Karnataka High Court
Rajarajeshwari Dental College And ... vs Union Of India on 17 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 359
Bench: B.S Patil, S Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
W.P.Nos.11333-11334/2017 (EDN-MED-ADM)
Between:
1. RajaRajeshwari Dental College & Hospital,
14, Ramohalli Cross, Kumbalagodu,
Mysore Road, Bangalore-560 074,
Represented by its Dean,
Dr.N.Edwin Devadoss.
2. Moogambigai Charitable Trust ®
RRCE campus, II Floor,
Ramohalli Cross, Mysore Road,
Bangalore-560 074,
Represented by its Secretary. ... Petitioners
(By: Sri. N.K.Ramesh, Advocate)
And:
1. Union of India,
By its Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Services,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 011.
2. Dental Council of India,
Aiwan-E-Ghalib Marg,
Kotla Road,
New Delhi-110 002,
Represented by its Secretary. ... Respondents
(By:Sri. G.S. Bhat, Advocate for R2
C.G.C. for R1)
2
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
communication, Annexure-D issued by the R-1 dated
28.02.2017 and the impugned communications Annexure-E
and F both dated 27.01.2017 issued by the R-2.
These Writ Petitions coming on for orders, this day,
B.S.Patil.J., made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner No.1 is the Dental College established by 2nd petitioner Trust. They have approached this Court challenging Annexure-D communication dated 28.2.2017 issued by Government of India addressed to the Principal of 1st petitioner College thereby informing them that as per the decision taken by Dental Council of India, they shall not make admission to MDS Courses as against increased seats (2) in the Specialties viz. (i) Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and (ii) Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. Petitioners have also challenged the decision taken by Dental Council of India in this connection, which is produced at Annexures-E and F.
2. Petitioners sought for enhancement of intake of existing Post Graduate seats in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Orthodontics and Dentofacial from 6 to 9 3 for the academic year 2017-2018 invoking Section 10A(4) of the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993 ['Act' for brevity].
3. The Dental Council of India conducted inspection and submitted a report to the Union of India informing the Central Government not to approve the enhanced intake as sought for by petitioners. Communications at Annexures-E and F in this regard addressed by Dental Council of India to the Central Government disclose that Executive Committee of Dental Council of India recommended to Central Government to disapprove the request made by petitioners for increase of seats in MDS Course in the two Specialties for the simple reason that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, vide their communication dated 15.9.2016 had stated that Draft MDS Course Regulations 2016 had already been approved by the Ministry and as per the said Rules, not more than six P.G. students in one specialty could be enrolled in one academic year. Based on this 4 communication Central Government has rejected the application filed by petitioners.
4. Sri N.K.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for petitioners contends that the entire basis for rejection of request is erroneous, inasmuch, as merely on the basis of draft Rules request made by petitioner College for increase of seats could not have been rejected.
5. Sri G.S.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent-Dental Council of India submits that revised MDS Course Regulations, 2007 have been brought into force by Notification dated 1.9.2017, a copy of which is produced before this Court: that the entire issue raised in the writ petitions becomes academic, as the petitioner College cannot now ask for increased intake in the wake of the present Rules.
6. In reply, Sri N.K.Ramsh, learned counsel for petitioners submits that intake capacity to be fixed for the year 2016-2017 may not help the petitioner College for the aforesaid year, but it would be entitled to make 5 admission for the increased intake in the coming academic year, viz., 2019-2020.
7. Upon consideration of entire materials on record, we find that admittedly, petitioner College has not made any admission and indeed could not have made admission for the increased intake for the academic year 2016-2017, for which year they had sought for increased intake. The same did not materialize for the reason that Dental Council of India did not undertake the exercise of deciding on the increased intake, having due regard to the fact that Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had already taken a decision to bring the revised Regulations into force. It was for this reason that Dental Council of India addressed a communication to the Central Government not to entertain the request of petitioner College.
8. As a matter of fact, new Regulations have been thereafter enacted and they have come into force as per Notification dated 1.9.2017. In such circumstance, this Court cannot intervene at this stage 6 and direct respondents to consider the earlier request made by petitioner College for increase in intake for future years. It is also not forthcoming from the communications (Annexures-E and F) addressed by the Dental Council of India that the College had required infrastructure for permitting additional intake.
9. It is not in dispute that as per the amended Regulations, w.e.f. 1.9.2017, not more than two units consisting of six seats (including increase of seats) shall be granted to any Dental Institution for each Specialty. Therefore, the intention of Rule making Authority is very clear that two units consisting of six seats could only be permitted including for any increase of seats for any Dental Institution, in each Specialty. If that is so, the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that if permission is retrospectively granted, it would benefit the petitioner prospectively, viz., for the academic year 2019-2020, cannot be accepted.
7
Therefore, in our view, consideration on merits of these writ petitions has been rendered purely academic. Hence, petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE VGR ct:am