Shree Bankey Bihari Educational Society v. Dental Council of India

1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to respondent no.1 to reconsider the issue of renewing the permission of admission for the second year MDS courses i.e. Paedodontics, Periodontics, micro biology and conservative dentist in terms of the directions issued by respondent no.2 vide letter dated 3.4.2013 and modify the order dated 30.4.2013 to the extent to add the approval of renewal in the aforesaid three courses along with the four category of courses mentioned in the letter dated 30.4.2013.

2. As per the petition, the petitioner is an educational society, which is running a Dental College under the name and style of Shree Banke Bihari Dental College and Research Centre. With an intention to start new higher courses of studies in their college, the petitioner submitted a scheme for approval of seven courses in the year 2011. On 30.4.2012 respondent no.1 after considering the qualifying criteria evaluated the scheme under WP(C) 3270/2013 Page 1 of[7] '·,-!...,-~, 2013:DHC:7697 Regulation 14 and finally after evaluation of the scheme sent a report of recommendation to the Central Government i.e. respondent no.2 for granting approval to run the said seven courses. Respondent no.2 by its order dated 30.4.2012 granted permission to the petitioner for starting MDS courses in the said seven specialties. The petitioner sought renewal ofpermission with respect to the said seven courses for the next academic year 2013-2014. Respondent no.1 visited the college of the petitioner and an inspection was carried out. On 31.12.2012 the petitioner received a letter dated 26.12.2012 from respondent no.1 pointing out certain deficiencies. According to the said communication the courses mentioned at Sl.No.i to iii and vii were without the University affiliation whereas courses pointed out against Sl.No.iv was only without the University affiliation whereas courses pointed out at Sl.No.5 and 6, besides absence ofUniversity affiliation, certain other deficiencies in the equipments were also pointed out. The petitioner was directed to remove the aforesaid directions a.qd furnish a compliance report.

3. As per the petitioner, a compliance report dated 8.2.2013 was submitted, however, the petitioner received a letter dated 5.3.2013 by which respondent no.2 informed the petitioner that pursuant to the recommendation dated 28.2.2013 ofrespondent no.1, respondent no.2 had decided not to renew the permission for the second year MDS course and not to allow admission in the specialties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and similarly situated institutions had approached the Government and by a notification dated 3.4.2013 the under Secretary to the Government of India informed the Secretary, Dental Council of India, that it had been desired by the competent authority in the Ministry that cases of ten colleges and similarly situated institutes be reconsidered where affiliations have not WP(C) 3270/2013 Page[2] of[7] _... been granted by the State University and, thus, the Dental Council of India granted renewal where affiliations have not been granted till the last date fixed. The Dental Council of India in that case granted the approval which was granted by the Union by a letter dated 30.4.2013. Counsel further submits that the petitioner was sure that since the deficiencies were minor in nature the explanation of the petitioner would be accepted particularly when the deficiencies stood cured, which were in view of the respondents letter dated 8.2.2013, however, the respondents did not consider the explanation and the Central Government rejected the scheme of the petitioner by a letter dated 5.3.2013, which was sent to the petitioner on 5.4.2013 and which was received by the petitioner on 10.4.2013. It is further submitted that in case this letter was received on time the petitioner would have immediately approached the respondents and re-agitated its plea with regard to curing of deficiencies. It is next submitted that the Dental Council of India had not even considered the explanation rendered by the petitioner in the letter dated 8.2.2013. Counsel, in these circumstances, prays that the matter may be remanded ba~k to the respondents to enable them to reconsider the case of the petitioner as the petitioner has made large investments, employed teachers, infrastructures and staff- all ofwhich will be a waste in case the renewal is not granted especially when all the deficiencies have been cured.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that when the communication dated 8.2.2013 was addressed to the respondents, copy of invoices were enclosed, however, as of today all the equipments have been received and the petitioner is willing to produce the same to the respondents to enable them to satisfy themselves with regard to the availability of such equipments. WP(C) 3270/2013 Page[3] of[7] ~

6. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the explanation rendered by the petitioner vide letter dated 8.2.2013 was duly considered, which is evident from the communication dated 28.2.2013 but since the deficiencies were found at the time of inspection the Dental Council of India did not consider appropriate to grant renewal to the petitioner as they were not satisfied with the explanation. Counsel further submits that the last date fixed for grant of permission was 30.3.2013 and the same cannot be extended.

7. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that since the case of the petitioner was not recommended by the Dental Council of India respondent no.2 was left with little or no option but to accept the decision taken by respondent no.l.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions. The request of the petitioner for grant of renewal was rejected by the communication dated 26.12.2012 and the petitioner was informed about the following deficiencies: WP(C) 3270/2013

(iv) Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics with 3 seats The college authorities be asked to fulfill the following deficiencies and furnish the Compliance Report to this Council for furtherance in the matter:

1. University Affiliation:- There is no University Affiliation for the year 2012-13.

2. The total no. ofrelated journals are inadequate.

(v) Periodontology with 3 seats

2. Equipments:- There is deficiency of equipments in the department viz. newman's probe-1, bone regenerative material etc.

(vi) Paedonotics and Preventive Dentistry with 3 seats

2. Equipments:- There is deficiency of equipments in the department viz. SS crown kit-2, poly carbonate-!, endodontic pressure syringe-1, chemo mechanical caries removal sytem-1, automatic developer-1, plastic dispenser-!, etc.