Vidarbha Medical Edu... v. Registrar, Maharasht...

Cases referred :

1. Medical Council of India Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, 2004(6) S.C.C. 76.

2. Medical Council of India Vs. State of H. P. 2000(5) S.C.C. 63.

Advocates appeared :

Shashank Manohar, for petitioner.

T.D. Khade, for respondent Nos. 1& 2.

R.S. Sundaram, with U.R. Tanna, for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

Bharti Dangre, for respondents Nos. 5 & 8.

A.B. Choudhari, for respondent No. 7.

Per SINHA D.D., J.: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner No. 2 college was established in the year 1989, and under the provisions of Dentist Act, 1948, particularly in view of section 10-A of the said Act, permission of the Central Government was obtained in the year 1989 itself. Initially the said college was affiliated to the Amravati University and after the establishment of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences i.e. respondent No. 2, it is affiliated to the said University. The intake capacity of the college was of 40 students per year which is fixed by the Central Government as well as Dental Council of India. The learned Counsel for the petitioners that on 5th of June, 2005, the inspection of the college was conducted by the Inspecting Team of Dental Council of India and copy of its report was forwarded to the petitioner No. 2 College vide communication dated 15-6-2005 wherein certain deficiencies which were noticed by the Inspecting Team were notified. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that all those deficiencies which were notified by the Inspecting Team of Dental Council of Indian were rectified and complied with and communication in this regard was forwarded to the Dental Council of India, vide letter dated 25th July, 2005.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that in the letter/communication dated 11th July, 2005, issued by Dental Council of India and was addressed to the Secretary to the Government of India and was addressed to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and family Welfare (Department of Health - PMS Section) mentioned that the copy of the Dental Council of Indias letter dated 15-6-2005 addressed to the petitioner No. 2 college for rectification on the deficiencies pointed out therein was enclosed with this letter. It is also observed in the said letter dated 11th July, 2005, that since the compliance report in respect thereof has not been received and since there was deficiencies in the infrastructural facilities in the aforesaid college, necessary steps may kindly be taken not to allow in Jamanlal Goenka Dental College & Hospital for their intake capacity of 40 students for the academic session 2005-06 till the deficiencies are fully as per DIC norms. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the text of the above letter itself is very clear which only shows that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was requested to take appropriate steps in respect of not to allow admissions in the petitioner No. 2 college for certain reasons for academic session 2005-06 and there is no decision taken by the Central Government in this regard till this date.

5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners for the petitioners that the Secretary, Dental Council of India, addressed communication dated 22nd July, 2005, to the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, wherein it is observed that, the Secretary of Dental Council of India was directed to enclosed with the said letter, a copy of the letter dated 11-7-2005 for information and necessary action. It is contended that in this communication dated 22nd July, 2005, it is no where stated by the Dental Council of India that they have taken any decision either to stop the admission process or to cancel the admissions which are already given by the petitioner No. 2 college. On the other hand, the copy of the letter dated 11th July, 2005, was forwarded to the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciencies for information and necessary action. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of this letter dated 22nd July, 2005, the Registrar of the Maharashtra University of Health wrote letter dated 27-7-2005 to the Director of Medical Education and Research, and, along with this letter, the copy of the letter of Dental Council of India, dated 22nd July, 2005, was enclosed and the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences further observed in the letter dated 27-7-2005 that Director of Medical Education and Research was requested not to admit the students for the first year B.D.S. Course in the petitioner No. 2 college for academic session 2005-06 as stated in the letter from Dental Council of India. It is contended that the Dental Council of India in letter dated 22nd July, 2005, has not expressed any opinion in this regard and the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciencies on his own derived this conclusion and communicated to the Director of Medical Education and Research not to admit students in First year B.D.S. Course in the petitioner No. 2 college for the year 2005-06.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the Director of Medical Education and Research thereafter wrote the impugned letter dated 25-8-2005 to the Dean of the petitioner No. 2- College and directed to cancel the admission of the students given in B.D.S. Course for academic sessions 2005-06 and the college was also directed to refund the fees and return the original documents to the candidates who were admitted in the college in the first round of admission. It is contended that the Director of Medical Education and Research without any authority of law and without into consideration and above referred correspondence on his own issued the direction to the Collector to cancel the admissions and refund the fees, when till this dated the Central Government has to taken any decision on the recommendations of the Dental Council of India vide letter dated 11th July, 2005, either to derecognize the institution or to stop the admissions, neither the dental Council of India has independently taken any decision in this regard. Similarly, it is not in dispute that the Dental Council of India will be considering the compliance report submitted by the petitioners No. 2 college in its next meeting of Executive and therefore, the impugned communication dated 25-8-2005 is completely unfounded and also without authority of law and cannot be sustained-in-law.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has not disputed that in the communication dated 22nd July, 2005, addressed to the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, only the copy of letter dated 11-7-2005 was enclosed for information and necessary action, though the subject matter of the said letter dated 22nd July, 2005, reads thus, Jamanlal Goenka College, Akola-Existence of deficiencies-Not to allow admissions for the academic sessions 2005-2006- Regarding. The learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the letter dated 27-7-2005 was issued by the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciencies, in view of the letter dated 11th July, 2005, and on the basis of said letter, the Director of Medical Education and Research was requested not to admit the students for First Year B.D.S Course in the petitioner No. 2 College for the year 2005-06. It is, therefore, contended that the communication dated 27-7-2005 issued by the Registrar of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences to the Director of Medical Education and Research was not on the basis of the letter dated 11th July, 2005.

8. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 vehemently contended that the Inspection Team of Dental Council of India inspected the petitioner No. 2 college in the month of June, 2005 and prepared report and mentioned therein the gross deficiencies noticed by the Inspection Team of the Dental Council of India. The Dental Council of India on the basis of the inspection report, particular in view of gross deficiencies noticed by the Inspection Team, communication this aspect to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare vide communication dated 11th July, 2005, and requested the Secretary of the said Ministry to take necessary steps not allow admissions in petitioner No. 2 college for their intake capacity of 40 students for academic session 2005-06, till the deficiencies are fulfilled as per DCI norms. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 & 4, therefore, contended that when the Inspection Team of the Dental Council of India noticed gross deficiencies, it was not proper on the part of the college to admit students in first year B.D.S. course, when the proposal/recommendation for taking appropriate action on the basis of inspection report of the Team was pending with the Central Government and the petitioner No. 2 college should have waited till such decision which the Central Government is required to take under the provisions of the Dentist Act. The learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 3 & 4 does not dispute that the Dental Council of India has not communicated directly either to the Registrar of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences or to the Director of Medical Education and research that the Dental Council of India has taken a decision to cancel the admissions of the students of First Year B.D.S. course of the petitioner No. 2 college, though the copy of letter dated 11th July, 2005, was forwarded to the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences for information and necessary action. It is, therefore, contended that since the issues was pending with the Ministry of Health and Family Affairs and till this date no decision is taken by the Central Government in the regard, the Dental Council of India has requested in the letter dated 11th July, 2005, to the Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Affairs to take a decision not to allow admissions in Jamanlal Goenka College for their intake capacity of 40 students for the academic sessions 2005-06. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 made a feeble attempt to canvas before us that Dental Council of India has independent power to take a decision in this regard in view of provisions of section 10-A of the Dentist Act, 1984, and is entitled to issue directions about the admission capacity of the college. In order to substantiate this contention, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 placed reliance on the following Apex Court JUDGMENT :

(i) 2004(6) S.C.C. 76, (Medical Council of India Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and others)1.

(ii) 2000(5) S.C.C. 63, (Medical Council of India Vs. State of H.P and another)2.

9. Learned AGP for respondent Nos. 5 & 8 contended that impugned letter dated 25-8-2005 was issued by the Competent Authority - Director of Medical Education and Research to the petition No. 2 College for cancellation of admission and refund of fees on the basis of letter/communication 27-7-2005 issued by the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. The learned AGP has not disputed the fact that the Competent Authority i.e. Director of Medical Education & Research does not have any independent power under the Dentist Act, 1948, to issue such direction. However, since the Registrar of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences communicated to the Director of Medical Education and Research vide communication dated 27-7-2005 not to admit the students in the First Year B.D.S. Course in the petition No. 2 College for the year 2005-06, the impugned communication is issued by the Competent Authority.

10. The learned Counsel for the respondents No. 7 has not disputed the fact that, under the provisions of the Dentist Act, it is the central Government alone who is entitled to grant or refuse recognition as well as derecognize the College.

11. We have given our anxious thoughts to the various contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. In the instant case following facts are not disputed:

(i) That the petitioner No. 2 college was established in the years 1989 and the requisite permission under section 10-A was also granted by the Central Government in the year 1989 and in the year 1993, the petitioner No. 2 college was also recognized by the Central government under the provisions of section 10-a of the Dentist Act, 1948;

(ii) That in the month of June, 2005, the Inspection Team of Dental Council of India visited the petitioner No. 2 College and, after inspection, prepared the report notifying certain deficiencies required to be rectified/fulfilled by the petitioner No. 2 College;

(iii) The Dental Council of India vide communication dated 11th July, 2005, appraised the Secretary, Minister of Health and Family Welfare that deficiencies were noticed in the College of petitioner No. 2 and since the compliance report of those deficiencies report in respect of those deficiencies was not received from the petitioner No. 2 College, necessary steps may be taken not allow admission in petitioner No. 2 College for their intake capacity of 40 students for the academic session 2005-06 till the deficiencies are fulled as per DIC norms. The copy of the letter dated 11th July, 2005 was forwarded to the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, along with the communication date 22nd July, 2005, only for information and necessary action, by the Dental Council of India;

(iv) On the basis of letter dated 22nd July, 2005, the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences requested the Director of Medical Education and Research not to admit students for First Year B.D. S. Course in the petitioner No. 2 College for academic session 2005-06;

(v) In view of the letter dated 27-7-2005, the Competent Authority i.e. Director of Medical Education and Research issued the impugned communication dated 25-8-2005 addressed to the Dean of the Petitioner No. 2 College, whereby the admissions granted to the First Year B.D.S. Course came to be cancelled and the college was directed to refund the fees.

12. In view of the above referred undisputed fact, it is crystal clear that the communication dated 11th July, 2005, addressed to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued by the Secretary, Dental Council of India, which in fact, is the basis for issuance of subsequent letters dated 22nd July, 2005, 27th July, 2005 and 25th August, 2005, does not mention that any decision is taken by the Dental Council of India either to cancel the admission given to the students in the First Year B.D. S. Course in petitioner No. 2 College or to stop the admission process. By letter/communication dated 11th July, 2005, the Dental Council of India has only appraised the Secretary to the Government of India. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare about the deficiencies mentioned by the Inspection Teram of Dental Council of India in their report, for taking decision by the Central Government not to allow admissions in the petitioners No. 2 College for their intake capacity of 40 students for academic year 2005-06 till the deficiencies are fulfilled as per DIC norms. Even otherwise the letter is completely silent about any decision taken by the Dental Council of India to cancel the admissions or to stop the admission process of the petitioner No. 2 College. It is not in dispute that it is the Central Government alone under the provisions of the dentist act in view of provisions of section 10-a who is entitled to take such decision including that of derecognition of the college. Be that as it may, so far as the case in hand is concerned, the recitals in letter date 11th July, 2005 are merely in the form of recommendations to the Central Government to take appropriate decision not to allow admission in the petitioner No. 2 College for their in the capacity of 40 students for the academic session 2005-06. However, the recommendations which are made to the Central Government by the Dental Council of India are mis-interpreted by the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences to mean that the admissions to the First year B.D.S. Course of petitioner No. 2 College is required to be stopped, when the copy of letter dated 11th July, 2005, was forwarded to the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences along with the communication dated 22nd July, 2005 only for the purpose of information and necessary action. The Registrar being a responsible officer of the Health University ought to have verified from the Dental Council of India as to whether either the Dental Council of India or the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has taken any decisions not to allow admissions for academic session 2005-06 and it is only after obtaining such information, should have acted upon. It is brought to our noticed by Mrs. Khade, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that the Registrar of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences tried to ascertain from the Dental Council of India about these aspects, however, they failed to respond to the such communication issued by the Registrar.

13. I is really unfortunate that the power to recognize the college or to stop/cancel the admission is only vested in the Central Government under the Dentists Act and proposal in this regard is pending before the Central Government forwarded by the Dental Council of India. We expect the Registrar of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences to be aware of these facts and should not have directed and Director of Medical Education & Research vide communication dated 27-7-2005 not to admit the students in First Year B.D.S. Course in the petitioner No. 2 College for academic sessions 2005-06, when there is no authority whatsoever either legal or otherwise, vested in the Registrar in this regard. At the most the admissions, already given by the petitioner college in the First Year B.D.S. course, should have been made, subject to the decision of the Central Government, since under the provisions of Dentist Act, 1948, the Registrar of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences does not have jurisdiction to issue which direction to stop the admission process or cancel the admissions.

14. Similarly, the Director of Medical Education & Research without taking into consideration the provisions of the dentists act and without there being any power or jurisdiction, only on the basis of communication dated 27-7-2005, issued impugned letter dated 25-8-2005 to the Dean of the petitioner No. 2 College, whereby the College was informed to cancel the admissions of the students and to refund the fees, when under the Dentists Act, nobody else expect the Central Government is the Authority Competent to grant recognition, derecognise the institution or issue direction to stop the admission process or cancel the admissions. Even then the Registrar of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences issued communication dated 27-7-2005 when there is no direction either by the Central Government or by the Medical Council of India issued in this regard to the Registrar of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. Similarly, the subsequent steps taken by the Director of Medical Education and Research are also without verifying as to whether the Central Government or the Dental Council of India in fact has taken any decision not to allow admissions in the petitioner No. 2 College for their intake capacity of 40 students for the academic sessions 2005-06 and issued the communication dated 25-8-2005 and cancelled the admissions unilaterally, made by the petitioner college and directed the college to refund the fees, when the recognition given by the Central Government is in force and no decision whatsoever till this date is taken by the Ministry of health and Family Welfare in respect of recommendations made by the Dental Council of India in this regard and in absence thereof the authorities virtually assume the powers of the Government and issued the above referred communications which in our view, are completely misconceived and totally devoid of substance and cannot be sustained-in-law.

15. Mr. Sunderam, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has canvassed before us that under section 10-A, the Dental Council of India is empowered to consider the admission capacity of the concerned institution. We cannot close our eyes to the title of section 10-A of the Dentists Act, 1948, which reads thus

Permission for establishment of new Dental Colleges or new course of studies etc.

It is, therefore, evident that the provisions of section 10-a are attracted when the new Dental College is required to be established by the Institution or new course of study is required to be introduced and therefore, so far as the controversy in issue is concerned, the contention canvassed before us by the learned Counsel for the respondents in this regard, in our view, is misconceived. In the instant case, as already observed herein above, the issue is whether the impugned letter issued by the Director of Medical Education & Research cancelling the admissions is legal and sustained-in-law, particularly when the recognition of the petitioner No. 2 College is in existence and the recommendations of the Dental Council of India for taking decision not be allow admissions in the petitioner No. 2 College for their intake capacity of 40 students for academic session 2005-06 is pending with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. There is no dispute about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, however, in view of the facts and issues involved in the present case, they are of no help to the respondents.

16. We wish to observe that so far as the educational institutions at all levels are concerned, the institutions must comply with the basic standards and norms established by the Authority Competent to do so. At the same time, if there are deficiencies noticed, and are not rectified by the concerned Colleges or the institution as per the direction of the Competent Authority, in such situation we expect the Competent Authority to Act quickly and we also expect that the Competent Authority should take appropriate decision regarding derecognition of the institution or cancellation of admissions well within time, so that interest of the students taking education in such institution should not be adversely affected. These observations are made by us particularly keeping in view the enormous expenditure required to be incurred by the parents of the students studying in professional colleges. In the instant case, when the Dental Council of India has already communicated to the Central Government the deficiencies notified in the report of the Inspection Team, the Central Government, in our view, is expected to look into this aspect promptly and is further expected to take appropriate decision in this regard, according to law and procedure applicable in this regard, without any loss of time.

17. For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned communication dated 27th July, 2005, issued by respondent No. 1 as well as communication dated 25th August, 2005, issued by respondent No. 5 are quashed and set aside. Needless to mention that any decision taken by the Central Government on the recommendations of Dental Council of India shall be binding on the petitioner No. 2 College as well as students those who are admitted in the College.

18. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 & 4 at this stage prayed that the present judgment may not be given effect to for a period of two weeks from today in order to enable the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to approach the Apex Court. In view of the findings recorded by us in the judgment, we do not think that the case is made out for grant of request and therefore, the same is rejected.

19. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.

Rule made absolute.