Madras High Court
P. Bagavathy, G. Madhan, Merlin ... vs The Dental Council Of India, New Delhi, ... on 2 July, 2002
Author: P.K. Misra
Bench: P.K. Misra
JUDGMENT P.K. Misra, J.
1. The undisputed facts as culled out from various writ petitions and counters including that of the Dental Council of India are as follows :-
Tmt. Kannammal Educational Trust (hereinafter called the Institution), petitioner in W.P.Nos.8488 & 13902 of 2002, was started in the year 1991-92 and subsequently the Dental Council of India (hereinafter called the Council) granted permission in 1995 retrospectively with effect from 1991-92 to start a college for imparting education regarding Dental with 40 students for the academic year 1991-92. It appears that there was some dispute relating to grant of affiliation by the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University (hereinafter called the University). Ultimately pursuant to the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.6955 of 1995 affiliation was granted with effect from the academic year 1996-97. Subsequently, challenging the grant of affiliation only with effect from 1996-97 the petitioner college preferred W.P.No.4186 of 1997 which was allowed by the judgment dated 29.12.1997 enabling the students admitted from the academic year 1991-92 to 1995-96 to appear in examination conducted by the University. Subsequently the University wrote to the petitioner college stating that sanctioned intake students capacity was only 40 and the college had illegally admitted more than 40 students from the year 1996-97 till 1999-2000. This order was again challenged by the petitioner institution in W.P.No.20236 of 2000 and it was held by the judgment dated 19.12.2000 that the matter was not within the jurisdiction of the University and lay only within the jurisdiction of the Central Government. While the matter stood thus, the Central Government granted permission to the Institution for the increase of the intake from 40 to 60 students with effect from the academic year 2000-2001 and it was indicated that such permission was effective for the particular year only. Subsequently by a letter dated 13.6.2001 the Institution had been informed by the Central Government that no admission can be made in respect of increased intake for the academic year 2001-2002 and the excess students should be discharged from the institution. In the mean time, the University while granting Provisional Certificate to the students who have passed B.D.S. examination has indicated that the certificate granted is a provisional and the degree would be granted only after getting permission for completion of C.R.R.I training. The University has also written to the college that no student can be admitted for the academic year 2002-2003.
2. In the above background, W.P.No.5012 of 2002 has been filed by the students who have completed the course and passed the examination seeking for a direction to the Dental Council of India to register their names as qualified Dentists.
W.P.Nos.5185 and 6392 of 2002 have been filed by some students who have passed the examination seeking for a direction to the Central Government of India to issue a Gazette Notification under Section 10 of the Dentists Act for amending Part I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act by including the name of Thai Moogambigai Dental College and Hospital as one of the institutions entitled to grant recognised dental qualifications and consequently to direct the Dental Council of India to register the petitioners as qualified Dentists and direct the University to grant B.D.S. degree to the petitioners.
In W.P.No.8488 of 2002, the Institution has challenged the order dated 25.2.2002 issued by the Central Government whereunder the Institution has been called upon to discharge 20 students admitted in excess of the original intake capacity of 40 and consequently sought for a direction to the Central Government to grant renewal of permission for the academic year 2001-2002.
W.P.No.13902 of 1992 has been filed by the Institution challenging the validity of the order passed by the University on 27.3.2002 requesting the institution to approach the Central Government and produce the renewal permission / recognition orders for the academic year 2001-2002 and 2002-2003, so as to enable the University to inform the Selection Committee for the allotment of candidates in I BDS to the institution.
3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Council it has been indicated that permission had been granted only for admitting 40 students and degree cannot be granted to the students admitted in excess of the sanctioned strength. It has been further indicated that the Institution cannot admit students more than the intake capacity of 40 for the academic session 2002-2003. It has been however submitted at the time of argument that there is no difficulty in granting degree to the students who were admitted within the permitted capacity of 40 and to admit 40 students for the current academic session.
4. The University in its counter has taken a stand that since admission in excess of the sanctioned intake had taken place, degree cannot be granted unless the Central Government and the Dental Council accord necessary permission. It has been further stated that since the students in excess of the sanctioned strength have been admitted, instruction has been issued to the college not to admit any students.
5. Learned counsels Tmt. Nalini Chidambaram and Thiru G. Thangavel appearing for the students have submitted that since the Dental Council has granted permission for establishing this institution with effect from 1991-1992, there cannot be any reservation by the University while granting degree to the students.
6. Learned counsel Thiru. Mohan Parasaran appearing for the Institution has submitted that the University and the State Government having granted affiliation to the Institution and granted permission to admit 60 students, cannot deny admission of students and at any rate there being no embargo on admission of atleast 40 students, such admission should be permitted.
7. Learned Additional Solicitor General and Thiru. Madhana Gopal Rao, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel have submitted that the Institution could not have admitted students in excess of the sanctioned intake capacity and the provisions contained in the Dentists Act and the Regulations thereunder and the observation of the Supreme Court made in (UNION OF INDIA Vs. ERA EDUCATIONAL TRUST AND ANOTHER) should be kept in view while deciding the matter.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the cases and the submissions of the learned counsels, the following questions crop up for consideration:-
1. Whether the students who have passed the examination and completed the Compulsory Rotatory Internship are entitled to get the degree from the University and to get themselves registered thereafter?
2. Whether the Institution is entitled to admit students for the academic year 2002-2003?
3. Whether the excess students admitted in the academic session 2001-2002 should be permitted to continue their course ?
9. Before considering various aspects, it is necessary to extract or notice, as the case may be, the relevant provisions contained in the Dentists Act.
10. Recognition of dental qualifications. - (1) The dental qualifications, granted by any authority or institution in India, which are included in Part 1 of the Schedule shall be recognised dental qualifications for the purposes of this Act.
(2) . . .
(3) . . .
(4) . . .
(5) . . .
(6) The Central Government may, after consultation with the Council, by notification in Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by directing that an entry be made therein in respect of any dental qualification declaring that it shall be a recognised dental qualification only when granted before a specified date.
10A. Permission for establishment of new dental college, new courses of study etc. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, -
(a) no person shall establish an authority or institution for a course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the grant of recognised dental qualification; or
(b) no authority or institution conducting a course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) for grant of recognised dental qualification shall -
(i) open a new or higher course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognised dental qualification; or
(ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study of training (including a post-graduate course of study or training), except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of this section. . . .
10B. Non-recognition of dental qualifications in certain cases.-(1) Where any authority or institution is established for grant recognised dental qualification except with the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of section 10A, no dental qualification granted to any student of such authority or institution shall be a recognised dental qualification for the purposes of this Act.
(2) . . .
(3) Where any authority or institution granting recognised dental qualification increases its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) except with the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of section 10A, no dental qualification granted to any student of such authority or institution on the basis of the increase in its admission capacity shall be recognised dental qualification for the purposes of this Act.
10C. Time for seeking permission for certain existing authorities.-(1) If, after the 1st day of June, 1992 and on and before the commencement of the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993 any person has established an authority or institution for grant of recognised dental qualification or any authority or institution granting recognised dental qualification has opened a new or higher course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) or increased its admission capacity, such person, authority or institution, as the case may be, shall seek, within a period of one year from the commencement of the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993, the permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of section 10A.
(2) If any person or, as the case may be, any authority or institution granting recognised dental qualification fails to seek the permission under sub-section (1), the provisions of section 10B shall apply so far as may be, as if permission of the Central Government under section 10A has been refused.
. . .
Section 16A empowers the Central Government to withdraw recognition and lays down in detail the procedure to be followed. Section 20 confers jurisdiction to the Council to frame Regulations.
10. It has to be noticed that Sections 10A, 10B and 10C were introduced by way of an amendment in the year 1993. Section 1(2) of the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993 provides that such Act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 27th day of August, 1992. Section 10A(1)(a) envisages that no new authority or institution granting degree in concerned discipline relating to Dental Science shall be established without prior permission of the Central Government. This embargo is obviously in respect of the authority or institution to be established after the coming into force of the Dentists (Amendment) Act and has no applicability to existing authority or institution already established. Section 10A(1)(b)(ii) relates to the question of increase of seats in an existing institution and obviously applicable when such increase takes place after the Amendment. Section 10C relates to institutions established after 1.6.1992 and provides for such college / institution to seek for approval from the Central Government in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and prescribed under the Regulations.
11. One of the questions which arises for consideration in the present case is whether it can be said that any new institution has been established to bring the matter within the purview of Section 10A(1)(a). It is not disputed by anybody including the Central Government that the Dental Council of India has granted permission to the institution with effect from 1991-92. Such permission though granted in 1995, had been given effect from 1991-92. It is thus clear that the institution in question had been established prior to 1.6.1992 and as such does not come within the purview of Section 10A(1)(a) of the Act. Once it is held that institution had been established prior to 1st June, 1992, Sections 10A(1)(a) and 10C would have no applicability and similarly 10A(1)(b)(ii) will be applicable only to an extent and in the matter relating to question of increase in the intake capacity.
12. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the University that getting permission for undertaking Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship (in short C.R.R.I.) training is necessary is not acceptable. Admission was to B.D.S. course, which envisages study in the college for four years and undertaking of C.R.R.I. for one year. Once the student completes the course, passes out and thereafter undertakes the Internship, the University is bound to grant the degree. It is of course true that the Central Government can take appropriate action under Section 16A of the Act, but it is nobody's case that such action has been taken and therefore, there is no justification for the University to stipulate that the degree is subject to the approval by the Central Government.
13. From the letter issued by the Dental Council of India, there is no room for doubt that the institution was permitted to establish with effect from 1991-1992 session with admission capacity of 40 students. Subsequently the Central Government in its letter dated 14.9.2000 had sanctioned increase of intake capacity of the students from 40 to 60 for the academic session 2000-2001, for one year only. The University has granted affiliation to the institution albeit reluctantly. Since the Central Government has sanctioned increase of the intake capacity from 40 to 60 ( of course for one year), there cannot be any doubt regarding admission of 40 students as initially sanctioned for the academic session prior to 2000 and subsequent to the academic session 2001-2002. Even the fact that in the letter issued by the Central Government dated 13.6.2001 the petitioner institution has been called upon to discharge 20 excess students admitted during the academic session 2001-2002 in excess of the intake capacity of 40 also buttresses such conclusion.
14. The provisions contained in the Act and in the Regulation make it clear that admission of one batch of students is to B.D.S. Course itself. In other words, once a student is validly admitted during a particular year to B.D.S. Course within the approved intake capacity, he has right to continue in the subsequent years of the course including the C.R.R.I. training, of course subject to the formalities such as attendance, payment of fees, etc. This however does not mean that if the institution does not comply with the necessary required aspects as envisaged under the Act or the Regulation, no action can be taken against such errant institution. The Central Government / Dental Council have not been reduced to the position of mere spectators only. If there is violation of norms, they are always empowered to take appropriate action in accordance with law, particularly as envisaged under Sections 16 and 16A of the Act.
15. The University is included in Part I of the Schedule as one of the authorities entitled to grant B.D.S. degree and as such in accordance with Section 10 of the Act, it must be held that the degree is recognised and the persons holding such degree have the right to get themselves registered with the Dental Council and to get their names incorporated in the Register maintained by the State Government and entitled to carry on the profession in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act. However, in view of Section 10A(1)(b)(ii), this privilege is available to the students within the intake capacity of 40. Such students have to be identified in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 10C of the Act and necessary degree should be granted to them within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order.
16. Since the University is included in Part I of the Schedule, prayer of the students to include the institution in part I of the Schedule merits no consideration as the degree granted by the University to which such institution is affiliated is recognised.
17. So far as the additional intake of students is concerned, the matter is directly covered under Section 10A(1)(b)(ii) which makes it clear that there cannot be any increase in the strength of the students without taking permission from the Central Government. It is not disputed that the Central Government has granted permission for the year 2000-2001 and the letter by the Central Government dated 14.9.2000 makes it clear that no such permission is granted for the year 2001-2002. Non-granting of permission for the additional intake for the year 2001-2002 does not mean that the institution is precluded from admitting 40 students as per the initial approved intake capacity. This is clear from the communication issued by the Central Government which only refers to non-granting of permission of increased intake of students, but no where indicates that the institution has been debarred from admitting students within the original intake capacity of 40. It is therefore improper on the part of the University to give a direction to the institution not to admit students within the original intake capacity. It is evident that the University has misinterpreted the communications made by the Central Government and the Dental Council of India. Relevant communications which are already been noticed do not prohibit the institution from admitting students for the year 2002-2003 within the approved intake capacity of 40.
18. Learned counsel for the University has referred to the instructions available at the website of the Central Government. In my opinion, there is nothing in the aforesaid website which takes away the right of the institution to admit 40 students within the original approved intake capacity. Entire instruction appears to be on the question relating to increase of the intake capacity of students from 40 to 60.
19. It appears that the Dental Council of India has decided to visit the institution again. If after such visit, the institution is permitted to admit students in excess of 40, it may do so only after such permission is given. But, so long as such permission is not forthcoming from the Central Government, the students should not be admitted in excess of 40. However, the students admitted against the academic year 2000-2001 are obviously to continue till the completion of the course.
20. So far as the students in excess of 40 prior to 2000-2001 and during 2001-2002 are concerned, it is apparent that the Central Government had granted permission for increase of intake capacity in 2000-2001 for one year only. There was no permission for increase of students intake capacity for the previous years or the subsequent year. The fate of the students who have been admitted against the seats in excess of the approved capacity of 40 in previous years, even if they have passed out in the meantime and the fate of such students who have been admitted during the year 2001-2002 may be decided by the appropriate authority, namely the Central Government and the Dental Council in accordance with law. However, the fact that the State Government and the University had permitted admission of 60 students during the previous years and even during 2001-2002 is to be kept in view. Similarly the fact that the students had practically no contribution in the confused situation which has given rise to conundrum and some of them have passed in the meantime and are likely to be adversely affected for no fault on their part may be kept in view and the matter should receive sympathetic consideration from the Central Government and the Dental Council of India. Appropriate decision relating to the aforesaid aspect shall be taken by the Central Government and the Dental Council of India within a period of two months from the date of communication of the present order. The institution may make a further representation in this regard within a period of ten days, if it so likes.
21. In the result, all the writ petitions and miscellaneous petitions are disposed of subject to the observations made and directions given in the judgment. There would be no order as to costs.