JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, C.J. - We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal, aggrieved by the directions issued by learned Single Judge, who allowed the respondent's writ petition and directed that he ought to be transferred from Government Medical College, Kota to SMS Medical College, Jaipur. 3. The undisputed facts are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'Vedant') appeared in the Common Entrance Examination held by the State Government and was selected to the medical course commencing during academic year 2017-18, and was based on his ranking, offered a seat in the Kota Medical College which he accepted, and after which, he joined that college. The results of First Year Examination were declared on 05/09/2018. He then applied for migration stating that he suffered from 'Asthma' which made his stay in Kota difficult; the Kota Medical College issued no objection certificate on 25/09/2018. That certificate also discloses that the original application with enclosures of the student were forwarded to the SMS Medical College, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to 'Jaipur College'). Vedant apparently followed up with a letter applying to the Principal, SMS Medical College sometime in November/December, 2018 seeking orders for migration. That request was rejected on 15/12/2018. Therefore, he approached this Court sometime in January, 2019 for appropriate directions. 4. The State, which was arrayed as a respondent, resisted the writ petition contending that Regulation 6 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, permitted the relief of migration only in exceptional cases to most deserving applicants and for good and sufficient reasons. It was also contended that if the request was acceded, the intake in Jaipur College would increase. 5. The learned Single Judge was unpersuaded by the submissions of the State; he followed the previous order of a learned Single Judge in Nadeem Liyakat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5319/2013, decided on 09/09/2013). The learned Single Judge noticed that the direction in Nadeem Liyakat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) had attained finality. He, therefore, allowed the writ petition; the impugned order inter-alia records as follows:- "6. Indisputably, the result of the first year MBBS, including that of the petitioner, was declared on 5th September, 2018, and the petitioner was furnished with 'No Objection Certificate' (Annexure2) on 25th September, 2018. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) had attained finality. He, therefore, allowed the writ petition; the impugned order inter-alia records as follows:- "6. Indisputably, the result of the first year MBBS, including that of the petitioner, was declared on 5th September, 2018, and the petitioner was furnished with 'No Objection Certificate' (Annexure2) on 25th September, 2018. Hence, the plea as to delay in institution of the application seeking transfer cannot be sustained. 7. Further, in view admitted factual matrix to the effect that 37 candidates out of total 250, of first year MBBS Course, have failed in S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur; falsifies the plea of nonavailability of vacancies in S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur. While considering the somewhat identical controversy in the case of Nadeem Liyakat (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that in such circumstances, transfer of a candidate in no manner shall cause any administrative or infrastructural injury to that college. 9. It is informed that the adjudication made in the case of Nadeem Liyakat (supra), was not challenged any further and thus, has attained finality. 10. Applying the principle deducible from the opinion in the case of Nadeem Liyakat (supra), to the case at hand; the claim of the petitioner merits acceptance." 6. It is argued on behalf of the State that the essential condition for permitting migration first and foremost is that the migration would be granted for exceptional and "only exceptional cases to the most deserving among the applicants for good and sufficient reasons and not on routine grounds". It is submitted that this essential condition was lost sight of by the learned Single Judge in issuing the directions. 7. Highlighting the importance of Regulation 6(4) of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, learned Advocate General urges that apart from possessing the essential attribute of an exceptional case for a deserving candidate, other procedural requirements are essential i.e. no objection of the migrating college as well as the receiving college, the approval/no objection of the University concerned, are necessary and that lastly after taking into account existence of all these, the Director of Medical Education, issues an order based upon his appreciation of record. It is submitted that there was no exceptional feature in this case warranting the direction ultimately granted by the learned Single Judge. 8. It is submitted that there was no exceptional feature in this case warranting the direction ultimately granted by the learned Single Judge. 8. Learned counsel apart from relying upon regulations, also relied upon certain rulings such as judgment of Bhaveshgiri Surajgiri Goshwami Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors: [LPA No.1029 of 2015, decided on 25/06/2015]; and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dental Council of India Vs. Anhad Raj Singh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.18766 of 2017), decided on 15/11/2017. It was lastly argued that the Academic Year 2018-19 has almost drawn to a close and that the Second Year too would be ending and in these circumstances, the impugned order ought not be sustained. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India (MCI), which was impleaded during these proceedings in appeal, supported the arguments advanced by the State and also relied upon Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in Ravi Singhal Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprashtha University & Anr., (2017) AIR Delhi 151 and other judgments to show that a routine case of illness cannot be considered as exceptional for the Court to issue directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. The record, therefore, discloses that the candidate Vedant had studied for a year; his First Year result was declared on 05/09/2018. The record further shows that on 25/09/2018, the Kota Medical College granted its No Objection Certificate (NOC); that document also states that the relevant documents were being forwarded to the Jaipur College. No action, however, was taken at the end of the Jaipur College; furthermore the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS), which incidentally is a common University to both the Colleges, was also not approached for an NOC or clearance. Eventually, on 15/12/2018 the Jaipur College rejected the request. 11. We notice that the learned Single Judge was considerably influenced by the reasoning in judgment of the Principal Bench of this Court in Nadeem Liyakat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra). However, the impugned order does not take into account much less analyze Regulation 6 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997. That provision reads as follows:- "6. Migration (1) Migration of students from one medical college to another medical college in India shall be granted only in exceptional cases to the most deserving among the applicants for good and sufficient reasons and not on routine grounds. That provision reads as follows:- "6. Migration (1) Migration of students from one medical college to another medical college in India shall be granted only in exceptional cases to the most deserving among the applicants for good and sufficient reasons and not on routine grounds. The number of students migrating to/from any one medical college shall be kept to the minimum which shall in any case not exceed the limit of 5% of its sanctioned intake in one academic year. There shall be no migration on any ground from one medical college to another located in the same city. (2) Migration of students from one College to another is permissible only if both the colleges are recognised by the Central Government under section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act,1956 and further subject to the condition that it shall not result in increase in the sanctioned intake capacity for the academic year concerned in respect of the receiving medical college. (3) The applicant candidate shall be eligible to apply for migration only after qualifying in the first professional MBBS examination. Migration during clinical course of study shall not be allowed on any ground. (4) For the purpose of migration, an applicant candidate shall first obtain 'No Objection Certificates' from the college where he is studying for the present, the University to which it is affiliated to, the college to which migration is sought and the University to which that college is affiliated to. He shall submit his application for migration within a period of one month of passing (declaration of results) of the first professional MBBS examination alongwith the said 'No Objection Certificates' to the Director, Medical Education of the State where the College/Institutions including Deemed Universities to which migration is sought is situated or to the Head of the Institution in case migration is sought to a Central Government institution. The Director, Medical Education of the State concerned or the Head of the Central Government institution, as the case may be, shall take a final decision in the matter as to whether or not to allow migration in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations and communicate the same to the applicant student within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the request for migration. (5) A student who has joined another college on migration shall be eligible to appear in the IInd professional MBBS examination only after attaining the minimum attendance in that college in the subjects, lectures, seminars etc. required for appearing in the examination prescribed under Regulation 12(1) Note-1: The State Governments/ Universities/ Institutions may frame appropriate guidelines for grant of No Objection Certificate or migration, as the case may be, to the students subject to provisions of these regulations. Note-2: Any request for migration not covered under the provisions of these Regulations shall be referred to the Medical Council of India for consideration on individual merits by the Director (Medical Education) of the State or the Head of Central Government Institution concerned. The decision taken by the Council on such requests shall be final. Note-3: The College/Institutions shall send intimation to the Medical Council of India about the number of students admitted by them on migration within one month of their joining. It shall be open to the Council to undertake verification of the compliance of the provisions of the regulations governing migration by the Colleges at any point of time." 12. A close reading of the Regulation would reveal that a migration is permitted in exceptional cases "to the most deserving among the applicants for good and sufficient reasons and not on routine grounds". The second condition embodied in Regulation 6(2) is that migration is permissible from one college to the other if both the colleges are recognized under Section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; the third condition-Regulation 6(3) is that migration can be given only after completion of the First Year. The fourth condition is the most crucial. Regulation 6(4) permits migration if both the colleges express their no objection; and University/Universities concerned should also issue No Objection Certificates and the Director, Medical Education was the authority to pass an order finally deciding whether to grant or refuse migration. 13. In the present case, no doubt, the college where the candidate was studying i.e. at Kota, issued its NOC- on 25/09/2018. However, the receiving college i.e. at Jaipur had not issued its no objection. Furthermore, the NOC or approval of the University was not sought; nor was it obtained. Lastly, the Director of Medical Education-State had no occasion to deal with this issue. However, the receiving college i.e. at Jaipur had not issued its no objection. Furthermore, the NOC or approval of the University was not sought; nor was it obtained. Lastly, the Director of Medical Education-State had no occasion to deal with this issue. On these procedural aspects itself, the learned Single Judge, in the opinion of this Court, ought to have desisted from granting relief. Added to these factors is the circumstances that migration is permissible only in "exceptional cases" for the most deserving candidates. Regulation 6(1) further alerts that the migration cannot be given on a routine basis. 14. Whether migration ought to be issued or ought not to be granted has been subject matter of controversy in many decisions. The Supreme Court's ruling in Dental Council of India Vs. Anhad Raj Singh & Anr. (supra), although in the context of an interim order directing migration, reiterated the previous ruling in Medical Council of India Vs. Sarang & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 427 . The Court had then taken note of the fact that migration can be granted only in exceptional circumstances. The rulings of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and Gujarat High Court are also clear that not every subjective factor can be considered "exceptional". For instance, in Ravi Singhal Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprashtha University & Anr. (supra), the Court held that mere fact that the grounds were "genuine" is not sufficient as also the fact that the migration may lead to a marginal increase in the seats. The Court emphasized that there ought to be something exceptional about the nature of the request which ought to impel the authorities to permit migration. 15. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner Vedant had argued that this Court ought not to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. He highlighted that the Jaipur College did not indicate any reason or even its decision within reasonable time and that the only defence to the writ petition, was that the intake would be exceeded. Highlighting this defence, it was urged that it was unavailable in view of the Regulations which contemplate an increased capacity upto 5%, even if migration was permitted. Learned senior counsel submitted that the State is now precluded from arguing that Regulations were breached by the directions of the Learned Single Judge. 16. Highlighting this defence, it was urged that it was unavailable in view of the Regulations which contemplate an increased capacity upto 5%, even if migration was permitted. Learned senior counsel submitted that the State is now precluded from arguing that Regulations were breached by the directions of the Learned Single Judge. 16. An overall conspectus of the circumstances would show that besides the request for migration based upon ill health (the candidate contended that he was suffering from 'Asthama'), there were no other exceptional features. Even during the hearing, it was not pointed out as to the chronic or severe nature of the ailment, that was ever drawn to the attention of the authorities. Migration, as Regulation 6 would show, cannot be claimed as a matter of right; a candidate whose application is rejected, no doubt has a right to question the decision if it is arbitrary, no more. 17. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that there was no exceptional feature for the learned Single Judge to issue a direction as was done having regard to the overall circumstances. The approach of the Single Judge in not appreciating (or even adverting to) the concerned provision, i.e. Regulation 6 which prescribes the conditions under which migration can be considered from one medical college to another, cannot be upheld. Migration is not a one way route, that can be granted by the asking; it is to be granted sparingly, after satisfying all prescribed conditions. Else, there is a danger of such method being resorted to by candidates not securing admissions in colleges of their choice, after a year, in achieving that objective by "working around" Regulation 6. Neither that the University granted the NOC or the Director, Medical Education ever had the occasion to deal with the request for migration and decide on the request. This Court is alive to the circumstances that nearly a year has passed after the declaration of the First Year result and during the interregnum, the candidate has continued with studies in Kota. In these circumstances, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 18. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal succeeds. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed; all applications are disposed of.