Sanjeev Lal and Others vs The Union of India (UOI) and Others

R.N. Prasad, J.—The petitioners are students of Budha Institute of Dental Science and Hospital, Patna. They have filed the writ petition for issue of direction to the respondents to hold examination of Master of Dental Surgery, hereinafter, referred to MDS for brevity, of the students for the session 1997-2000 who have already completed the course and are eligible for the examination and also for direction to published the result of the said examination.

The relevant facts of the case are that petitioners passed Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) from different Universities. Pursuant to the admission notice published by the Budha Institute of Dental Science and Hospital, respondent No. 5, they took admission in MDS course in the year 1997 for the session 1997-2000. They completed the course from the Institution, respondent No. 5, which is affiliated to the Magadh University, respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 5 was granted permission by the Dental Council of India, hereinafter, referred to as DCI, after thorough inspection for imparting MDS course vide letter dated 1.9.1997, Annexure-3, copy of which was sent to the Government of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and also to the concerned authority including respondent No. 5. The said fact was also confirmed vide letter dated 25.1.2000, Annexure-3/1. Earlier Magadh University, respondent No. 3, had cancelled the affiliation of respondent No. 5 and as such CWJC No. 3582/91 was filed which was allowed and the order of cancellation of affiliation was quashed vide judgment and order dated 10.11.1994, The Governing Body of the Budha Institute of Dental Science Vs. The State of Bihar and Others . The DCI, respondent No. 4, vide letter dated 17.5.2000 directed respondent No. 5 not to admit the students in post graduate course till further orders. Respondent No. 5 has filed CWJC No. 6768/2000 for quashing the said communication in which petitioners and other have filed intervention petition and the matter is pending for disposal. The petitioners in these circumstances have moved this Court for issuance of direction to the respondents to hold examination of MDS and publish the result as indicated above.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of DCI, respondent No. 4 wherein the fact that permission to start MDS course was granted vide letter dated 1.9.1997 and confirmed vide letter dated 25.1.2000, Annexures-3 and 3/1 respectively has not been disputed. However, it has been stated that Budha Institute of Dental Science, respondent No. 5, was approved by the DIC in the year 1985 for imputing education to the students in BDS course. The inspection was made to see feasibility for starting MDS course in the said institution and the DCI took decision recommending for starting MDS course, however, vide letter dated 9.2.2000 explained the position in view of the amendment introduced in 1993 that in case it had not fulfilled requisite qualification the permission shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.

A separate counter-affidavit has been1 filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 stating therein that no ''NOC as required u/s 10C of Dentist Act has been granted to respondent No. 5. As per direction of DCI, respondent No. 5 was to admit only 40 students each year in BDS course but respondent No. 5 is not following the said direction. No permission was granted to respondent Mo. 5 by DCI to start P.G. course.

A separate counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 wherein it has been stated that in view of the amendment in Dentist Act, 1993 No. Dental College can start a new course without permission of the Central Government and affiliation by the University. Respondent No. 5 has not been affiliated for MDS course by the University and as such no examination has been taken.

During course of argument earned Counsel for the petitioners stated that respondent No. 5 has filed CWJC No. 6768/2000 against the communication dated 17.5.2000 of DCI, respondent No. 4, in which petitioners have filed intervention petition but they are not proposing to pursue the said intervention petition as the petitioners are only interested for their MDS examination for which they have completed the course prior to tissue of the said order. However, on submission made by the earned Counsel for the parties the question remains to be determined as to whether petitioners are entitled to the relief i.e. direction for holding examination and publication of result.

From the material on record this much is obvious that petitioner took admission in MDS course in the institution, respondent No. 5, in the year 1997 for the session 1997-2000. The institution in question was granted permission by DCI, to admit students in BDS course with effect from 1985. Inspection was made for granting permission for starting MDS course and the DCI considering inspection report of the competent authority as well as compliance report dated 21.5.1997 granted permission vide letter dated 1.9.1997, Annexure-3, copy of which was also sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi for needful. The said fact was subsequently confirmed by letter dated 25.1.2000, Annexure-3/1. The petitioners have completed their studies but no examination has been held. The counter-affidavit has been filed by the DCI, respondent No. 4, but granting of permission Annexure-3 & 3/1 has not been denied. Similarly in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, respondent No. 2, it has only been stated that no ''NOC has been granted to respondent No. 5. Similarly, a cryptic statement has been made by respondent No.3, the University, that no affiliation has been granted for MDS course to respondent No. 5. In the case of State of T.N. and Another Vs. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Others, and in the case of Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State and Another, the Apex Court in fact has held that in matters of technical education governed by All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987, the Council established under the Act is the sole body authorised to grant permission/approval for technical institutions and the State Government or the University have been held to be under legal obligation not to have policy conductors to the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987, any derecognizing by the State Government or disaffiliation by the State University on grounds which are inconsistent with the Central Act would ineffective. In other words it can be said that the DCI is technical expert and is competent to grant permission to establish an institution and if the permission is allowed the role of State and the University becomes co-ordination to the decision taken by the DCI and no decision contrary to the DCI decision can be taken either by the State or the University. However, in the instant case without going into the aforesaid aspect of the matter this much is obvious that DCI after considering inspection report of the institution, respondent No. 5, and also accepting the compliance report dated 21.5.1997 granted permission to start MDS course vide letter dated 1.9.1997 and referred the matter to the Central Government and the same was confirmed vide letter dated 25.1.2000, Annexures-3 & 3/1 respectively. From the facts as narrated above it is evident that during the period the petitioners took admission and completed the course of MDS. The institution in question was granted permission by DCI and there is nothing on the record that the Central Government has taken any adverse decision with respect to grant of permission by the DCI and as such petitioners cannot be allowed to suffer for any act of respondents or subsequent order of any of the respondents.

Thus, on consideration as discussed above, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents concerned are directed to hold examination of the students of MDS for the session 1997-2000 within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and publish the result at the earliest.