Judgment Dipak Misra, J. ( 1. ) The singular and seminal question that emanates for consideration in the writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the petitioner, a student of Post Graduate Course in Diploma in Paediatrics in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal is entitled to get himself transferred to G.R. Medical College, Gwalior on the foundation that he and one Dr. Rameshwar Patel had sought mutual transfer. ( 2. ) Sans unnecessary details the facts which are imperative to be exposited are that the petitioner was allotted a seat at Bhopal in the course mentioned hereinabove in the counselling held on 26-5-2007 and thereafter submitted an application for mutual transfer inasmuch as one Dr. Rameshwar Patel who was allotted a seat in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior wanted to go to Bhopal. As the said application was not dealt with the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 3628/2007, wherein this Court directed the respondents therein to decide the representation by ascribing reasons within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The Competent Authority did not entertain the prayer for mutual transfer on the ground that Rule 21 (4) of the Medical and Dental Post Graduate Entrance Test, 2007 Conduct of Examination and Admission Rules (for short the Pre P.G. Rules) did not enable the petitioner to get the relief of mutual transfer. ( 3. ) It is contended in the petition that the ground of rejection is untenable inasmuch as the Rule must be allowed to have the acceptable free play since the petitioner could not have put the clock back as the counselling was conducted on 26-5-2007 whereas the cut off date prescribed under the Rules is 15-5-2007. It is averred that the Rules have to be followed in proper spirit and acceptable perspective and its effect should not be allowed to be nullified in a hyper technical ground as well as on a ground which remains in the realm of impossibility. On the aforesaid factual asseveration a prayer has been made for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 12-11-2007, Annexure P-5, whereby the prayer for mutual transfer has been declined. ( 4. ) A copy of the writ petition was served on Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. On the aforesaid factual asseveration a prayer has been made for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 12-11-2007, Annexure P-5, whereby the prayer for mutual transfer has been declined. ( 4. ) A copy of the writ petition was served on Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Anoop Nair, learned Counsel appearing for Medical Council of India, the respondent No. 3 herein. ( 5. ) It is obligatory to note that there is no cavil with regard to factual assertions. Submission of Mr. Sanghi is that the Rule must be given adequate flexibility so that cases of the present nature can be accommodated. Per contra, Mr. Deepak Awasthy, submitted that once the Rules do not permit for mutual transfer, the Competent Authority has appositely passed the order and the same being flawless does not warrant interference. Mr. Anoop Nair, learned Counsel for Medical Council of India has submitted that a set of Regulations called Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 framed by the Medical Council of India, which are in vogue would prevail over the aforesaid Pre P.G. Rules. ( 6. ) - At this juncture, we may note with profit that the submission canvassed by Mr. Sanghi that despite Regulations of Medical Council of India the State Government has been permitting the mutual transfers for number of years and more than hundred candidates have availed the benefit of such transfer. ( 7. ) The centripodal issue that emerges to be dealt with is whether the Pre. P.G. Rules, 2007 would prevail or the Post Graduate Regulations, 2000 would hold the field. ( 8. ) The State Government has framed the Pre P.G. Rules, 2007. Rule 21 (4) of the said Rules reads as follows:- "21. (4) A candidate so admitted to a particular subject, course/category and college will not be entitled for any change on any ground. Only mutual transfer are permitted in same subject and category to ensure same percentage of reservation in the category. Last date of submission of application for mutual transfer will be 15th May, 2007. The application shall be submitted to DME through proper channel. In case of mutual transfer the fee deposited by candidate will not be transferred to the concerned institutions." Rule 21 (7) of the aforesaid Rules, to which our attention has been drawn by Mr. Last date of submission of application for mutual transfer will be 15th May, 2007. The application shall be submitted to DME through proper channel. In case of mutual transfer the fee deposited by candidate will not be transferred to the concerned institutions." Rule 21 (7) of the aforesaid Rules, to which our attention has been drawn by Mr. Awasthy, reads as under:- "(7) The academic session shall commence from 2-5-2007 last date up to which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason is 31 -5-2007." ( 9. ) Regulation 10 of the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, which deals with period of training lays a postulate as under:- "10. Period of Training: The period of training for the award of various post-graduate degrees or diplomas shall be as follows:- (1) Doctor of Medicine (M.D.)/Master of Surgery (M.S.): The period of training for obtaining these degrees shall be three completed years including the period of examination: Provided that in the case of students having a recognized two years post-graduate diploma course in the same subject, the period of training, including the period of examination, shall be two years. (2) Doctor of Medicine (D.M.)/Master Chirurgiae (M.Ch.): The period of training for obtaining these degrees shall be three completed years (including the examination period) after obtaining M.D./M.S. Degrees, or equivalent recognized qualification in the required subject: Provided that where an institution on the date of commencement for these Regulation, is imparting five years training in Neurology and Neuro-Surgery, such institution shall continue to have five years training course. (3) Diplomas: The period of training for obtaining a Post-graduate Diploma shall be two completed years including the examination period. Migration/transfer of Post-graduate student from one medical college or institution to another. Migration/transfer of students undergoing any post-graduate course - degree/diploma shall not be permitted by any university or any authority." (Emphasis added) ( 10. ) In Dr. Preeti Shrivastava and another Vs. State of M.P. and others, (1999) 7 SCC 120 , it has been held as under :- "52. Mr. Salve, learned Counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India has, therefore, rightly submitted that under the Indian Medical Council Act of 1956 the Indian Medical Council is empowered to prescribe, inter alia, standards of post-graduate medical education. State of M.P. and others, (1999) 7 SCC 120 , it has been held as under :- "52. Mr. Salve, learned Counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India has, therefore, rightly submitted that under the Indian Medical Council Act of 1956 the Indian Medical Council is empowered to prescribe, inter alia, standards of post-graduate medical education. In the exercise of its powers under Section 20 read with Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council has framed Regulations which govern post-graduate medical education. These Regulations, therefore, are binding and the States cannot, in the exercise of power under Entry 25 of List III, make Rules and Regulations which are in conflict with or adversely impinge upon the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India for post-graduate medical education. Since the standards laid down are in the exercise of the power conferred under Entry 66 of List I, the exercise of that power is exclusively within the domain of the Union Government. The power of the States under Entry 25 of List III is subject of Entry 66 of List I. 53. Secondly, it is not the exclusive power of the State to frame Rules and Regulations pertaining to education since the subject is in the Concurrent List. Therefore, any power exercised by the State in the area of education under Entry 25 of List III will also be subject to any existing relevant provisions made in that connection by the Union Government subject, of course, to Article 254." ( 11. ) In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law there can be no trace of doubt that the Post Graduate Regulations, 2000 would govern the field. There is prohibition on migration/transfer of Post Graduate students from one medical college or institution to another and there is clear cut proscription that no transfer can be permitted by the University or any authority. In view of the aforesaid the State Government could not have framed a rule relating to mutual transfer and fixing cut off date in that regard. Quite apart from the above, the factual matrix does clearly exposit that the petitioner is seeking mutual transfer that the students who belongs to separate category and hence, the condition precedent for availing the benefit of the Rule is not satisfied. On that ground also the writ petition is devoid of any substance. ( 12. ) Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned Govt. On that ground also the writ petition is devoid of any substance. ( 12. ) Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate conceded to the said position of law. ( 13. ) After so holding we would have ordinarily dismissed the writ petition as mutual transfers are not permissible, but an eloquent and fertile one, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that the steps taken by the State Government is quite frequent in entertaining the cases relating to mutual transfer. Be it noted that Mr. Sanghi has filed a memorandum for taking additional documents on record to show that how the State Government has permitted the mutual transfers. He has commended us to the decision rendered in the case of Saurabh Chaudri and others Vs. Union of India and others, (2003) 11 SCC 146 . He has drawn out attention to the observations of the Apex Court made in Paragraph 109. The said observations have been made by Dr. A.R. Lakshmana, J. while expressing in his concurring opinion. His Lordship has stated thus :- "109. Before parting with this case, I am of the opinion that the younger generation in our society nurturing fond hopes and aspirations for their future professional careers should feel it as a pleasurable experience to explore the available options in higher education. They should be spared from the mental torture due to hassles and unsavoury experiences in getting to the first base. To the extent possible, they should be made to feel that they are part of one nation. Tensions and frustrations at their impressionable age will surely result in a society with distorted and negative values damaging the foundations of a healthy society. The policies and procedure for admissions should be viewed from the larger impact on the future of India." ( 14. ) True it is, though aforesaid observations were made in a different context, yet Mr. Sanghi has drawn our attention to state that hopes and aspirations of certain students have been guillotined whereas that of some others had been nurtured and fostered. ) True it is, though aforesaid observations were made in a different context, yet Mr. Sanghi has drawn our attention to state that hopes and aspirations of certain students have been guillotined whereas that of some others had been nurtured and fostered. Regard being had to the aforesaid submission and the action of the State Government taken from time to time permitting the mutual transfer which is impermissible in law we can only say that the said action of the State is not only in contravention of the Regulations of the Medical Counsel of India but a step which epitomizes unwarranted attitude giving rise to unhealthy feeling in the minds of others. Every hope and aspiration of a citizen of this country has to be fruited on the bedrock of impartiality, objectivity and consonance with the Rule of law and not to be chartered away by whims and fancies of the authorities. Sooner the authorities realize the same, better it is for them. They should treat it as a word of caution and in future such an action should not be taken by which others feel frustrated which ultimately yields in chaos in the field of education. We hope and trust that the State Government would rise to the occasion and act in accordance with the Regulations of the Medical Council of India. We say no more on this score. ( 15. ) The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Aftab