JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J. :---The petitioner is a father of student Ganesh, who is admitted to First Year M.B.B.S. course in a Private Medical College, namely, Medical College, Nasik. The petitioner applied for transfer of his son from Medical College Nasik to Government Medical College, Aurangabad on basis of a policy of the Government. 2.The Rules for migration/transfer of students from one recognised Medical College to another recognised Medical College provide that, he/she who seeks transfer/migration shall be a candidate from a Medical College, which is recognised by the Medical Council of India and he/she shall have obtained No Objection Certificate from that college. He/she shall be within 5 per cent of the students recommended by that college as per Medical Council of India guidelines and as such No Objection Certificate shall have been issued on the basis of merit by the college. 3.The petitioner submits that the Medical Council of India published Recommendations on Graduate Medical Education, approved by the Medical Council of India in March, 1981, which provides that a student studying in a recognised Medical College may be allowed to migrate/transfer to another recognised Medical College under another/same University. It further shows that 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. 4.The petitioner further submits that the Medical Council of India has wrongly rejected the application, merely, on the ground that granting migration to the petitioner's son would tantamount to exceed 5% migration quota of the receiving college. It is further contended that the petitioner's case is not covered under Regulation V(a) to (d) and, therefore, the Medical Council of India ought to have considered the case of the petitioner instead of not permitting migration of petitioner's son. 5.The petitioner submits that the petitioner as well as his wife are aged and further they are suffering from hypertension and heart trouble. Therefore, it is necessary that their son is migrated to Aurangabad where they normally reside. It is submitted that he is the only son to petitioner. 5.The petitioner submits that the petitioner as well as his wife are aged and further they are suffering from hypertension and heart trouble. Therefore, it is necessary that their son is migrated to Aurangabad where they normally reside. It is submitted that he is the only son to petitioner. 6.The question arises whether the case of the petitioner's son falls under Regulation V(d) as contained in the recommendations of the Medical Council of India on Graduates Medical Education. The said Regulations are produced at page No. 9 of the Civil Application No. 5/1997, which inter alia, reads as under: "V. Migration/Transfer of students from one Medical College to another; (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 first 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." 7.The Rules for Migration/Transfer of students from one recognised Medical College to another recognized Medical College provide eligibility/selection criteria. Rule 4 of Part B, inter alia, provides that, "He/she who seeks transfer/migration shall be a candidate from a Medical College, which is recognized by the Medical Council of India and he/she shall have obtained No Objection Certificate from that College. He/she shall be within 5 per cent of the students recommended by that college as per Medical Council of India guidelines and such No Objection Certificate shall have been issued on the basis of merit by the college." There is no challenge that the transfer/migration is decided on the basis of 1st M.B.B.S. marks, which would be corrected marks if he/she has passed with more than one attempt. The selection of candidates from amongst those who applied for transfer/migration to Medical Colleges in the State shall be on the basis of merit as determined by the marks obtained in 1st M.B.B.S. course or the corrected marks as the case may be. 8.It is contention of the petitioner that the Medical College, Nasik has issued a "No objection" certificate to two persons and no certificate is issued to the son of the petitioner. It is not shown that once two no objection certificates are issued, the quota or limit of 5 per cent prescribed under the Rule has not exceeded. Shri Bhapkar, learned Asstt. Government Pleader is, therefore, right in his submission that since two students have been issued No Objection Certificates, the limit of 5 per cent of intake capacity is complied with and therefore, in case of third student i.e son of the petitioner, his application was rightly decided and therefore there is no ground to entertain this petition. He further contends that the Medical Council of India has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner as per the Regulations, produced in Civil Application No. 5/1997 by the petitioner himself. 9.It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner's case necessarily falls under Regulation V(d) based on the recommendations on Graduate Medical Education, by Medical Council of India. 10.In these state of things, it is not possible to consider the request of the petitioner that the authority has either ignored the relevant Rules or gave decision contrary to the Rules, so as to interfere with the impugned decision by invoking power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is without substance. 11.The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.