Mahatma Gandhi Vidyamandir Mumbai ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 September, 2016

[Cites 5, Cited by 10]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahatma Gandhi Vidyamandir Mumbai ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 September, 2016

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that for the academic session 2015-16, the respondent No.1 vide Annex.5 dated 01.07.2015, granted a renewal permission to the petitioners-college for 3rd year BDS Course with 100 seats. Thereafter, the Dental Council of India (for short 'DCI' hereinafter) has appointed Council's 2 Inspectors for BDS recognition inspection and those Inspectors submitted their inspection reports on 14.10.2015 and 15.10.2015 (Annex.6), whrein it is specifically mentioned that the petitioners-college has fulfilled the norms and criteria of DCI in a satisfactory manner. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioners-college has applied for BDS 4th year renewal for intake of 100 students for the academic year 2016-17, pursuant to which, the DCI appointed the Inspectors, who submitted their report on 16.04.2016 (Annex.9), wherein it is specifically mentioned that the petitioners-college are meeting all the requirements as per the DCI norms.

The petitioners-college was informed by the DCI vide communication dated 02.05.2016 to submit compliance report regarding the deficiencies pointed out in the communication. The petitioners-college vide letter dated 06.05.2016 submitted the compliance report regarding deficiencies pointed out by the DCI. Thereafter, again, Inspectors were appointed for verifying the compliance made by the petitioners-college. The Inspectors submitted their inspection reports on 27.05.2016 (Annex.13), which 3 was favourable to the petitioners-college. It is submitted that the DCI again appointed Inspectors vide communication dated 04.06.2016 for compliance verification regarding staff, hostel, clinical material, infrastructure and equipments. The Inspectors submitted their report on 08.06.2016 wherein it is mentioned that the deficiencies pointed out by the DCI vide communication dated 02.05.2016 do not exist.

However, the DCI without taking into consideration the inspection report in right perspective sent a communication dated 13.06.2016 (Annex.16) to the Central Government with the recommendation for non renewal of permission of the petitioners-college for 4th year BDS Course with 100 seats for the new academic session. Pursuant to the said recommendation of the DCI, the Principal of the petitioners-college was asked to submit explanation regarding the recommendations of the DCI vide letter dated 20.06.2016. The petitioners- college submitted its response before the Central Government and the Central Government vide communication dated 29.06.2016 directed the DCI 4 to conduct physical verification of the petitioners- college and to furnish its revised recommendation to the Ministry immediately. Thereafter, the DCI has appointed its Inspectors for compliance verification on 05.07.2016, who submitted their report on 08.07.2016 to the DCI. The DCI has sent a joint inspection report of the Council's Inspectors to the Central Government with the recommendation to renew the permission of 4th year BDS Course with reduced intake of 50 seats instead of 100 seats for the academic session 2016-17.

It is submitted that the Central Government, pursuant to the recommendations by the DCI, issued the communication dated 22.07.2016 (Annex.25) and renewed the permission of the petitioners- college for 4th year BDS Course for 50 seats only for the academic session 2016-17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as a matter of fact the deficiencies pointed out by the DCI in the recommendation dated 14.07.2016 do not exist at present because the earlier inspection report of the Council's Inspectors clearly reveals that no such deficiency exists. Learned counsel for the petitioners 5 has therefore prayed that the order dated 22.07.2016 may be modified and the Central Government be directed to grant renewal permission to the petitioners-college for 4th year BDS Course for academic session 2016-17 with intake of 100 seats.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2015) 10 SCC 19 and Priyadarshini Dental College & Hospital Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 623.

Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents-Central Government and the DCI have argued that the Central Government has rightly reduced the intake of the petitioners-college for academic session 2016-17 for 4th year BDS Course from 100 seats to 50 seats looking to the deficiencies in the infrastructure of the petitioner- college and the same is not liable to be interfered in any manner.

Learned counsels for the respondents have placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Dental Council of India Vs. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 6 2151; Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 2 SCC 65; Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Vs. State & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 433 & Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital & Dental College Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 13 SCC 506.

It is also argued that as per the time schedule for receipt of application for establishment of New Dental Colleges/increase of under graduate seats/renewal of permission and processing of the applications by the Central Government and the Dental Council of India, the Central Government cannot grant renewal permission after 31st of July and therefore, no direction can be given in respect of modification of the order dated 22.07.2016 (Annex.25).

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record. The Inspectors of the DCI conducted BDS recognition inspection of the petitioners-college on 14.10.2015 and 15.10.2015 and made following observations:

"OBSERVATIONS Thanks for appointing us as inspectors. On the day of 14.10.15 and 15.10.15 we inspected R.R. Dental College & 7 Hospital Udaipur for B.D.S. Recognition of 100 seats. This college has fulfilled the norms & criterias of DCI in a satisfactory manner.

We found clinical material, infrastructure, staff pattern are satisfactory during inspection."

The renewal inspection of the petitioner-college was conducted by the inspectors on 16.04.2016, in which the following observations were made:

"OBSERVATIONS

- The infrastructure is adequate.

     -   Staff    Profile    is  good  and
         according to DCI requirements.
    -    Clinical material and the library
         books & facilities       are
         according        to    the    DCI
         requirements.
    -    All    the     equipments    were

available in all the departments."

Thereafter, further inspection was conducted by the Council's Inspectors on 27.05.2016 wherein the following observations were made:

"OBSERVATIONS

- All the staffing pattern, appointments from 16, experience certificates, residential proofs are in accordance of DCI requirements.

- Adequate number of books and journals available inlibrary.

- Sufficient clinical material was found before and on the day of DCI inspection.

- Attached hospital with adequate patients is situated within 10km. to the dental college.

- All the equipments & materials found as per DCI requirements.

- Infrastructure with Lecture halls, clinical departments, Laboratories, Common rooms, Central Store, library etc. were found to be adequate."

It is noticed that in all the above referred reports of Inspectors, it is specifically mentioned that the infrastructure of petitioners-college is adequate in all respect.

Thereafter, pursuant to the Central Government's directions dated 29.06.2016, further inspection was carried out by the Inspectors of the DCI, who submitted their report on 08.07.2016, copy of which is supplied by the counsel for the DCI. In the said report dated 08.07.2016, following observations were made:

"OBSERVATIONS The compliance verification of the previous report.

A. The Department of Community dentistry is established with 16 Dental Chair units.

B. The deptt. of oral Medicine & Radiology has X-Ray protrection duly certified by Radiologist Precision bbs Pvt. Ltd (Annexure I).

Apart from these Compliance report following observations were made:

1. The museum of deptt. of Anatomy has 8 specimens and needs to be improved

2. The Girls common room had no lockers

3. The Girls Hostel in the Campus is not occupied. However, there is a city Hostel accommodation given by management, outside campus for security reasons.

4. There are 2 Staff quarters

5. All the clinical deptt. needs expansion in future for better training of students."

In my opinion, the deficiencies pointed out by the DCI vide letter dated 14.07.2016 (Annex.21) are not in total conformity with the observations made by the Council's Inspectors in their report dated 08.07.2016. For example in the letter dated 14.07.2016, it is mentioned that the "Girls hostel in the campus is not secured and hence, not occupied. Girls students are staying outside the campus." Whereas, the Inspectors in their observations in point no.3 have mentioned that the "Girls hostel in the campus is not occupied. However, there is a city hostel accommodation given by the management outside campus for security reasons." Similarly in the letter dated 14.07.2016, it is mentioned that "The museum of Department of General Anatomy grossly shortage of specimens and needs to be 10 improved." Whereas, the Inspectors have observed that "Museum of Department of Anatomy has eight specimens and needs to be improved." In the letter dated 14.07.2016 in point no.3, it is mentioned that "All the clinical departments need expansion for better training of students." Whereas, in the Inspector's report, it is observed that "All the clinical departments need expansion in future for better training of students."

It is also noted that in the Inspector's report dated 08.07.2016, there are remarks regarding hostel of boys and girls, wherein it is mentioned that the boys and girls are having two number of equipped common rooms.

As observed earlier, the so called deficiencies, pointed out in the report dated 08.07.2016 had not been mentioned ever in earlier reports. Rather, it was specifically observed that infrastructure in all respect is adequate.

Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie I am of the view that the Central Government before issuing the order dated 22.07.2016 (Annex.25), while granting renewal 11 permission to the petitioners-college for 4th year BDS Course with reduced seats from 100 to 50, has not taken into consideration the above noted facts and circumstances and without applying its mind has relied upon the recommendations of DCI in mechanical manner.

This Court is aware of its limitations in granting the interim orders in the nature of case in hand, however, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Vs. State & Ors. (supra), in exceptional cases, the High Court can grant interim orders.

As per the time schedule for receipt of the application for establishment of New Dental College increase of under graduate seats/renewal of permission and processing of the applications by the Central Government and the Dental Council of India, last date upto which, the students can be admitted in the colleges is 30th September, 2016.

Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct the Central Government to review its order dated 20.07.2016 in the light of observations made above and consider the case of the petitioner-college for 12 granting renewal permission for 4th year BDS Course with intake of 100 seats for the academic year 2016-

17. The respondent no.1 shall complete this exercise within a period of one week from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In any case, the Central Government shall pass a fresh order on or before 25th September, 2016.

With these observations, the Stay Petition (SB Civil Misc. Stay Petition No.7805/2016) is disposed of.

( VIJAY BISHNOI ),J.

m.asif/PS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur