Delhi High Court - Orders
Gunjan Kankarwal vs University Of Delhi & Ors on 18 February, 2021
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 446/2021 & CM APPL. 1155/2021
GUNJAN KANKARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Zahid Hanief, Advocate.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder JS Rupal, Mr.
Hardik Rupal and Ms. Monika
Jaiswal, Advocates for R1.
Mr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva,
Advocate for R2.
Mr. T. Singhdev, Advocate for R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 18.02.2021 The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.
1. The petitioner assails a communication of the respondent No.1/University of Delhi ["the University"] dated 06.01.2021 (Annexure P-12 to the writ petition), by which the University denied permission to her to take the final year BDS supplementary examination. The University sought to apply the span period of 9 years provided in the Dental Council of India Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007 ["the Regulations"].
2. Mr. Zahid Hanief, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to the fact that the aforesaid span period of 9 years was introduced in the Regulations by way of an amendment which came into Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL W.P.(C) 446/2021 Page 1 of 2 Signing Date:20.02.2021 16:20:37 effect on 23.05.2015. He cites the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Bhakti Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2018) 5 Mh.L.J. and the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Aluri Sneha vs. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors., 2018 SCC Online Hyd 371 [W.P. No. 28325/2011 and connected matters, decided on 29.08.2018] to submit that the amendment in the Regulations, which took place in 2015, cannot be applied retrospectively. It is his submission that the petitioner took admission in the BDS course in 2011, at which time the span period was not in existence.
3. Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, learned counsel for the University, seeks one week's time to take instructions and file an affidavit. He submits that even if the application of the 2015 amendment to the Regulations is erroneous, the petitioner's case would have to be examined as against the pre-amendment Regulations.
4. The University and respondent No. 2/Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences are directed to file counter affidavits with regard to the petitioner's status within one week. Mr. Rupal will also indicate in the counter affidavit filed by the University as to whether there is any scope for relaxation of the span period, if any, prescribed in the University's ordinances. The petitioner may respond to the affidavits to be filed by the respondents within one week thereafter.
5. List on 16.03.2021.
PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 18, 2021/vp Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL W.P.(C) 446/2021 Page 2 of 2 Signing Date:20.02.2021 16:20:37