the back doorfrom Manipal. It was also accepted that a medical college cannot be compelledto accept the recommendation of the Medical Council of India in relation tomigration. Learned Judge also held that as appellant had not passed the Delhiuniversity Entrance test, he could not be permitted to get in through the back doorfrom Manipal. The writ petition was dismissed. ( 8 ) WE have heard the appellant s Counsel and also Counsel for the University. We are in entire agreement with the learned Single Judge. We may also point outthatin Shirish Goviud Prabhu Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 S. C. 1736, thoughthe matter related to a transfer sought from a non-recognised college, the Supremecourt observed that no general absolute right for migration inheres in any studentand also that no medical college can be compelled to receive a student from anothermedical college on migration. It held (para 6) : "learned Counsel were unable to show that a right of migration/transfer ofstudent from one medical college to another inheres to a student debars theconditions subject to which the migration/transfer is permitted. It is also notdisputed that in case a recognised medical college chooses not to take anystudent by migration/transfer from another medical college, it cannot becompelled to do so. "it also held: "it follows that unless the recognised medical college offers to admit bymigration/transfer some students from another medical college, no studentcan claim as of right admission by migration/transfer to that medical college. ( 9 ) IN that case, the same recommendations of the Medical Council of India asaccepted by Government of India on 30. 11. 77 which are relied upon in this case wereconsidered. ( 10 ) FOLLOWING the abovesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, we reject theappellant s contention. Even otherwise, the recommendation as. approved bygovernment merely uses the word "may" and is not mandatory in nature. Theamended Clause 3 of the Ordinance IV is, therefore, within the jurisdiction andpowers of the University and is not, for the detailed reasons given in the Report ofthe Committee of the Delhi University - arbitrary. So far as the proceduralrequirements of Sections 29 to 31 are concerned, as stated by the University beforethe learned Single Judge, they have been complied with.