JUDGMENT - A.P. Shah, J. :---This petition under article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the decision of the Dean, Topiwala National Medical College, Mumbai refusing to grant admission to the petitioner to IInd M.B.B.S. course on transfer basis. The facts leading to this petition are simple and may be shortly stated. The petitioner after passing XII standard examination was admitted to the Medical College run by Mahatma Gandhi Mission at Kalamboli which is located near New Mumbai, Vashi. The Medical College of Mahatma Gandhi Mission is a recognised college affiliated to the Mumbai University. The petitioner passed his Ist M.B.B.S. examination in first attempt securing 453 marks out of 750. He applied for admission to the Medical College run by Mumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for IInd M.B.B.S. course on transfer basis. The petitioner's name was shown at serial No. 3 in the merit list and he accordingly appeared for interview conducted before the Dean of Topiwala National Medical College on l9th February, l996. However, the Dean refused admission to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is ineligible because he belongs to the same University. It transpires that under the guidelines/rules framed by the B.M.C. no transfer to a Medical College within the same University is permitted. Relying upon the said guidelines/rules, the Dean refused admission to the petitioner in the Municipal Medical College. 2. Mr. Pradhan, learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition, sought to challenge the constitutional validity of the guidelines/rules framed by the B.M.C. prohibiting the transfer to a Medical College within the same University. Mr. Pradhan urged that the said guidelines/rules cannot be given effect to in view of the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India under Chapter V of the Medical Council Recommendation. The argument of Mr. Pradhan runs thus : The Indian Medical Council Act made by Parliament with reference to Entry 26 of List III (Legal Medical and other (profession) as well as Entry 66 of List I which empowers the Parliament to make laws with reference to co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions". It is the function of the Indian Medical Council to determine the standards of higher education in various institutions in the country and to co-ordinate the same. It is the function of the Indian Medical Council to determine the standards of higher education in various institutions in the country and to co-ordinate the same. In discharge of the duty cast upon it the Council has made recommendations under Chapter V of the Medical Council Recommendations that confer a right upon the student to seek migration/transfer from one Medical College to another Medical College within the same University. Although Chapter V is described as "recommendations", "the Medical Council Recommendations" contained in Chapter V were in fact regulations made by the Medical Council of India and as the Act had been made by Parliament under Entry 66, the Medical Council recommendations would have overriding effect over any orders that may have been issued by the State Government or local authority in this behalf. The regulations made by the Indian Medical Council being a species of delegated legislation bind all the institutions imparting medical education. Since Chapter V permits a transfer from one Medical College to another within the same University, it is totally impermissible either for the State Government or the Municipal Corporation to frame rule relating to transfer contrary to the recommendations of the Medical Council of India and prohibit such transfer within the same University. The impugned order passed by the Dean pursuant to which transfer is refused to the petitioner is thus repugnant and encroaches upon the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India and thus violative of Article 254 of the Constitution. 3. In reply, Mr. Bharucha, learned Counsel for the respondents, contended that the provisions of Chapter V of the Medical Council Recommendations pertaining to migration/transfer were neither rules nor regulations framed under section 33 of the act. They were thus neither statutory nor mandatory but were merely recommendatory and directory in nature. Mr. Bharucha argued that the power to regulate admission to Medical Colleges is not covered by Entry 66 of List I but falls within the ambit of Entry 25 of List III. The Indian Medical Council Act does not deal with nor does it provide for admission to Medical Colleges and more specifically it does not authorise the framing of regulations for admission by migration/transfer. Therefore, it is well within the power and competence of the authority to prohibit the transfer within the same University. Mr. The Indian Medical Council Act does not deal with nor does it provide for admission to Medical Colleges and more specifically it does not authorise the framing of regulations for admission by migration/transfer. Therefore, it is well within the power and competence of the authority to prohibit the transfer within the same University. Mr. Bharucha contended that this policy has been adopted by the Corporation in order to see that the students studying in Medical Colleges outside Mumbai University would get a fair opportunity of admissions in the Municipal Medical Colleges in Mumbai. Mr. Bharucha also contended that condition prohibiting the transfer within the same University is only an additional condition of eligibility, and therefore, the question of infringing or encroaching upon the field covered under Entry 66 of List I does not arise at all. Mr. Bharucha contended that it is always open for the authorities to prescribe more strict and stringent conditions and it cannot be said that such additional conditions are violative of the regulations of the Medical Council. 4. At the outset, it is required to be stated that there is no inherent right in a student of a Medical College to seek admission to another Medical College by migration or transfer. In (Shirish' Govind Prabhudesai v. State of Maharashtra)1 , A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1736, the Supreme Court clearly held that there is no right to migration/transfer of students from one Medical College to another de hors the conditions subject to which migration/transfer is permitted. The Supreme Court observed in paragraph 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 to migration//transfer some students from another Medical College no student can claim as of right admission by migration/transfer to that Medical College." Thus the right to seek transfer must be governed by the relevant terms and conditions under the relevant rules. 5. The B.M.C. has framed its own guidelines for admission to IInd M.B.B.S. in the Municipal Medical Colleges on transfer basis. 5. The B.M.C. has framed its own guidelines for admission to IInd M.B.B.S. in the Municipal Medical Colleges on transfer basis. Clause 2(i) of the guidelines provides that the migration/transfer shall be kept to the minimum and in no circumstances number of such migration/transfers should exceed the limit of five per cent of the intake capacity of the Medical College in any given year. Clause 7(iv) provides that no transfer within the Medical College affiliated to the University of Bombay be permitted. Thus the guidelines issued by the BMC clearly prohibit transfer from one Medical College to another Medical College within the same University. However, the principal contention of Mr. Pradhan is that the power to frame rules or regulations pertaining to migration/transfer comes within the scope of Entry 66 of List I and the Medical Council having framed regulations under Chapter V, it is not open for the State Government or the Municipal Authorities to lay down rules contrary to the rules or regulations of the Medical Council. In other words, Mr. Pradhan says that if Chapter V permits transfer within the same University, the Municipal Corporation has no right to prohibit such transfer. The argument of Mr. Pradhan is based on the hypothesis that the power to frame rules and regulations relevant to migration/transfer is within the scope of Entry 66 of List I. 6. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 was enacted by Parliament to provide for the re-constitution 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 qualification 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 Schedule to the Act shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State medical register. Section 15 provides that the medical qualifications included in the Schedule 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 enrolled 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 prescribed 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". 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 prescribed 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 of professional conduct 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 prescribed include "(i) 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, 1993, brought into force with effect from August 27, 1992, 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. Chapter V contains "The recommendations of Medical Council of India on Graduate Medical Education" which deals with migration/transfer of the students from one Medical College to another. Clause (a) of the recommendations reads as follows:- "A student studying in a recognised Medical College may be allowed to migrate/transfer to another recognised Medical College under another /same University." 8. 7. Chapter V contains "The recommendations of Medical Council of India on Graduate Medical Education" which deals with migration/transfer of the students from one Medical College to another. Clause (a) of the recommendations reads as follows:- "A student studying in a recognised Medical College may be allowed to migrate/transfer to another recognised Medical College under another /same University." 8. A review of the provisions of the Act referred to above clearly shows that the Act does not purport to deal with, regulate or provide for admission to graduate or post-graduate medical courses. Section 33 of the act which confers power to frame regulations does not cover the subject of admission by migration/transfer. Thus the assumption of Mr. Pradhan that the provisions of Chapter V of the Medical Council Recommendations has an overriding effect is clearly erroneous. The question is no longer res integra. In (Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar)2, 1994(2) J.T. 662 , it was held that the power to regulate admission to courses of study in medicine is traceable to Entry 25 of List III. It was observed by the Supreme Court that "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." 9. 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." 9. The next decision to note is (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kumari Nivedita Jain)3, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 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. 10. There is a direct decision of Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in (Ashish Kumar v. The Secretary, Medical Health and Education, Lucknow)4, A.I.R. 1955 Allahabad 98. It will be useful to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Allahabad High Court:- "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. 29. 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. 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 Article 162 of the Constitution. This being so, whether the word "may" occurring in Chapter V Clause (a) is read as "may" or "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." 11. Thus, Chapter V relating to migration/transfer from one Medical College to another as framed by the Medical Council is merely recommendatory and it is always open for the State Government to frame its own rules for governing migration/transfers. Thus, Chapter V relating to migration/transfer from one Medical College to another as framed by the Medical Council is merely recommendatory and it is always open for the State Government to frame its own rules for governing migration/transfers. It has been rightly pointed out by the Allahabad High Court that 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. There is no dispute that the Municipal Colleges are being conducted from out of Municipal funds. The Municipal Corporation has to regulate its procedure relating to the cases of migration and/or transfer. It cannot be said that by framing such rule, the Municipal Corporation is impinging upon the field occupied under the Medical Council Act. 12. The matter can be viewed from another angle. It is laid down by the Supreme Court in (Ambesh Kumar v. Principal, LLRM Medical College)5, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 400 that the order of the State Government laying down eligibility qualifications for admissions to such courses in accordance with the regulations made by the Indian Medical Council does not contravene or encroach upon power of Central Government to make orders in regard to matter provided in Entry 66 of List I of Schedule 7. The Supreme Court held that merely because some additional conditions are placed, it cannot be said to be conflicting with the regulations framed by the Medical Council. On the other hand by laying down a further qualification of eligibility it promotes and furthers the standard in an institution. Mr. Bharucha is right in contending that the guidelines framed by the BMC prohibiting transfer within the same University must be treated only as an additional condition. The question of any conflict with the recommendations of the Indian Medical Council really does not arise. 13. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. *****