JUDGMENT N. K. Mitra, C.J.
1. This Special Appeal instituted by writ petitioner of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25362 of 1998 brings to the fore the question as to whether the migration Sub-Committee of the Medical Council of India was vindicated in rejecting the appellant's application moved for migration holding that the reason given by the appellant was not covered by compassionate ground criteria of Migration Rules of Council Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997.
2. The facts draped in brevity are that the appellant was admitted to M.B.B.S. course in Kasturba Medical College. Manipal consequent upon romping home in All India Test/examination held in the year 1996. After she had completed first year in the said course, she applied for migration from Manipal Medical College to King George Medical College, Lucknow. The colleges concerned did not demur to migration and Issued 'no objection certificates". The Migration Sub-Committee of Medical Council of India having seisin to go into the tenability of such requests turned down the request of the appellant on the assumption that "the reason given by the candidate is not covered by any provision as enumerated and specified under Note 2, i.e., 'compassionate ground criteria of migration Rules of Council Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997." The said decision of the Sub-Committee was intimated to the appellant by letter dated 14th July, 1994 being Annexure-14 to the writ petition. It would appear that the appellant had been afflicted with Bronchial Asthma and according to her, the disease was reflecting upon her with disability within the meaning of the relevant rules in view of asperities of climatic situation of the place where Kasturba Medical Council Manipal is located.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment under challenge. The learned single Judge after noticing the definitions and meaning of the word 'disability', held the view that a person in order to become disabled, should be Incapacitated and may have lost the power to work and expressed the view that "this Court does not have expertise to decide the question whether a patient of Bronchial Asthma is to be treated in the category 'illness causing disability". Rule 6 of the rules providing for migration from one Medical College to the other. visualises, inter alia, that migration of a student from one Medical College to another Medical College in India may be considered by the Medical Council of India only in exceptional cases on extreme compassionate grounds provided the other conditions stipulated in the rules are fulfilled. It brooks no dispute that other conditions embodied in the rules are fulfilled. in the instant case, the appellant has been denied migration solely on the ground that her case is not covered under compassionate ground criteria' referred to in Note 2 of Rule 6 of the relevant Migration Rules quoted in the Judgment of the learned single" Judge. it would crystallise that 'illness of the candidate causing disability' comes under compassionate ground criteria' stipulated by Note 2. Rule 6 of the relevant Rules. The question that begs consideration is whether Migration Sub-Committee was Justified in holding that the case of the petitioner was not covered by any provision as enumerated and specified under the 'compassionate ground criteria' of migration rules of Council Regulations on Graduate Medical Education. 1997. It is worth noticing here that there is no straight-jacket formula for answer to the 'question, whether or not. Bronchial Asthma is fraught with the perils of causing disability within the meaning of the rules would be entwined with number of ancillary factors Including the severity of Bronchial Asthma. According to the Medical Experts, there is no curative treatment for Bronchial Asthma and avoidance of allergens (allergy producing agents) is the only possible cure and it is well known that allergens differ from place to place and region to region and catalyst of environment, it cannot be repudiated, may remove the offending allergens. According to the Nelson Textbook of Paediatrics, 15th Edition "Asthma therapy includes basic concepts of avoiding allergens, improving bronchodilation and reducing mediator induced inflammation. Systemic or topical inhaled medications are used, depending upon the severity of the episode." According to 'Essential Paediatrics by O. P. Ghai, 4th Edition. the triggers of an attack of Asthma have been described as under :
"Exposure to allergens in the environment that are inhaled, plays a significant role in the pathogenesis of chronic asthma. A marked increase in the incidence of asthma occurred in areas in which high levels of aeroallergens such as house dust mites (dermatophagolds), molds such as alternaria on other industrial allergens were present. Smoke, hydrocarbons, drugs such as aspirin, non - steroidal-anti-
inflammatory drugs, tartarazlne trigger an attack. Prolonged allergen avoidance reduces allergen specific and mediator induced bronchial reactivity."
The vast majority of the Asthma patients are hypersensitive to a wide range of allergens such as high altitutde and cold air, and it may be preferable to adjust treatment to cover exposure to these. A conspectus of the decision of the Migration Committee as communicated to the appellant would manifest that her application has been rejected on bald and nebulous statement that reason assigned by the appellant, i.e.. the reason of her being a patient of Bronchial Asthma is not covered by 'compassionate ground criteria'. We have scanned the entire order for reasons to vouch for the fact that the severity of (he disease and impact thereon of environmental situation was taken into reckoning while holding that Bronchial Asthma is not a disease capable of occasioning disability so as to come within the purview of 'compassionate ground criteria. Severity of the diseases as evidenced by medical opinion and effect thereon of the local climate and environment does not appear to have been taken into consideration by the Migration Committee. It is true that "this Court does not have the expertise to decide the question whether a patient of Bronchial Asthma is to be treated in the category of illness causing disability as held by the learned single Judge but it is equally well-settled that if the authority clothed with the power to take a decision on such question skips to advert itself to the relevant factors including materials on record. the decision so taken by the authority can be interfered with by the Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, for such an error being an error in the dec ision-making process as distinguished from error in the decision itself vitiates the decision and furnishes a ground for Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge, in our opinion, fell into error in holding that "if the Medical Council of India, being the expert body, had taken a decision that the illness of the appellant was not such as would cause disability. it would be too genteel for this Court to discuss on the issue" and further that "the decision taken by the Council cannot be interfered with on any ground whatsoever." in our considered view, though it may not be possible for this Court to supplant the findings of Migration Committee by its own but if an error in the decision-making process is found, this Court can certainly demolish the decision of the Council and direct it to take a fresh decision after proper self-direction to relevant factors and materials on record. The judgment of the learned single Judge is, therefore, unsustainable. The matter. In our opinion, calls for being reconsidered by the Medical Council of India in correct perspective and in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment.
4. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned single Judge and also the impugned decision taken by the Medical Council of India rejecting the petitioner's application seeking migration are quashed. The Medical Council of India shall re-examine the matter after taking into consideration such medical opinion as may be or may have been produced by the appellant in support of her case and take appropriate decision, giving reasons for its conclusions in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.