Sree Anjaneya Institute Of Dental Sciences vs Dental Council Of India

N. NAGARESH, J.

The petitioner, a Dental College established in the year 2013, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P21 and to direct the 1st respondent to

accept the recommendation of the 1st respondent permitting three seats each in ‘Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry’ and ‘Prosthodontics

and Crown and Bridge’, as sought for in Ext.P17.

The petitioner desired to start Post Graduate courses from the academic year 2021-2022 and submitted Ext.P2 application dated 12.02.2020 for

Consent of Affiliation to the 3rd respondent-Kerala University of Health Sciences for starting the following MDS Courses:

a. Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics (3 seats)

b. Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery (3 setas)

c. Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry (3 seats)

d. Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge (3 seats)

e. Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics (3 seats)

The 3rd respondent, though following a litigation, issued Consent of Affiliation on 19.11.2020 to all the five courses with three seats each, as per

Exts.P5 to P9.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner also submitted applications for Letter of Permission (LoP) and Letter of Intent (LoI) from the 2nd respondent-

Union of India and the 1st respondent-Dental Council of India. The 1st respondent consequently appointed a Council of Inspectors to inspect the

petitioner-College and ascertain availability of physical infrastructure.

In the background of Covid-19 pandemic, the 1st respondent had taken a policy decision on 06.10.2020 that all the dental colleges where inspection

is/has been conducted and and likely to be conducted during the period of Covid-19 pandemic, be relaxed from the requirement of number of patients,

students as well as teaching staff or dental OPD of the hospital/college as prescribed in the MDS and BDS Course admissions. In view of the said

policy decision, the Council of Inspectors did not physically inspect the College.

By Ext.P16, the 2nd respondent issued Letter of Intent to the petitioner to start all the five MDS courses applied for. However, in Ext.P16 only two

seats were permitted to the courses ‘Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry’ and ‘Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge’. In Ext.P16, it

was stated that clinical material is sufficient for two seats only. The petitioner was required to furnish some more documents and Bank Guarantee of

₹60 lakhs.

The petitioner thereupon addressed Ext.P17 letter to the 2nd respondent requesting to reconsider Ext.P10 application and grant LoI/LoP to 3 seats

for the said two courses also. The petitioner provided the requisite Bank Guarantee. The 1st respondent, considering its policy decision, gave a revised

recommendation advising to allow 3 seats each for the afore two courses also. The 2nd respondent, however, issued Ext.P20 LoP dated 26.02.2021

permitting only two seats for the courses Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry and Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge.

The petitioner contends that the reduction in number of seats in spite of the recommendations of the 1st respondent is highly arbitrary and

unreasonable. Reduction of seats is not supported by cogent reasons. Rejection of the request of the petitioner for three seats each for the two MDS

courses in issue, on the ground of deficiency of clinical materials, cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The 1st respondent cannot sit in appeal over the

recommendations of an expert body like the 1st respondent.

The 1st respondent filed a statement dated 17.05.2021. The 1st respondent on 30.11.2020 had recommended only two seats each for the courses

Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry and Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge. However, on 23.02.2021, the 1st respondent informed the

Government of India as per Ext.R1(1) that the DCI has decided to review its earlier recommendations and recommended three seats for the said two

courses also. The 2nd respondent required the petitioner to justify their revised recommendation. By Ext.R1(2) dated 24.02.2021, the 1st respondent

informed the 2nd respondent that the revised recommendation was keeping in view the policy decision dated 06.10.2020.

The 2nd respondent contested the writ petition filing a statement dated 23.04.2021. In his statement, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India

stated that the revised recommendations of the DCI for granting permission for 3 seats cannot be agreed to because the initial recommendation was

made on 29.11.2020 after the policy decision taken on 06.10.2020. There is no change in conditions after the first recommendation, warranting the

second recommendation made by the DCI on 23.02.2021.

Heard the learned counsel Mr. Vinod Bhat appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Prakash M.P., the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st

respondent, Sri.P.Vijayakumar learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the 2nd respondent and Sri. P. Sreekumar learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent- Kerala University of Health Sciences.

The facts are not much in dispute. The 1st respondent-DCI had initially recommended only 2 seats for the MDS courses in Pedodontics and

Preventive Dentistry and Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, in the petitioner-College. This recommendation was not based on any inspection

conducted by the Council of Inspectors. In fact there was a policy decision taken by the DCI on 06.10.2020 to the effect that all the dental colleges

where inspection is / has been conducted and likely to be conducted during the period of Covid-19 pandemic, be relaxed from the requirement of

number of patients, students as well as teaching staff or dental OPD of the hospital / college as prescribed in the MDS and BDS Course admissions.

In view of the said policy decision, the Council of Inspectors did not physically inspect the college.

The said decision was taken in the context of Covid-19 pandemic during which sufficient number of patients would not have visited the medical

college and sufficient number of students and faculty would also not have been attending the college. In such a situation, physical inspection to

ascertain sufficiency of clinical material and availability of students and staff would not have resulted in giving a true state of affair of the institution.

The validity of the said policy decision taken by the 1st respondent is not questioned even by the 2nd respondent.

The reason for not permitting 3 seats for the courses in question is that it was during the existence of the policy decision dated 06.10.2020 of the

DCI that the first recommendation for 2 seats was made by the DCI and there is no change of circumstances subsequently to vary the seats. The said

reason is unacceptable for more than one reason.

Firstly, while making the first recommendation for 2 seats, the officials of the DCI might have omitted to take into account the policy decision. On

noting this omission, the DCI might have made the revised recommendation. Correction of a wrong decision which was taken without adverting to a

binding policy decision cannot be said to be bad in law.

Secondly, the DCI had constituted a Council of Inspectors to inspect the petitioner-College. The Council did not make an inspection solely due to

the policy decision taken by the 1st respondent. Still, the 2nd respondent concluded that there is insufficiency of clinical material to permit 3 seats. This

alleged insufficiency of clinical material was during Covid-19 pandemic. It was to overcome such a situation arising due to the pandemic, that the DCI

had taken the policy decision. Therefore, the 2nd respondent ought to have accepted the revised recommendation of the DCI.

Furthermore, the Council of Inspectors admittedly did not conduct inspection of the petitioner-College to ascertain sufficiency or otherwise of

infrastructural requirements or availability of clinical material, in the college. The petitioner cannot be put to a disadvantageous position and penalised

for the omission of the DCI to conduct inspection, in view of its policy decision taken on 06.10.2020. For all the afore reasons, the writ petitioner has

to succeed in this writ petition.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Ext.P21 is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to accept the recommendation of the 1st respondent and

to permit three seats each for the MDS Course in ‘Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry’ and ‘Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge’ in

the petitioner-College, as sought for in Ext.P17.