AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Murugesan, J.—The petitioner-Trust has challenged the proceedings of the first respondent University made in Letter
no.31660/Affln.I(2)/99 dated 22.12.2000 and seek for a consequential direction to register all the candidates admitted for the B.D.S. course not
exceeding the sanctioned strength of 60 seats for the academic years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002.
The impugned order came to be passed on the request of the petitioner-Trust in the representation dated 13.10.2000 requesting the first
respondent University for adjustment of 31 seats admitted during the academic year 1999-2000 for the academic year 2000-2001. The petitioner
submitted an application dated 4.12.97 to the first respondent University for certificate of registration to start a self-financing Dental College. The
said request was considered by the University and by letter dated 4.12.97, the petitioner was informed to obtain prior permission of the Central
Government to start a Dental college. Thereafter, the petitioner addressed another letter dated 4.12.98 requesting the University to issue the letter
of consent of affiliation. However, again the University in letter dated 28.5.98 informed the petitioner to get the permission from the State
Government for establishment of the Dental college. The petitioner addressed again in letter dated 7.9.98 submitted its proposal for the issue of
letter of consent of affiliation. The said request was placed before the Governing Council of the University in its meeting held on 18.12.98 and it
was resolved to issue letter of consent of affiliation to the petitioner with a further condition that ""the issue of letter of consent of affiliation does not
confer any right on the Trust to admit the students in the first B.D.S. Degree course till the permission of the Government of India and the affiliation
of the University are granted."" Pursuant to the above resolution, the letter of consent dated 13.8.99 was issued with the following conditions:-
(i) Students should not be admitted till the provisional affiliation is granted by the University to start I BDS Degree Course.
(ii)The Trust should not make advertisement in any newspapers or make any form of publicity for admission of students in the BDS Degree course
for the proposed Dental college till grant of provisional affiliation by the University.
In the meantime, the State Government conveyed their no objection to the petitioner in their letter dated 7.6.99 and accordingly granted essentiality
certificate to the petitioner to start a Dental college on 16.8.99. On the strength of the letter of consent by the University and the essentiality
certificate granted by the State Government, the petitioner applied to the Government of India on 7.2.2000 for issue of a letter of intent for
establishment of the Dental college. By order dated 17.2.2000, the Government of India accorded its permission u/s 10-A(4) of the Dentists Act,
1948 to the petitioner to start a Dental college with an annual intake of 60 seats with prospective effect. In view of the said letter of intent, the
petitioner was entitled to admit 60 students prospectively for the future academic years. However, contrary to the letter of consent of affiliation
issued by the first respondent University on 13.8.99, the petitioner admitted 40 students for the academic year 1999-2000 even before the grant of
affiliation. At the request of the petitioner, the Governing Council of the University in its meeting held on 25.2.2000 resolved to grant provisional
affiliation to the college with annual intake of 60 students from the academic year 2000-2001. The said grant of affiliation was accepted by the
petitioner-Trust without any challenge. In fact the petitioner-Trust paid the necessary fees and informed the same to the University in its letter dated
13.3.2000. After accepting, the petitioner-Trust, the next day i.e. on 14.3.2000 requested the University to reconsider the grant of provisional
affiliation granted from the academic year 2000-2001 and to grant the same from the academic year 1999-2000 on the ground that the petitioner-
Trust had obtained Government of India''s prospective permission dated 17.2.2000 to start a Dental college. The said request was rejected by the
Governing Council in its meeting held on 28.3.2000 and the same was communicated to the petitioner-Trust by the University letter dated
12.4.2000. Subsequent to the above, the Dental Council of India in its letter dated 19.6.2000 also informed the petitioner that no fresh admissions
should be made for the second batch BDS Degree course till the Central Government renews its permission. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
W.P.No.7472 of 2000 seeking for a direction to the respondents to delete and rectify that portion of the order in paragraph 11 of the proceedings
dated 12.4.2000 which stipulated that ""from the academic year 2000-2001 and for a consequential direction for grant of provisional affiliation with
effect from 1999-2000"". Pending the above writ petition, this Court directed the University to register 32 candidates out of 40 candidates admitted
for the academic year 1999-2000 and permit them to take the examinations held during October 2000 and the remaining 8 candidates in the
examinations held during April 2001. The said order was challenged by way of writ appeal in W.A.No.1676 of 2000 and a Division Bench of this
Court while setting aside the interim directions granted by the learned single Judge by its order dated 26.9.2000 observed as follows:-
Admittedly, the affiliation was given to the respondent only on 12.4.2000 for 2000-2001. According to the respondent/caveator, this affiliation
should have been given for 1999-2000 and the students should not be deprived of on this account. As the counsel for the respondent has not been
able to show any affiliation order prior to 17.2.2000, it cannot be presumed that the affiliation should be given for 1999-2000 as argued and the
students admitted earlier cannot be permitted to take the examinations pertaining to the academic year 1999-2000 at this stage. On consideration
we find that the order of the learned single Judge is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
In view of the above order of the Division Bench, the petitioner-Trust in its representation dated 13.10.2000 requested the first respondent
University to at least adjust the admission of 31 candidates in the following manner i.e., 16 candidates for the academic year 2001-2002 and 15
candidates for the academic year 2002-2003. In order to make such request, the petitioner-Trust relied on the Government of India''s letter dated
17.2.2000 to contend that the said letter was even though only prospective in operation but after the said permission and before the end of the
academic year 1999-2000, 40 students were admitted and the said admission were in order. It was also contended in the said letter that there was
no mistake on the part of the petitioner in admitting the students for the academic year 1999-2000. Therefore, the petitioner-Trust requested for
adjustment of 39 seats admitted during the academic year 1999-2000. The said request of the petitioner-Trust was placed before the Governing
Council of the University and the Governing Council in its resolution dated 14.12.2000 resolved as follows:-
To adjust the 39 (thirty nine) students admitted in I year BDS degree course at Sree Mookambika Institute of Dental Sciences, Kulasekharam run
by Padanilam Welfare Trust, Kulasekharam, admitted in the academic year 1999-2000. (Prior to the grant of provisional affiliation for the
academic year 2000-2001 as detailed below:
Academic year 2000-2001 - 12 students
Academic year 2001-2002 - 27 students
The said resolution of the Governing Council was communicated to the petitioner-Trust by the impugned order dated 22.12.2000.
From the facts narrated above, it cannot be disputed that 40 students were admitted by the petitioner-Trust for the academic year 1999-2000
without there being any affiliation. This is evident from the fact when the request of the petitioner for grant of affiliation was considered by the first
respondent University, a letter of consent of affiliation was issued on 13.8.99 wherein it was specifically informed that the students should not be
admitted till the provisional affiliation is granted to start the first BDS Degree course. Such a provisional affiliation was in fact granted by the first
respondent University by order dated 12.4.2000, and that too for the academic year 2000-2001. By the said proceedings, provisional affiliation
for the academic year 1999-2000 was not granted. However, the petitioner filed W.P.No.7472 of 2000 seeking for a direction to the respondents
to delete and rectify that portion of the order in paragraph 11 of the proceedings dated 12.4.2000 which stipulated the affiliation from the
academic year 2000-2001 only. Even though the students admitted for the academic year 1999-2000 were initially permitted to write
examinations by the order of a learned single Judge, on appeal the said order was set aside and the Division Bench also held on facts that 40
students were admitted without affiliation. It is well settled principle of law that the students admitted without there being affiliation are not entitled
to take the examinations conducted by the University. The said writ petition itself was later withdrawn by the petitioner-Trust and thereafter only
the petitioner-Trust had made a request to the first respondent University on 13.10.2000 for adjustment of the 39 students and by the impugned
order the University has directed adjustment of the 39 students in the following manner i.e., 12 students for the academic year 2000-2001 and 29
students for the academic year 2001-2002.
Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would challenge the impugned order on the ground that by virtue of the said
adjustment, as against 60 seats allotted for the academic year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, number of seats namely 12 and 27 seats are reduced
from 60 for each academic year. Such a reduction in the number of seats is the exclusive power of the Dental Council of India and the University
has no such power to reduce the seats for which the Central Government has accorded permission. Therefore, the learned senior counsel
submitted that the adjustment as directed by the University is bad in law.
In my considered view, the said submission of the learned senior counsel is totally misconceived. Firstly, the adjustment was made only at the
request of the petitioner-Trust. Secondly, it is not in dispute that 40 students were admitted before the grant of affiliation and therefore there was
no corresponding obligation on the part of the University to hold examinations to the students and thirdly, the right of the students who were
admitted in the year 1999-2000 to take the examinations have also been finally negativated by a Division Bench of this Court. Under such
circumstances only and having no other option, the petitioner-Trust itself had approached the University for a reasonable and sympathetic
consideration in respect of the students who were admitted prior to the grant of affiliation at least for adjustment of seats against the seats available
in the future academic years. Only on the said request, the adjustment was made by the impugned order. Having invited an order from the
University, it is not open for the petitioner-Trust to contend that the University has no power to make adjustment. Moreover, by the adjustment the
petitioner cannot complain of reduction of corresponding number of seats in the future academic years. The University is concerned with the
conduct of examinations to students who were admitted in an affiliated college. The petitioner cannot expect the University to hold examination to
the students admitted over and above the strength for which affiliation was granted. Even if the submission of the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner is accepted and the impugned order is set aside on the ground that the University has no power to reduce the strength of the seats
approved by the Government of India, the students already admitted for the academic year 1999-2000 would have to lose their seats and they
may not be even entitled to continue their course in the subsequent academic years for which the petitioner-Trust has affiliation. Therefore, by the
impugned order, taking into consideration of the interest of students who were admitted when there was no affiliation and also the grievance
expressed by the petitioner-Trust in admitting those students on the bonafide belief that the Government of India had permitted the college to admit
students prospectively in their letter dated 17.2.2000, the impugned order has been passed adjusting certain seats as against seats available in
future academic years. I do not find any force in the contention of the learned senior counsel for petitioner as to the power of the University in
reducing the number of seats available to the petitioner in the subsequent academic years. The petitioner cannot on one hand seek for adjustment
of the seats and on the other could challenge the power of the University to make such adjustment. On facts of this case I am not impressed over
the challenge to the power of the University in ordering adjustment of the seats as has been done in the impugned order. Hence, without going to
power of the University to make adjustment, I do not find any justification over the grievance of the petitioner in challenging the impugned order
which was passed only at the instance of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected W.P.M.Ps. are also dismissed.