(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order No.DE.279/2010-A-5460 dated 1.9.2010 passed by the 1st respondent and consequential order F.No.V. 12017/1/2007-DE dated 22.09.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same.
Prayer amended as per order dated 14.07.2011 made in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in W.P.No.21516 of 2010)
1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the order dated 1.9.2010 of the 1st respondent and 22.9.2010 of the 3rd respondent not to restore the admission capacity from 50 to 100 students in the petitioner College for the academic year of 2010 to 2011.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:
(i) The third respondent- Government of India issued orders granting permission under Section 10(a) of the Dentist Act for establishment of the petitioner Dental College with an annual admission capacity of 100 students in BDS course for the academic session 2008-2009. The permission is to be valid for one year for one batch of students during academic session 2008-2009 and the permission will have to be renewed on yearly basis.
(ii) The third respondent granted renewal of approval for the 2nd year BDS course, with the annual admission capacity of 100 students, for the petitioner college for the academic session 2009-2010.
(iii) The 1st respondent conducted an inspection on the petitioner college on 19.04.2010 in respect of renewal of approval for the academic year 2010-2011. Based on the inspection, the 1st respondent sent communication dated 7.5.2010 stating that there are five deficiencies and the petitioner college was directed to comply with the same.
(iv) Immediately, the petitioner, on 10.5.2010, informed the 1st respondent that the deficiencies were rectified and requested for orders for renewal of approval for the third year, viz., for academic session 2010-2011, with annual intake of 100 students.
(v) Whileso, the Minutes of Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Dental Council regarding number of issues including renewal of approval to various dental colleges was posted in the website. In the Minutes, the petitioner college was mentioned as item No.67. The decision of the Executive Committee was to recommend to the Central Government to renew its approval for the third year BDS course by reducing the number of admissions/intake from 100 to 50 for the petitioner college for the academic year 2010-2011, on three reasons. The reasons are as follows: (a) Clinical material is inadequate. There were only 45 patients per day. (b) deficiency of one Reader in the Department of Pharmacology, since Dr.Jagdish, Professor was absent on the day of inspection (c) Dr.Sivaramulu, Professor, Department of Oral Maxilo-Facial Surgery, was not acceptable, as he is over aged. The said decision of the Executive Committee was not communicated to the petitioner and was only posted on the website of the Dental Council of India.
(vi) On coming to know the decision of the Executive Committee that was posted in the website, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 10.6.2010 to the 1st respondent refuting the three reasons for not recommending the intake of 100 students, pointing out that the inflow of out-patient was less in April 2010, but on average, it has been around 80 to 100 and it is about 120 on average per day, after the month of May 2010. Regarding the other two deficiencies, it was pointed out that Dr. Jagadish was absent on account of an accident and as regards the Oral and Maxilosurgery Department, Dr.Sivaramulu was stated as an Additional Professor. By pointing out these reasons, the petitioner college sought approval for admission of 100 students for the academic year 2010-2011.
(vii) In such circumstances, the petitioner received a communication from the 3rd respondent dated 21.06.2010 requiring the petitioner to attend for a personal hearing, by a Committee on 23/24/25 of June 2010. But the letter reached the petitioner only on 25.6.2010. Further, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter dated 29.6.2010 to the petitioner conveying the approval for renewal for the third year viz., 2010-2011 with reduction of admissions from 100 to 50.
(viii) Hence the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.16057 of 2010 questioning the proceedings dated 15.05.2010 of the Dental Council of India, recommending the reduced intake of students and the order of the Government of India dated 29.6.2010 reducing the intake of students, based on the recommendations of the 1st respondent.
(ix) The Writ Petition No.16057 of 2010 was allowed on 10.8.2010 on the ground that the recommendations of the 1st respondent dated 15.5.2010 and the order of the 3rd respondent dated 29.6.2010 suffer from legal infirmity. It was held that the decision was taken in violation of principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted to the 1st respondent for passing appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity.
(x) Thereafter, the 1st respondent addressed a letter dated 25.8.2010 to the petitioner, requiring them to be present for a personal hearing on 30.8.2010. The petitioner appeared before the 1st respondent and produced the materials including a report pointing out that they have complied with all the requirements, including clinical materials.
(xi) Whileso, the Dental Council of India has issued minutes of the personal hearing dated 30.8.2010 holding that clinical material was inadequate by reckoning the out patients census from September 2009 to March 2010 for seven months. Regarding the other two deficiencies, referred to above relating to Dr.Jagadish and Dr.Sivaramulu, the 1st respondent accepted compliance.
(xii) Since the 1st respondent came to the conclusion that there was inadequate clinical material, the 1st respondent on 01.09.2010 recommended the 3rd respondent, not to restore the admission capacity from 50 to 100, for the academic year 2010-2011. Based on the same, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order dated 22.9.2010, not to restore the admission capacity from 50 to 100 in the petitioner college for the academic year 2010-2011.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the aforesaid recommendation dated 1.9.2010 of the 1st respondent and the order dated 22.9.2010 of the 3rd respondent, refusing to restore the admission capacity from 50 to 100 in the petitioner college for the academic year 2010-2011.
3. This court passed an interim order on 29.9.2010 in M.P.No.1 of 2010 in W.P.No.21516 of 2010, permitting the petitioner college to admit 50 students additionally for the academic year 2010-2011. It was further made clear that the admission of additional 50 students is subject to the result of the writ petition and the students must also be notified about the pendency of the writ petition and also that their admission is only provisional. The order was a detailed order running to seven pages and the same was passed after contest. Thereafter, the matter was taken straight away to the Honourable Apex Court questioning the aforesaid interim order. The Apex Court declined to interfere with the interim order, though initially interim stay was granted. Ultimately, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of on 9.5.2011, directing this court to dispose the writ petition at the earliest point of time and the Apex Court did not interfere with the interim order passed by this Court. Hence, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
4. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and the other respondents have not filed their counter.
5. It is stated that when the 1st respondent made an inspection on 19.4.2010 there was a deficiency in clinical materials. According to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent took into account the average out patients for seven months from September 2009 to March 2010 and the average out patients were 75 persons. If the out-patients are between 50 to 100, the intake of the students could be 50 and if it is in between 100 and 150, then the intake could be 100 students. Since there were only 75 out patients, the intake of students was reduced from 100 to 50. The 1st respondent sought for dismissal of writ petition.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The learned Senior counsel Mr.Muthukumarasamy appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the only issue involved in this matter is regarding the alleged deficiency relating to clinical material, i.e., inflow of out patients. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the adequate clinical material for 100 students is required for the year 2010-2011 for the 3rd year students. The 1st year and 2nd year BDS students do not require clinical material at all. The college was established during the year 2008-2009. The academic year of 2010-2011 for 3rd BDS students commences from July 2010.
8. The learned senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that it was true that prior to March 2010, the inflow of out patients was less than 100, but after the month of March 2010, it was more than 100. But this fact was not taken note of by the 1st respondent, while recommending about the number of students to be admitted for the academic year 2010-2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the letter dated 10.6.2010 of the petitioner to the 1st respondent and also the details submitted by the petitioner in person on 30.8.2010 regarding the inflow of out patients from April 2010 indicating that there are more than 100 out patients in each of the month after April 2010. It is also pointed out that the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent had permitted the petitioner college to admit 100 students for the year 2011-2012. The petitioner was permitted to admit 100 students for the years other than 2010-2011. That is, the petitioner was permitted to admit 100 students for the year 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2011-2012. Even though this court granted interim order to admit 100 students, it is submitted that the college has admitted only 9 students over the capacity of 50 students and more particularly, in the circumstances when the petitioner has complied with the requirement of clinical material, after the month of April 2010, the respondents 1 and 3 could be directed to regularize the admission of the 9 students.
9. The grievance of the petitioner according to the learned Senior Counsel is that while passing the impugned recommendation dated 1.9.2010, the 1st respondent failed to take into account the specific plea made by the petitioner, in their letter dated 10.6.2010 and in the report dated 30.8.2010 produced in person indicating that there are more than 100 outpatients from April 2010. Those materials are relevant and should not be excluded from consideration, as the academic year for 2010-2011 commences from July 2010.
10. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies on the regulation No.49 relating to Out patients. According to him, in the said regulations, it is nowhere stated that the out patient should be reckoned for the period September to March of the year only. Therefore, taking into account the peculiar facts of the case, the learned Senior Counsel seeks for quashing of the impugned order and for fresh consideration of the matter and prayed for allowing of this writ petition .
11. On the other hand, Mr.P.Chandrasekaran, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents submits that the inspection date was crucial for considering the clinical material and when the inspection team visited the petitioner's college on 19.4.2010, the clinical material was found inadequate. Hence, the recommendation of the 1st respondent is without any defect and therefore, there is no need for interference in the order passed.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Mr. J. Ravichandran submits that there is no infirmity in the order of the 3rd respondent and hence sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
13. I have considered the submission made on either side. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The only issue involved in this case is the alleged deficiency relating to the clinical material, i.e. inflow of the out patients. According to the 1st respondent, there were only an average of 75 out patients per month in the period between September 2009 and March 2010. The inspection was conducted on 19.4.2010 for the purpose of granting renewal of approval for the year 2010-2011. At that time, it was found that there was inadequate clinical material, as stated above.
14. According to the petitioner, there was an improvement in the inflow of outpatients after the month of April 2010 and it was above 100, after the month of April 2010. It is also their case that the academic year of 2010-2011 commences from July 2010 and the petitioner has rectified the defect of inadequacy and the students could be provided with adequate clinical material for the academic session 2010-2011. The provision of clinical material is only for 3rd year students and their classes commences after 1st July 2010. The letter dated 10.6.2010 in this regard, was not taken note of and the 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to appear for personal hearing on 23/24/25.06.2010, but the notice relating to personal hearing was received, subsequent to the dates fixed for personal hearing. Without hearing the petitioner, the 3rd respondent passed an order dated 29.06.2010 reducing the intake of students for the year 2010-2011 from 100 to 50. The petitioner filed the writ petition in W.P.No.16057 of 2010 questioning the order dated 29.06.2010 of the 3rd respondent and the recommendation dated 15.05.2010 of the 1st respondent. This Court quashed the proceedings dated 15.5.2010 of the 1st respondent and the proceedings dated 29.6.2010 of the 3rd respondent and remitted the matter to the 1st respondent to consider it afresh. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to appear for personal hearing on 30.08.2010 before the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared in person on 30.8.2010 before the first respondent and furnished a report stating that at present, more than 100 out patients are treated by the Hospital attached to the petitioner's college, from April 2010 onwards.
15. But the letter dated 10.6.2010 as well as the report dated 30.8.2010 of the petitioner was not considered at all by the 1st and 3rd respondents, while passing the orders dated 01.09.2010 and 22.09.2010 respectively, refusing to restore the admission of students from 50 to 100. The said orders dated 01.09.2010 and 22.09.2010 are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition on the ground that the relevant materials namely, the letter dated 10.06.2010 and the report dated 30.08.2010 were not enclosed.
16. The revised BDS Regulations 2007 relating to outpatients reads as follows:
Since dentistry is a clinical oriented specialty, the Council desires that all the institutions make efforts to have adequate clinical material for satisfactory training of undergraduate students. There shall be atleast 75 to 100 new patients on an average each day in colleges with 50 admissions and 100 - 150 new patients in colleges with 100 admissions."
17. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the above regulations and submits that the 1st respondent is not correct in taking note of only the inflow of outpatients from September 2009 to March 2010 and the inflow of outpatients after March should also be considered, particularly when the same was furnished before passing the impugned order.
18. The 1st respondent and 3rd respondent, have approved admission for 100 students, for the academic year 2011-2012 and they have also granted approval for admission of 100 students for all the years except 2010-2011. There is a considerable force in the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, particularly when the academic year commences from July 2010 and also the regulation is silent as to how the number of inflow of outpatients has to be calculated and the 3rd year students should be provided adequate clinical material after 1st July 2010.
19. The 1st respondent should have considered the letters dated 10.6.2010 and 30.8.2010 before recommending about the intake of students. Since the 1st respondent failed to take into account the letter dated 1
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
0.6.2010 and report dated 30.8.2010 and also the 3rd respondent failed to consider the same, I am of the view that the impugned orders dated 01.09.2010 and 22.9.2010 of the 1st respondent and 3rd respondent respectively, are liable to be interfered with and accordingly, the same is quashed. The matter is remitted to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. The 1st and 3rd respondents are directed to decide the matter afresh, after taking into account the letter dated 10.6.2010 and report dated 30.8.2010 of the petitioner relating to the number of inflow of outpatients after March 2010, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order 20. It is now stated that the 1st year examinations for the students who were admitted in the year 2010-2011 is to commence on 1st August 2011. The 4th respondent University issued Hall Tickets only to 50 students and not to other 9 students, who were admitted, pursuant to the interim order of this court and in the interim order itself, it is made clear that the admission of the students is subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The said order was not interfered with by the Apex Court. I have also found that the order dated 1.9.2010 of the 1st respondent and the order dated 22.9.2010 of the 3rd respondent do suffer with infirmity, in not considering the letter dated 10.6.2010 and the report dated 30.8.2010 of the petitioner, particularly with reference to the number of outpatients treated by the petitioner institution, after the month of March 2010. In such circumstances, the 4th respondent is directed to issue Hall Ticket to the other 9 students to appear for the examinations, scheduled to be commenced on 1st August 2011. 21. The Writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.