Telangana High Court
Controller Of Examination, Dr. Ntr ... vs Ambati Sukanya, Nalgonda Dist 3 Others on 29 August, 2018
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, V Ramasubramanian
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF
ANDHRA PRADESH
* HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
+ Writ Petition Nos.28325, 28540, 31869 of 2011, 39532, 39534 of
2012, 211, 1975, 13394, 13521, 16586, 33811, 35742, 35895 and
36850 of 2013, 31129 of 2014,13163, 10879 and 10914, of 2015,
8986, 45046, 45210, 45214 of 2016, 6494, 40996, 41557, 41773,
44490 and 44940 of 2017 and 20666 of 2018 & W.A.Nos.506 of
2015 and 1160 of 2016
% 29-08-2018
W.P.No.28325 of 2011
Aluri Sneha, D/o A.V. Krishna Prasad,
Aged 23 years, Hindu, Female, Student,
R/o Narkatpally, Nalgonda District
... Petitioner
Vs.
Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences,
Represented by its Registrar, Vijayawada,
and others
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. N (P) Anjanadevi,
Mr. B. Sarvotham Reddy,
Mr. K. Gangi Reddy,
Mr. K. Udayasri
Mr. Kiran Tirumalasetti
Mr. Marella Radha
Mr. M.V. Hanumantha Rao
Mr. G. Venkat Reddy
Mr. N. Ashok Kumar
Mr. A. Jagan
Mr. S. Venkata Rajasekhar,
Mr. B. Ravindranath Tagore
Mr. Azim Parbatani
Mr. K. Chaitanya
Mr. K. Krishan Kishore
2
HCJ & VRS, J
W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. K. Lakshman, A.S.G.
G.P. for Medical & Health
Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao, S.C.
Mr. A. Prabhakara Rao, SC
Mr. P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy
Mr. P. Dharmesh
Mr. B. Subramanyam,
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
3
HCJ & VRS, J
W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Writ Petition Nos.28325, 28540, 31869 of 2011, 39532, 39534 of
2012, 211, 1975, 13394, 13521, 16586, 33811, 35742, 35895 and
36850 of 2013, 31129 of 2014,13163, 10879 and 10914, of 2015,
8986, 45046, 45210, 45214 of 2016, 6494, 40996, 41557, 41773,
44490 and 44940 of 2017 and 20666 of 2018 & W.A.Nos.506 of
2015 and 1160 of 2016
COMMON ORDER:(per V. Ramasubramanaian, J) Candidates, who got admission to the B.D.S. course during various academic years starting from 20087-09 and who were discharged from the course due to their failure to pass the first year examinations within 3 years of their admission, have come up with the above writ petitions, either challenging the orders of discharge or challenging the prescription contained in the Regulations.
2. We have heard Mrs. Anjana Devid Satyanarayana, Mr. B. Sarvotham Reddy, Mr. K. Gangi Reddy, Mrs. K. Udayasri, Mr. Kiran Tirumalasetti, Mr. Marella Radha, Mr. M. V. Hanumantha Rao, Mr. G. Venkata Reddy, N. Ashok Kumar, Mr. A. Jagan, Mr. S. Venkata Rajasekhar, Mr. B. Ravindranath Tagore, Mr. Azim Parbatani, Mr. K. Chaitanya and Mr. K. Krishna Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants, and Mr. K. Lakshman, learned Assistant Solicitor General, learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health and Family Welfare (AP), learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Mr. A. 4 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch Prabhakara Rao, learned Standing counsel for Kaloji Narayana Rao University, Mr. P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned Counsel for the Dental Council of India, Mr. P. Dharmesh and Mr. B. Subramanyam, learned counsel for the respondents.
Brief prelude and Regulations 2007
3. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948, the Dental Council of India, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, issued a set of Regulations known as "Revised BDS Regulations, 2007".
4. The Regulations were divided into several Chapters, the first dealing with Admission, Selection and Migration, the second dealing with Examinations, the third dealing with Practical and Clinical Examination, the fourth dealing with Marks Distribution in each subject, the fifth dealing with Qualifications and Experience to be eligible for Examinership for BDS Examination, the sixth dealing with Goals and Objectives, seventh dealing with Recommendations, and so on and so forth.
5. The Chapter dealing with Examinations contains Regulations dealing with (1) Preface; (2) Methods of evaluation; (3) Internal assessment examination; (4) Scheme of examination for 1st year, 2nd year, 3rd year, 4th year and 5th year BDS; (5) Written examinations; (6) Practical and Clinical examinations; (7) Marks distribution in each subject; and (8) Revaluation and re-totalling.
6. Under Regulation IV of the Chapter-II dealing with the Scheme of Examination, it was stipulated as follows:- 5
HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch "Any student, who does not clear the 1st BDS University examination in all three subjects within three years from the date of admission, shall be discharged from the course. Any candidate who fails in one subject in an examination is permitted to go to the next higher class and appear for the subject and complete it successfully before he is permitted to appear for the next higher examination."
7. It is further stipulated in the same Regulation that a candidate who has not successfully completed the 1st year BDS examination cannot appear in the 2nd year examination and that a candidate who has successfully completed the 2nd year BDS examination can appear for the 3rd year BDS examination.
8. A group of students, who were admitted to the 1st year of the BDS course in the academic year 2008-09 and who did not clear the 1st year BDS examination by June 2011, within three years of their admission, were discharged from the course, by the orders of the Controller of Examinations of the Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, dated 19-09-2011. By one order dated 19-09-2011, three students by name Nessy G. Thomas, Sneha. A and Vinil Maddali were discharged. By another order of the same date, viz.,19-09- 2011, two more students by name Gudimetla Deepthi Reddy and Hussain Khambati were discharged.
9. Out of those five candidates, Sneha came up with a writ petition in W.P.No.28325 of 2011, Nessi G. Thomos came up with W.P.No.28540 of 2011 and Deepthi Reddy came up with W.P.No. 31869 of 2011. Hussain Khambati came up with a writ petition in W.P.No.1975 of 2013, seeking only a declaration that the relevant Regulation is illegal, but not challenging his order of discharge. The 6 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch prayer with which the other three candidates came up with the three writ petitions of the year 2011, was to set aside the order of discharge dated 19.09.2011 and for a consequential direction to permit them to attend classes of the II year BDS course. But the petitioner in W.P.No.28325 of 2011 got her prayer amended subsequently, so as to include a prayer for a declaration that the Regulation under which she was discharged, is illegal. Similarly, Nessi G. Thomas, who was the petitioner in W.P.No.28540 of 2011 came up with a separate writ petition in W.P.No.13521 of 2013 challenging the Regulations of the year 2007 alone.
10. Another candidate by name Mohd. Imran, who was also discharged by a similar order dated 19.09.2011, came up with a writ petition in W.P.No.31317 of 2011 and obtained interim orders to continue in the second year. But the writ petition was dismissed on 13.12.2012. However, the same candidate filed another writ petition in W.P.No.4514 of 2012, seeking a direction to declare the results of the 1st year examination. When the said writ petition was pending, he had come up with another writ petition in W.P.No.39534 of 2012, challenging the relevant Regulations of the year 2007.
11. A candidate by name Manasa Chintala, who was discharged from the course by an order dated 06.11.2012 on the ground that she did not complete the 1st year BDS examinations within three years of her admission to the course in the year 2009- 10, joined hands with another candidate by name Mohd. Ahsan Ahmed and came up with a writ petition in W.P.No.39532 of 2012. 7
HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch Interestingly, the only prayer made in W.P.no.39532 of 2012 is to declare the relevant BDS Regulations 2007 as illegal. The order of discharge dated 06.11.2012 is not even challenged.
12. By a separate order dated 06-11-2012, five more candidates, who joined the course during the academic year 2009- 10 and who did not clear the 1st year BDS examinations by June, 2012 were also discharged. Among those five candidates, one candidate by name Sai Kiran has come up; with W.P.No.211 of 2013. He has also prayed only for declaring the relevant Regulations as illegal, without seeking to set aside the order of discharge dated 06.11.2012.
13. By an order dated 26.11.2012, a candidate by name Sana Fatima, who joined the course in the year 2009-10 was discharged and she came up with W.P.No.13394 of 2013. Like many cases, this petitioner also did not challenge the order of discharge, but has challenged only the 2007 Regulations.
14. We do not think it is necessary to dwell in detail, the facts relating to the petitioners in each of the writ petitions on hand, as the theme of the song in all the writ petitions is one and the same, though the chronology alone is different. Suffice it to place on record the fact that we have 29 writ petitions and two writ appeals on hand. The writ petitions are of the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. The reason as to why the students who failed in the 1st year BDS examinations belonging to different batches were emboldened to come up with the writ petitions is that in the earliest 8 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch set of writ petitions, interim orders came to be passed, either permitting the writ petitioners therein to move over to the 2nd year or permitting them to write the examinations.
Regulations, 2015 and the attempt to give retrospective effect
15. Apart from encouragement that these students got from this Court, the Dental Council of India also came up with a set of novel Regulations in the year 2015, solely with a view to help failed candidates. As per the new set of Regulations known as "Revised BDS Course (Seventh Amendment) Regulations, 2015", notified on 27-04-2015, any student who does not clear the BDS course in all the subjects within a period of 9 years including the one year Compulsory Rotatory paid Internship, from the date of admission shall be discharged from the course.
16. These Seventh Amendment Regulations of the year 2015 were placed in the Executive Committee of the Dental Council of India in its meeting held on 26-04-2016, for its consideration and decision as to whether these Regulations can be made applicable to students admitted at any Dental Institution prior to the commencement of these Regulations. But the Executive Committee refused to take a call on the ground that it is only the General Body that should take a decision in this regard.
17. In a meeting held on 11/12-06-2016, the general body of the Dental Council of India took a decision to seek the approval of the Central Government under Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948, 9 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch for a partial modification of the 2015 Regulations. In essense, the general body wanted to insert a proviso, which reads as follows:
"Provided these Regulations shall also be applicable to the students admitted in BDS course in any Dental Institutions from the academic session 2008-09 onwards, but has not cleared their 1st year BDS course within a period of 3 years from the date of admission."
18. The recommendation of the general body of the Dental Council of India was forwarded to the Central Government vide letter No.DE-87(1)-2016/3782, dated 6-7-2016. After 14 months, the Government of India, vide Letter No.V.12012/4/2003-DE9P, dated 11-09-2007 conveyed its decision not to accept the proposal for retrospective implementation of the 2015 Regulations.
19. Therefore, by a communication bearing No.DE-87(1)(7)- M2-2017/9897, dated 13-09-2017, the Dental Council of India informed the Directors of Medical Education of all the States, the Registrars of all the Universities, the Principals of all Dental Colleges in the country and the Registrars of all States Dental Councils that the Revised BDS course (Seventh Amendment) Regulations, 2015 will be applicable only to the students admitted after the date of notification of the amended Regulations in the official gazette, namely 23-05-2015. It was further clarified that students admitted from 10-09-2007 to 23-05-2015 under the Regulations of the year 2007 will be governed only by the Regulations of the year 2007. Keeping these developments in mind, let us take a look at the cases on hand.
10
HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch Reliefs sought in the writ petitions
20. As we have stated above, the 29 writ petitions on hand, are of the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. In other words, some of them were filed before the Amended Regulations of the year 2015 and some thereafter. For easy appreciation, the writ petition number and the relief sought therein, are presented in a tabular column as follows:
S.No. W.P.No. Relief sought
1. 28325/2011 Challenging the discharge order dated 19-09-2011
2. 28450/2011 Same prayer
3. 31869/2011 Same prayer
4. 39532/2011 Challenging Regulation, 2007
5. 39534/2012 Same prayer
6. 211/2013 Same prayer
7. 1975/2013 Same prayer
8. 13394/2013 Same prayer
9. 13521/2013 Same prayer
10. 16586/2013 Same prayer
11. 33811/2013 Challenging the refusal of respondents to permit her to write 1st year arrears and 2nd year internal
12. 35742/2013 Challenging the discharge order dated 29-11-2013
13. 35895/2013 Regulation 2007
14. 36850/2013 Permission to write 1st year external
15. 31129/2014 Regulation 2007
16. 13163/2015 Permission to write 1st year arrears
17. 10914/2015 Permission to write 2nd year
18. 10879/2015 Permission for 2nd year Exam
19. 8986/2016 Challenging the order of discharge dated 27-11-2015 for not clearing 1st year paper within 3 years- Admission 2012-13.
20. 45046/2016 Challenging Regulations 2007 & Discharge order dated 03-12-2016 11 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch
21. 45210/2016 Challenging Regulations 2007 and discharge order dated 03-12-2016
22. 45214/2016 Same prayer
23. 6494/2016 Same prayer
24. 40996/2017 Challenging the discharge order dated 23-11-2017
25. 41557/2017 Challenging the discharge order dated 24-11-2017
26. 41773/2017 Challenging Regulations 2007 and discharge order dated 20-11-2017
27. 44490/2017 Same prayer
28. 44940/2017 Same prayer
29. 20666/2018 Challenging the order of discharge dated 20-11-2017
21. The tabular column given above would show that some of the writ petitioners have challenged only the orders of discharge, some others have challenged only the Regulations of the year 2007 and only very few have challenged both the Regulations of the year 2007 as well as the orders of discharge.
22. Technically speaking, the writ petitions where the challenge is confined only to the orders of discharge, are liable to be dismissed outright, as the impugned orders of discharge are in tune with the Regulations of the year 2007. It is only in pursuance of these Regulations that the batches of students from 2007-08 up to 2014-15 were admitted.
23. Similarly, persons who have merely challenged the Regulations of the year 2007 alone, are also bound to fail, as they have not sought the consequential relief of setting aside the orders of discharge. But on these technical grounds, we do not want to fail even in the court room, these students who have already failed in the class room. Therefore, we decided to look at the 12 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch merits of the cases of these students, whose merit in academics already stand exposed.
Challenge to 2007 Regulations
24. At the outset, the petitioners in the batch of writ petitions on hand, who were admitted to the 1st year of the BDS course during the academic years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, have no locus to question the relevant Regulation of the year 2007. We have extracted in paragraph 4 above, the relevant Regulation namely Regulation 4 of Chapter-II, which is impugned in some of these writ petitions. As per this Regulation, a student who does not clear the 1st year BDS course in all the three subjects within 3 years from the date of admission shall be discharged from the course. This Regulation was in force when the candidates belonging to the batches of the years 2008-09 to 2014-15 were admitted. After having got admission into the BDS course under the very same set of Regulations and after having appeared for the examinations under the very same Regulations three times and failed, it is not open to the petitioners to maintain a challenge to the Regulations of the year 2007. We do not think that it is necessary to cite any case law on the point that candidates, who are admitted to a course under a set of Regulations, cannot challenge the Regulations, after they find that the Regulations pose a hazard to demerit. Therefore, the challenge to the Regulations of the year 2007 made by persons who joined the course during the academic years 2008-09 to 2014-15 is 13 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch bound to fail. As a corollary, the orders of discharge passed against them, in tune with the impugned Regulations are liable to be upheld.
25. In fact, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider an exactly identical issue more than 50 years ago (when education had not yet become wholly commercial and people had respect for standards), in University of Mysore v. Gopal Gowda1. What was in question before the Supreme Court in that case was Regulation 3 (c) of the Regulations for the grant of degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Sciences issued by the Academic Council of the Mysore University in exercise of the powers conferred by the Mysore University Act 23 of 1956. Under the said Regulation, a candidate, who failed four times, shall not be permitted to continue the course. Two students, who failed in four successive attempts, were denied permission to continue their studies on the basis of the said Regulation. The High Court of Mysore held that Regulation 3(c) cannot be said to sub- serve the purpose of maintaining the standards mentioned in Section 22. With that view, the High Court of Mysore allowed the writ petitions. While allowing the Civil Appeal filed by the University of Mysore, a three member Bench of the Supreme Court held as follows:
"The Academic Council is invested with the power of controlling and generally regulating teaching, courses of studies to be pursued and maintenance of the standards thereof and for those purposes the Academic Council is competent to make regulations amongst others, relating to the courses, schemes of examination and conditions on which students shall be admitted to the examinations, degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions. The Academic Council is thereby invested with power to control the entire academic life of the student from 1 AIR 1965 SC 1932 14 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch the stage of admission to a course of study to the ultimate conferment of a degree or academic distinction. Admission to a course or branch of study depending upon possession of the minimum qualifications prescribed does not divest the Academic Council of its control over the academic career of the student, for the Council has for maintaining standards the power to prescribe schemes of examinations, arid also to prescribe conditions on which students shall be admitted to the examinations. Power to prescribe conditions on which, a student may be admitted to the examinations, in our opinion, necessarily implies the power to refuse to admit a student in certain contingencies, for the power to admit to an examination implies the power to weed out students who have on the application of a reasonable test proved themselves to be unfit to continue the course or prosecute training in that course. If on account of general inaptitude for being trained in a course or on account of supervening disability to prosecute a course of study, a student admitted to that course is found by the Academic Council to be unfit to prosecute his training, it would, in our judgment, be within the power of the Academic Council, in exercise of its authority to control and maintain standards, and also of its authority to prescribe conditions on which students may be admitted to examinations, to direct that the student shall discontinue training in that course, and failure by a student to qualify for promotion or degree in four examinations, is certainly a reasonable test of such inaptitude or supervening disability. If after securing admission to an institution imparting training for professional courses, a student may be entitled to continue indefinitely to attend the institution without adequate application and to continue to offer himself for successive examinations, a lowering of academic standards would inevitably result......"
Therefore, the issue is no longer res integra and the challenge to the Regulations of the year 2007 made by persons who joined the course during the academic years 2008-09 to 2014-15 is bound to fail.
26. But the story on hand has different connotations. As we have recorded above, the Regulations of the year 2007 were amended with effect from 27-04-2015 by the Seventh Amendment Regulations, 2015. Therefore, there is a possibility of 3 different categories of students, caught in between. They are,-
(1) those who got admitted during the years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. These students would have already 15 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch completed 3 years of course by the time the 2015 Regulations were notified on 23-05-2015 with effect from 27-04-2015;
(2) those, who were admitted in the academic year 2015-16 and thereafter, to whom the Regulations of the year 2007 are not at all applicable; and (3) those who were admitted during the academic years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15, but who would not have completed the period of 3 years from the date of admission, at the time when the 2015 Regulations came into effect on 27-04-2015.
27. The reason as to why we have divided the students into the above three categories is on account of an interesting argument that was sought to be advanced on behalf of the students. It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the petitioners that what was sought to be done by the 2015 Regulations was to substitute the existing Regulations. According to the learned counsel, it was not a case of amendment, but a case of substitution. If it is a case of amendment, it cannot take retrospective effect under certain contingencies. If it is a case of substitution, it is to be read as though it was there at all times.
28. But we think that the above argument is an argument of convenience. Let us take a hypothetical situation where the 2015 Regulations had been made more disadvantageous than the 2007 Regulations. If this had been done, none of the learned counsel for the petitioners would make such a contention even with regard to the word "substitution". In fact, the Executive Committee of the 16 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch Dental Council of India attempted to give retrospective effect to these Regulations, but the general body became wary and referred the matter to the Central Government. The Central Government refused to approve the proposal to give retrospective effect. The decision of the Central Government dated 11-09-2017 is not challenged. Therefore, students who belonged to the batches of the years 2007-08 to 2011-12 will be governed only by the 2007 Regulations and if they have not passed the 1st year examinations within 3 years of admission, their fate was already sealed by the time the new amended regulations of 2015 came into force. Hence their cases are liable to be dismissed. They cannot be granted the benefit of the 2015 amendment.
29. It is only the cases of those who were admitted during the academic years 2012-13 to 2014-15, that constitute a hybrid variety. At the time when they joined the 1st year BDS course, they were governed by the 2007 Regulations. But before they became liable to be discharged for their failure to pass the 1st year examinations within 3 years of admission, the new of set of Regulations came into force. It is the cases of these persons that may, at the most, deserve some sympathy.
30. But even in these cases, we are bound to exercise care and caution. The reason is that it is only in the province of the expert bodies to regulate the affairs of the profession and to determine and maintain the standards in institutions of Higher Education. As a corollary, it lies only in the province of such 17 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch expert bodies like Dental Council of India to dilute standards. Courts dare not dilute standards. In fact, the attempt made by the Executive Committee of the Dental Council of India to give retrospective effect to the 2015 Regulations was an attempt at dilution of standards. The reasons are too obvious. Expert bodies like Dental Council of India, Medical Council of India etc., are governed and administered by an elected body of representatives. Since failed candidates have the potential to form a vote bank in future, the attempts by elected representatives to dilute standards become a routine affair. But fortunately, the Central Government turned down the proposal for giving retrospective effect. Since the decision of the Central Government accepted by the Dental Council of India is not under challenge, we are bound to dismiss the cases of the students, who belonged to the batches from 2007-08 to 2011-12.
31. Coming to the batches of students who were admitted during the years 2012-13 to 2014-15, it appears that they had the benefit of the interim orders passed by this Court. But the results had not been declared. In order to see whether any of them had passed, by taking advantage of the interim orders, we requested Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned standing counsel for the University to furnish information. He furnished information in a sealed cover, which discloses that a few of them have passed but the others failed.
18
HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch
32. Interestingly, the learned standing counsel for the University also produced a chart containing the details about the academic achievements (?) of the writ petitioners. The same is presented as follows:
Sl.No W.P.No Name(s) of Year of Failed Date of Interim orders the joining attempts discharge petitioner(s) 1 28325/2011 Aluri Sneha 2008-2009 June/July 2009 19.09.2011 19.10.2011: Respondents March 2010 were directed to permit the June/July 2010 petitioner to write the March 2011 backlog subject and also to June/July 2011 allow her to attend the classes of Second year BDS Course.
2 28540/2011 Nessy G 2008-2009 June/July 19.09.2011 27.6.2012: Respondents
Thomas 2009 March were directed to allow the
2010 petitioner to write the
June/July backlog exams of 1st year
2010 BDS examination.
March 2011
June/July
2011
3 31869/2011 G. Deepthi 2008-2009 June/July 19.09.2011 2.12.2011: An Interim
Reddy 2009 order was passed
March 2010 directing the respondents
June/July to permit the petitioners
2010 to write the 1st year BDS
March 2011 Program.
June/July 2.5.2012: An Interim
2011 Order was passed
directing respondents to
publish results of the 1st
year supplementary
examinations.
4 39532/2012 Manasa Chinta 2009-2010 June/July 06.11.2012 None
and Mohd. Ahsan 2010
Ahmed March 2011
June/July
2011
March 2012
June/July
2012
5 39534/2012 Mohd Imran 2008-2009 June/July 19.09.2011 None
2009
March 2010
June/July
19
HCJ & VRS, J
W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch
2010
March 2011
June/July
2011
6 211/2013 E. Sai Kiran 2009-2010 June/July 06.11.2012 None
2010
March 2011
June/July
2011
March 2012
June/July
2012
7 1975/2013 Hussain S 2008-2009 June/July 19.09.2011 None
Khambati 2009
March 2010
June/July
2010
March 2011
June/July
2011
8 13394/2013 Sana Fathima 2009-2010 June/July 06.11.2012 None
2010
March 2011
June/July
2011
March 2012
June/July
2012
9 13521/2013 Nessy G 2008-2009 June/July 19.09.2011 None
Thomas 2009 March
2010
June/July
2010
March 2011
June/July
2011
10 16586/2013 Matta Kusuma 2008-2009 June/July 19.09.2011 None
2009
March 2010
June/July
2010
March 2011
June/July
2011
11 33811/2013 Ambati 2010-2011 June/July 29.11.2013 3.12.2013: IO passed
Sukanya 2011 March directing the respondents
2012 to permit the petitioner to
June/July appear the first year BDS
2012 backlog exams of General
March 2013 Anatomy and internal
June/July exams of 2nd year BDS.
2013 17.6. 2104: IO passed
directing the respondents
to permit the petitioner to
appear the first year BDS
backlog exams of General
Anatomy and internal
exams of 2nd year BDS.
However the court held
that the declaration of
results will be subject to
regulations made by the
University.
20
HCJ & VRS, J
W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch
12 35742/2013 Sana Naaz 2010-2011 June/July 29.11.2013 5.12.2013:
2011 Interim order was passed
March 2012 permitting the petitioner
June/July to appear for first year
2012 external exams for
March 2013 Anatomy in Dec,2013 and
June/July Jan, 2014 and appear for
2013 internal exams in 2nd year.
24.04.2014: The
respondents were directed
to declare the result of the
petitioner which shall be
subject to the regulations
of the second respondent
University.
13 35895/2013 T Jyothi 2010-2011 29.11.2013 None
Tejaswini; M.L.
Prasanna Kumar;
B.Prashanthi; and
G. Rajesh
14 36850/2013 N. Harshit 2010-2011 June/July 29.11.2013 2.1.2014: IO passed
2011 directing the respondents
March 2012 to permit the petitioner to
June/July201 appear the first year BDS
3 backlog exams of
March 2013 Anatomy and Physiology.
June/July 24.4.2014: The
2013 respondents were directed
to declare the result of the
petitioner which shall be
subject to the regulations
of the second respondent
University.
15 31129/2014 Kadam Ankush 2010-2011 June/July 29.11.2013 None
Marot Rao 2011
March 2012
June/July
2012
March 2013
June/July
2013
16 13163/2015 Sana Naaz 2010-2011 June/July 29.11.2013- 01.05.2015:There was an
2011 Communicati interim direction
March 2012 on made by permitting the petitioner
June/July the to attend 2nd year BDS
2012 University. exam which was to be
March 2013 held in June 2015 after
June/July collecting exam fees.
2013 28.03.2016:
Having regard to the
amendment to the BDS
Course Regulations, 2007
made vide notification
dated 27.04.2015 by the
3rd respondent - Dental
Council of India, an
interim order was passed
allowing the petitioner to
clear all the subjects of
the BDS Course within 9
years.
21
HCJ & VRS, J
W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch
17 10879/2015 N. Harshith 2010‐ June/July 29.11.2013 27.4.2015: There was an
2011 2011 interim direction
March 2012 permitting the petitioner
June/July to attend 2nd year BDS
2013 exam which was to be
March 2013 held in June 2015 after
June/July collecting exam fees.
2013
28.3.2016: An interim
order was passed in view
of the new BDS
regulations which
allowed the BDS students
to pass the course within
nine years.
18 10914/2015 A. Sukanya 2010‐ June/July 29.11.2013 27.4.2015: There was an
2011 2011 interim direction
March 2012 permitting the petitioner
June/July to attend 2nd year BDS
2012 exam which was to be
March 2013 held in June 2015 after
June/July collecting exam fees.
2013
9.2.2016: An interim
order was passed in view
of the new BDS
regulations which
allowed the BDS students
to pass the course within
nine years
19 8986/2016 M.Vinod Kumar 2012‐ June/July 27.11.2015 None
2013 2013
March 2014
June/July
2014
March 2015
June/July
2015
20 45046/2016 N. Mary Rupa 2013‐ June/July 3.12.2016 26.12.2016: The
2014 2014 petitioner shall be
March 2015 permitted to attend
June/July second year BDS course
2015 as they have failed only
March 2016 one subject in first year.
June/July However they shall not
2016 be entitled to appear for
second year exam
without passing all
subjects of first year BDS
course.
4.1.2018: There was an
interim order that in case
the petitioners have
passed the first year
exams and fulfilled the
attendance requirement
of second year their exam
fee shall be received and
they shall be permitted to
22
HCJ & VRS, J
W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch
write the exam. However
the results shall not be
declared until further
orders.
21 45210/2016 M. Sricharan 2013‐ June/July 3.12.2016 26.12.2016: The
2014 2014 petitioner shall be
March 2015 permitted to appear for
June/July first year exams in both
2015 the remaining papers. He
March 2016 shall be promoted to
June/July second year on passing
2016 atleast one of those two
remaining papers.
4.1.2018: There was an
interim order that in case
the petitioners have
passed the first year
exams and fulfilled the
attendance requirement
of second year their exam
fee shall be received and
they shall be permitted to
write the exam. However
the results shall not be
declared until further
orders
22 45214/2016 D. Premlal 2013‐ June/July 3.12.2016 26.12.2016: The
2014 2014 petitioner shall be
March 2015 permitted to attend the
June/July second year BDS course
2015 as they have failed only
March 2016 one subject in first year.
June/July However they shall not
2016 be entitled to appear for
second year exam
without passing all the
subjects of first year BDS
course
4.1.2018: There was an
interim order that in case
the petitioners have
passed the first year
exams and fulfilled the
attendance requirement
of second year their exam
fee shall be received and
they shall be permitted to
write the exam. However
the results shall not be
declared until further
orders
23 6494/2017 Rehmath 2013‐ June/July 3.12.2016 04.07.2017: As an interim
Begum 2014 2014 order was passed in
March 2015 WPMP 55737 of 2016 in
June/July WP 45210 dated 2016
2015 dated 26.12.2016 (The
March 2016 petitioner shall be
23
HCJ & VRS, J
W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch
June/July permitted to appear for
2016 first year exams in both
the remaining papers. He
shall be promoted to
second year on passing
atleast one of those two
remaining papers) and as
the petitioner joined BDS
course in academic year
2013‐14 and the period
of nine years would
expire in 2022‐23, the
petitioner shall be
allowed to appear for
both the remaining
papers. She shall be
promoted to second year
only on passing atleast
one of the two papers.
24 40996/2017 Jalla Sneha 2014‐ June/July 20.11.2017 05.12.2017:
2015 2015 Interim order was passed
March 2015 directing the respondents
June/July to receive the fees for first
2016 year supplementary
March 2017 examination and also to
June/July allow the petitioner to
2017 appear for the
examinations. however,
the respondents are
directed to not declare the
result in the meantime.
25 41557/2017 Yasmeen 2014‐ June/July 20.11.2017 07.12.2017:
Fatima 2015 2015 Interim order was passed
March 2016 directing the respondents
June/July to receive the fees for first
2016 year supplementary
March 2017 examination and also to
June/July allow the petitioner to
appear for the
2017
examinations. however,
the respondents are
directed to not declare the
result in the meantime.
26 41773/2017 Teetla Ravi 2014‐ June/July 20.11.2017 13.12.2017:
Kiran 2015 2015 In light of the fact that the
March 2016 petitioner joined the BDS
June/July Course only in the year
2016 2014-15 and also because
March 2017 of the fact that the
June/July petitioner would be
governed by the 2015
2017
Regulations, the order of
the respondents in not
receiving the petitioners
application for to appear
in the first year BDS
24
HCJ & VRS, J
W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch
examinations, has been
suspended for the interim
period.
27 44490/2017 Uppala Sai 2014‐ June/July 20.11.2017 27.12.2017:
Gopanth 2015 2015 In light of the fact that the
March 2016 petitioner joined the BDS
June/July Course only in the year
2016 2014-15 and also because
March 2017 of the fact that the
June/July petitioner would be
governed by the 2015
2017
Regulations, the order of
the respondents in not
receiving the petitioners
application for to appear
in the first year BDS
examinations, has been
suspended for the interim
period.
28 44940/2017 Kaila Bhavana 2014‐ June/July 20.11.2017 29.12.2017:
2015 2015 Respondents were
March 2016 directed to permit the
June/July petitioner to take the
2016 examination scheduled to
March 2017 be held from 04.01.2018.
June/July It was also made clear in
the interim order that the
2017
petitioner cannot claim
any equity.
28.06.2018:
Respondents were
directed to declare the
results of the petitioner.
29 20666/2018 Shahana 2014‐ June/July 20.11.2017 None
Hakeem 2015 2015
March 2016
June/July
2016
March 2017
June/July
2017
33. As seen from the above table, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011, 28540 of 2011, 31869 of 2011, 39534 of 2012, 1975 of 2013, 13521 of 2013 and 16586 of 2013 are all candidates, who joined the BDS course in the academic year 2008-
09. The three year period prescribed under the Regulations of the year 2007, for passing the 1st year BDS examination, had expired by 25 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch July, 2011. Therefore, their writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, as they have no right to challenge the Regulations and as a consequence they cannot challenge the orders of discharge.
34. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.39532 of 2012, 211 of 2013 and 13394 of 2013 are all candidates, who joined the course in the academic year 2009-10. They have also failed to pass the 1st year BDS examinations within three years of their date of admission.
Therefore, their challenge either to the Regulations or to the orders of discharge should fail.
35. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.33811 of 2013, 35742 of 2013, 35895 of 2013, 36850 of 2013, 31129 of 2014, 13163 of 2014, 10879 of 2015 and 10914 of 2015 are all candidates, who joined the course in the academic year 2010-11. Their fate is also the same as that of the candidates, who joined in the academic years 2008-09 and 2009-10.
36. The petitioner in W.P.No.8986 of 2016 joined the course in the academic year 2012-13. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.45046 of 2016, 45210 of 2016, 45214 of 2016 and 6494 of 2017 are all candidates, who joined the course in the academic year 2013-14. Similarly, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.40996 of 2017, 41557 of 2017, 41773 of 2017, 44490 of 2017, 44940 of 2017 and 20666 of 2018 are all candidates, who joined the course in the academic year 2014-15.
37. As stated earlier, candidates, who joined the course in the academic year 2012-13 or in the subsequent academic years, were 26 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch governed by the Regulations of the year 2007, up to the date of issue of the Regulations of the year 2015, which came into force on 27.04.2015. By that time these candidates had not completed three years from the date of their admission. But by a communication bearing No.DE-87(1)(7)-M2-2017/9897 dated 13-09-2017, the Dental Council of India informed the Directors of Medical Education of all the States, the Registrars of all the Universities, the Principals of all Dental Colleges in the country and the Registrars of all States Dental Councils that the Revised BDS course (Seventh Amendment) Regulations, 2015 will be applicable only to the students admitted after the date of notification of the amended Regulations in the official gazette, namely 23-05-2015. It was further clarified that students admitted from 10-09-2007 to 23-05-2015 under the Regulations of the year 2007 will be governed only by the Regulations of the year 2007. In other words, the fate of the students admitted before 23-05-2015 is already sealed by the Dental Council. Neither the decision of the Central Government not to give retrospective effect nor the decision of the Dental Council dated 13- 09-2017 is under challenge. Hence strictly speaking, even candidates admitted during the academic years 2012-13 to 2014-15 cannot be granted any relief despite being in the twilight zone.
38. But there is a small hitch. Though the petitioners in the entire batch of cases, belonging to all batches of the years 2008-09 to 2014-15 had the benefit of interim orders permitting them to write the examination or move over to the next academic year, the 27 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch candidates belonging to the batches of the years 2012-13 to 2014- 15 cannot be treated on par with the candidates belonging to the batches of the years 2008-09 to 2011-12. The prospects of these candidates belonging to the batches of the years 2012-13 and thereafter, suddenly lit up with advent of the 2015 Regulations and some confusion prevailed till the Government of India turned down the request of the Dental Council. Therefore, the only benefit that could be conferred upon the students belonging to the batches of the years 2012-13 to 2014-15, is to allow them to continue in the course, provided 2 conditions are satisfied, namely (i) that they had passed the examinations which they were permitted to write as per the interim orders of this Court and (ii) that there is still a possibility for these candidates to complete the entire course within a total period of 9 years as prescribed in 2015 Regulations.
39. In simple terms (1) all the writ petitions filed by candidates, who joined the course in the academic years 2008-09 to 2011-12 are liable to be dismissed; and (2) the writ petitions filed by candidates, who joined the course in and after the academic year 2012-13 may be allowed to a limited extent by permitting them to complete the course, provided (i) they have passed the exams that they were permitted to write, by the interim orders of this Court and
(ii) there is still a possibility for these candidates to complete the entire course within a total period of 9 years as prescribed in 2015 Regulations.
28
HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch
40. The University has furnished information about the candidates who joined the course in the year 2012 and in the subsequent years and their present status, in a tabular column. It reads as follows:
S. No W.P. No Year of joining the Present status course
1. 8986 of 2016 2012 Not continuing the course
2. 45046 of 2016 2013 Continuing the course in II year
3. 45210 of 2016 2013 Continuing the course in II year
4. 45214 of 2016 2013 Continuing the course in II year
5. 6494 of 2017 2013 Continuing the course in I year
6. 40996 of 2017 2014 Continuing the course in I year
7. 41557 of 2017 2014 Continuing the course in I year
8. 41773 of 2017 2014 Continuing the course in I year
9. 44940 of 2017 2014 Continuing the course in I year
10. 44490 of 2017 2014 Continuing the course in I year
11. 20666 of 2018 2014 Continuing the course in I year
41. It may be seen from the above table that the petitioner in the writ petition at S.No.1 joined the course in the year 2012 and he is not now continuing in the course. Therefore, he cannot be granted any benefit. The petitioners in the writ petitions at S.Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 joined the course in the year 2013. Therefore, even if the benefit of the 2015 Regulations are granted to them, they should complete the course by the year 2022. But the petitioners in the writ petitions at 29 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch S.Nos.2, 3, and 4 are in the II year and the petitioner in the writ petition at S.No.5 is still in the I year. If these writ petitioners are still in the I year or II year after 5 years of their admission, we do not know how it will be possible for them to complete the remaining curriculum before 2022. Even if they pass all examinations hereafter in the first attempt, they will require 4 more years, by which time the dead line fixed by the 2015 Regulations would have expired.
42. The petitioners in the writ petitions at S.Nos.6 to 11 in the table given above, joined the course in the year 2014 and they are still in the I year. Even as per the 2015 Regulations, they must complete the entire course before 2023. There are only five more academic years left and even if these candidates pass all future examinations in the first attempt, they will require five more years. Therefore, we do not know whether the grant of any concession to the petitioners, who joined the courses from the academic year 2012-13 onwards, will bear any fruit at all. This is why we have prescribed two provisions for extending the benefit of the 2015 Regulations to candidates admitted during the academic year 2012- 13 and in the subsequent academic years and it is up to the University now to take a call.
43. Having dealt with the 29 writ petitions on hand, we shall now take up the two writ appeals W.A.Nos.506 of 2015 and 1160 of 2016. Both these writ appeals are filed by Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, as against the interim orders granted by the learned Judge. The writ appeal W.A.No.506 of 2015 arises out of an 30 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch interim direction issued by the learned Judge permitting the writ petitioners to appear for the 2nd year BDS examination, to be held in the month of June, 2015. Similarly, W.A.No.1160 of 2016 also arises out of an interim direction directing the university to declare the results of the 2nd year BDS course of the writ petitioner and to allow her to continue in the third year.
44. The candidates involved in these two writ appeals are by name Sana Naaz and Ambati Sukanya. They are the writ petitioners respectively in W.P.Nos.35742 and 33811 of 2013. They are also the petitioners respectively in W.P.Nos.13163 of 2015 and 10914 of 2015. But these two candidates joined the BDS course, in the academic year 2010-11. Therefore, the Regulations of the year 2007 would govern them. They must have passed the 1st year BDS examinations within three years of joining the BDS course. This three year period expired much before the advent of the Regulations of the year 2015. Therefore, their writ petitions themselves were liable to be dismissed and we have indicated the same in the preceding paragraph. In view of the dismissal of their main writ petitions, the writ appeals arising out of the interim orders will have to be closed, as no further orders are necessary.
45. In the light of the above -
a) Writ appeals W.A.Nos.506 of 2015 and 1160 of 2016 are closed as no further orders are necessary.
b) The impugned clause of the Revised BDS Regulations, 2007 stipulating that a candidate, who did not clear the 1st year BDS 31 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch examination in all the three subjects within three years from the date of admission shall be discharged from the course, is perfectly valid and we see no reason to declare the same as illegal or ultra vires.
c) All the writ petitions filed by the candidates, who joined the BDS course during the academic years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, are dismissed.
d) All candidates, who joined the course in the academic year 2012-13 and thereafter, who had the benefit of interim orders, may be allowed the benefit of the Revised BDS Course (7th Amendment) Regulations, 2015, (i) if they had passed the examinations after availing the benefit of interim orders of this Court and (ii) if there is still a possibility for these candidates to complete the entire course within a total period of 9 years from the date of their admission, as prescribed in the 2015 Regulations. In other words, candidates belonging to the batches of the years 2012-13 and thereafter, who came up with writ petitions, secured interim orders, appeared for the examinations and failed, are not entitled to the benefit of the amended Regulations of the year 2015. Similarly, candidates belonging to the batches of the years 2012-13 and thereafter, who do not stand a chance, because of their present status, of completing the course within a total period of 9 years from the date of their admission, will also not have the benefit of this order, as they will not even satisfy the 2015 Regulations. The 32 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch University may pass orders in respect of each individual falling under this category, either allowing them to prosecute the course or to discontinue them depending upon the satisfaction of the 2 conditions we have stipulated above.
e) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ ________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J Date: 29-08-2018 Js/Ksn L.R. Copy to be marked B.O./Ksn 33 HCJ & VRS, J W.P.Nos.28325 of 2011 & batch * HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition Nos.28325, 28540, 31869 of 2011, 39532, 39534 of 2012, 211, 1975, 13394, 13521, 16586, 33811, 35742, 35895 and 36850 of 2013, 31129 of 2014,13163, 10879 and 10914, of 2015, 8986, 45046, 45210, 45214 of 2016, 6494, 40996, 41557, 41773, 44490 and 44940 of 2017 and 20666 of 2018 & W.A.Nos.506 of 2015 and 1160 of 2016 (P.D. Judgment prepared by Hon'ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian) 29th August, 2018 Ksn