IMPORTANT POINT
Normally the Court should not interfere with the functioning of the educational institutions particularly when a decision is taken by an expert body such as Dental Council of India in this case, unless its decision is arbitrary. In case decision is arbitrary, the proper course is to remit the matter for reconsideration by competent authority rather than issuance of a writ of mandamus, according approval to the educational Institution.

Headnote:(i) Dentists Act, 1948-Sections 10A r/w 20-Regulations for grant of permission to set up new colleges by notification dated 1.9.1993-Respondent-Trust applying for approval to set a Dental College in Meerut-Central Government granted approval-Dental Council of India, however, recommended students strength should be 60 instead of approved 100-Writ petition to Allahabad High Court-Issued writ of mandamus for 100 students-Whether proper? (No)-Correct course stated-When Court can interfere?-Stated-Case law referred on education, particularly technical education.
       Held : At the outset, we would reiterate that under Section 10-A of the Dentists Act, 1948, it is the function of the Central Government to accord approval for establishing the Dental College and the High Court ought not to have passed the order straightway according the approval despite the Inspection Report submitted by the DCI and the order refusing to grant such permission passed by the Central Government. In such cases, if the High Court finds that the order passed by the Central Government is de hors the statutory provisions or arbitrary for some reasons, the course open to it was to remit the matter to the DCI for re-inspection of the establishment and for reconsideration by the Central Government rather than to issue a writ of mandamus as quoted above. [Re. (1) Medical Council of India v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2000) 5 SCC 63 ; (2) Union of India v. Era Educational Trust and Another, (2000) 5 SCC 57 : 2000(3) Supreme 195]. (Para 7)
       Hence, it is to be reiterated that law as it stands, Court s jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion exercised by such expert s body is limited even though right to education is concomitant to the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. It is equally true that unless there are proper educational facilities in the society, it would be difficult to meet with the requirements of younger generation who have keen desire to acquire knowledge and education to compete in the global market. It is required to be accepted that for establishing educational institutions, government machinery or funds are neither sufficient nor adequate and the necessity of the private institutions cannot be denied. (Para 10)
       At present, there is tremendous change in social values and environment. Some persons consider nothing wrong in commercialising education. Still however, private institutions cannot be permitted to have educational shops in the country. Therefore, there are statutory prohibitions for establishing and administering educational institution without prior permission or approval by the concerned authority. On occasions, the concerned authorities, for various reasons, fail to discharge their function in accordance with the statutory provisions, rules and regulations. In some cases, because of the zeal to establish such educational institution by persons having means to do so, approach the authorities, but because of red-tapism or for extraneous reasons, such permissions are not granted or are delayed. As against this, it has been pointed out that instead of charitable institutions, persons having means, considering the demands of the market rush for establishing technical educational institutions, including medical college or dental college as a commercial venture with sole object of earning profits and/or for some other purpose. Such institutions fail to observe the norms prescribed under the Act or the Regulations and exploit the situation because of ever increasing demand for such institutions. In such cases, permission is refused by the authorities without there being any bias or extraneous considerations. It is, therefore, submitted that Courts normally should not interfere with a decision taken by the expert body such as Medical Council or Dental Council by straightway issuing mandamus directing the authority to grant approval or permission to establish such institution. Where the authority has refused approval, the institution may not be well equipped to impart education and may not have qualified teachers, staff or other infrastructure necessary for running the institution. If permission is straightway granted by the Court, society, education and ultimately the students suffer. (Para 11)
       There cannot be any dispute that normally the court should not interfere with the functioning of the educational institutions, particularly, expert bodies like the MCI or the DCI. Still however, the question is posed that if such bodies act arbitrarily for some ulterior purpose, whether the court has the power to set right such arbitrary exercise of power by such authorities. We find the answer to this question in the affirmative. We also agree with the learned Solicitor General that educational institutions should not be permitted to be commercialized for earning money, but at the same time, the courts can do very little in this field as it is the function of the expert bodies, such as, Medical Council of India or the Dental Council of India. However, citizens would loose faith in such institutions if the allegations made in this appeal are repeatedly made with regard to the Inspection Reports and granting of approval by the Central Government. We leave this question for the Central Government to deal with appropriately as it is the function of the concerned authorities to plug the loopholes and see that in such matters nothing hanky panky happens. (Para 15)
       (ii) Constitution of India-Articles 226 and 136-Respondent-Trust applied for permission to set a new Dental College in Meerut-Granted for 100 students-But DCI recommended for 60 students-High Court ordered for 100 students-Appeal to Supreme Court-Supreme Court ordered inspections-Deficiencies found-Recommendations of Dental Council of India to Central Government not to grant renewal of the Colleges and limiting students strength to 60-Request for agreed order as compliance of statutory Rules and guidelines contended-Supreme Court ordering Solicitor General, accompanied with Council of respondent, eminent doctors including Chairman of DCI to again inspect and report-Report showing removal of all deficiencies-Parties agreeing to directions to be issued-Whether be issued? (Yes, as a special case, not to be treated as a precedent for future).
       Held : After being satisfied that the College is complying with all the stated requirements, during the course of hearing of the matter, learned counsel for the parties agreed that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed by this Court on 3.5 2001, following directions be issued:-
        1. As far as the grant of requisite permission to the College is concerned, the current status of the facilities would justify grant of permissions to admit up to 100 students in the first year, and renewals for the second year, third year and the 4th year B.D.S. Course. In so far as the teaching staff is concerned, the College undertakes to ensure provision of complete teaching staff as per the regulations and to the satisfaction of the Council and the Central Government.
        2. Subject to satisfaction of the prescribed conditions and conduct of the examinations, the final recognition shall be considered as per the regulations.
        3. The Dental Council of India is directed to forthwith forward to the Central Government its recommendations consistent with the aforesaid.
        4. The Central Government is further directed to grant appropriate permissions/renewals based on the recommendations of the Dental Council of India forthwith, in any event, not later than a period of three weeks from the date of recommendations made by the DCI.
        5. The order directing suspension of classes shall stand withdrawn with respect to eligible students. For this purpose, eligible students shall be of the following two categories-
        (i) Those students who have appeared in any common entrance test held by any State Government (whether by itself or through any other authority) and have obtained not less than 50 of the total marks in English and Science subjects taken together at the qualifying examination or 50 of the total marks in English and Science subjects at the competitive entrance examination.
        (ii) Those students, other than those falling in (i) above, who have obtained not less than 50 marks in English and Science subjects taken together at the qualifying examination, the total number of such students not exceeding 15 in each batch.
        6 The respondent College is directed to give to the DCI and the B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra, within six weeks, the list of the "eligible students" admitted by it (other than those allotted by the Director General, Medical Education, State of U.P.) and the marks obtained by such students in the common entrance test held by the State Government and the qualifying marks together with the mark sheets of the CET and the qualifying exam. The respondent college shall only permit such eligible students to attend classes and appear in the examinations.
        7. The University is directed to permit the eligible students as mentioned above, who have attended requisite number of classes in accordance with the regulations of the DCI, to take the appropriate examinations in accordance with the rules of the University.
        8. Director General, Medical Education may allot further students on the aforesaid basis in accordance with the rules, provided he is satisfied that sufficient time is available prior to examination for completing requisite number of classes as per the regulations of DCI.
       Since parties have agreed to the above directions, we order accordingly. But we make it clear that this order is passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and will not be treated as a precedent. (Paras 17 & 18)
       (iii) Constitution of India-Right to education-Agreed order for renewal of Dental College in Meerut for future i.e. for 2000-2001 onwards-Fate of the students who were admitted for the academic years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000-Effective solution to be found out balancing irregularities and fate of students affected by said irregularities-Cure for irregularities suggested-Order accordingly.
       Held : In this case, Central Government undisputedly has granted approval for establishing Dental College to the respondent-Trust. Only question was - whether students strength should be 100 as contended by the Trust or 60 as contended by the DCI. Hence, considering the peculiar facts of this case, particularly, the order passed by the High Court of Allahabad on 5.9.1997 issuing a mandamus to accord approval to the Dental College for admitting annually a batch of 100 students instead of 60 students and the fact that this Court has not stayed the operation of the said order and also the further orders passed by the High Court on 26.2.99 and 17.4.99 in Writ Petition No. 8299/99, we do not think that it would be just and proper to disturb the admissions granted by the Dental College. Some irregularities are taken care of in the afore-stated agreed order. Further, it has been pointed out that the students for the academic session 1997-98 were admitted much after January 1998 and similarly, the students for the academic session 1998-99 were admitted after June 1999. The teaching in the college has been suspended by this Court s order dated 3.5.99. As such, the students of the first academic session, uptil now, have only studied for a period of 2-1/2 years, the students of the second batch have studied for 1-1/2 years and the students of the third batch have studied for approximately 6-months. Hence, it is ordered that these students would only be permitted to sit in the examinations as per the regulations of the Dental Council of India laying down the requirement of attendance of minimum classes for each year for the four years duration of the BDS course. (Para 21)
       In view of the foregoing, the Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.22222 of 1997 and 8464-8465 of 1999 stand disposed of accordingly. The Transfer Petition No. 437 of 1999 is also allowed; writ petition No. 8299 of 1999 pending before the High Court stands transferred to this Court and is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. (Para 22)

JUDGMENT

Shah, J.-Leave granted.

2. Dental Council of India has challenged the order dated 15.9.1997 passed by the High Court of Allahabad [R.R.K. Trivedi and M. Katju, JJ] in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.25780 of 1997. The writ petition was filed by the respondent-Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust ("Trust" for short) who had established a Dental College at Meerut and applied to the Central Government for permission to commence teaching for academic year 1996-97. It was alleged that respondent-Trust was meeting the qualifying criteria stipulated in the guidelines issued by the Dental Council of India ("DCI" for short) regarding establishment of new Dental College having strength of 100 students. Inspection Committee of the Dental College of India gave report in favour of the establishment of college. However, the second Inspection Team while acknowledging that the Dental College has satisfied the qualifying criteria, recommended for starting with the batch of 60 students only and on that basis the Central Government granted permission to the respondent for starting college with 60 students only. Hence, respondent-Trust filed writ petition in the High Court for a mandamus directing the Central Government and the DCI to accord approval to the establishment of Dental College with annual batch of 100 students instead of 60 students. The Court observed that from the second report submitted by the Inspection Committee it appears that the Institution has complied with all the requirements for admitting a batch of 100 students, but strangely enough the comment given at the bottom of the second report that the existing infrastructure in terms of land building, equipment and staff etc. was adequate for 60 admissions. The High Court also held that no proper reason was assigned as to why the DCI permitted only admission of 60 students instead of 100 students when the Institution has complied with all the requirements as per the guidelines of Dental Council of India for admitting 100 students. The Court, therefore, held that the authority has acted arbitrarily since despite the Institution s having all infrastructure and facilities for admitting 100 students as per the guidelines of Dental Council, it was allowed to admit only 60 students. Finally, the Court allowed the writ petition by its judgment and order dated 15.9.1997 and its operative part reads thus:-

"In the present case, we find that the authorities have acted arbitrarily since despite the petitioner s having all the infrastructure and facilities for admitting 100 students as per the guidelines of the Dental Council, it was allowed to admit only 60 student. This action of the respondent is clearly arbitrary and illegal. A Mandamus is issued to the respondents to accord approval to the petitioners Dental College for admitting annually a batch of 100 students instead of 60 students."

3. That order is challenged in this appeal.

4. Pending hearing in S.L.P. (C) No.22222/97, the respondent filed another writ petition No.8299/99 before the High Court. In that petition, the respondent submitted that the High Court vide order dated 15.9.1997 issued a writ of mandamus to the appellants herein to accord approval to the respondent s Dental College for admitting annually a batch of 100 students instead of 60 students, but the appellants were not allowing the students of the batches to appear into 1st year and IInd year examination in 1998-99 on account of pendency of SLP (C) No.22222/97 against the said order. The High Court by order dated 26.2.1999 directed the appellants herein to allow the students of B.D.S. course of 1st year and IInd year to appear in the examination provisionally and the Director Central Medical Education, UP Lucknow was directed to forward the names of the students in the BDS entrance test for 1998-99 forthwith. The High Court further by order dated 17.4.1999 directed the DCI to get an inspection done of the institution in question by a Commission, which consisted (

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 765

Cases Referred (10)