Back
2009 Supreme(HP) 663
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA, J. & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH, JJ.
ANKITA DADWAL
Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS
Respondents
PARUL TANWAR
Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS
Respondents
CWP No.462 of 2009 alongwith CWP No.2402 of 2009
Decided on 28-07-2009
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate in CWP 462 of 2009. Mr.Shrawan
Dogra, Advocate in CWP 2402/2009.
For the Respondent(s):Mr. R.M. Bisht and Mr.Vikas Rathore, Dy. A. Gs for respondents-State.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for respondent Dental Council of India.
Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate for HPU.
Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.8,9,11, 15 to 17 and 19.
Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate for R-18 in CWP No.462 of 2009.
Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate for R-13.
Mr. B.C. Attri, Advocate for Principal, MNDAV Dental College and Hospital Solan.
Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate for Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Paonta Sahib.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the regulations set by the Dental Council of India for student migration and the need for fair and transparent decision-making processes by the authorities.
Headnote:
Migration - BDS Students - Dental Council of India Regulations - Extreme compassionate grounds, Death of supporting guardian, Disturbed conditions - Migration permitted only in the beginning of 2nd year BDS Course - Fresh advertisement should have been made if migration was to be allowed on merit basis - Misplaced sympathy of authorities - Illegal migration - Compensation for petitioner
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the migration of BDS students from private dental colleges to a government dental college in Himachal Pradesh. The students sought migration based on an advertisement issued by the Principal of the Government Dental College inviting applications for migration to the 2nd Professional BDS Course.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the migration of the students was allowed in total violation of rules and regulations. It observed that none of the students fulfilled the criteria for migration as per the Dental Council of India Regulations. The court also noted that the authorities had shown misplaced sympathy towards the students, leading to illegal migration. The court decided not to cancel the migration of the students due to the human angle and the financial implications for the students, but rejected the petition of one student, Parul Tanwar, for illegal migration. The court ordered compensation for the petitioner, Ankita Dadwal, in the form of payment of her fees at the parental college by the State of Himachal Pradesh and awarded costs to the petitioner.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the legality of the migration of BDS students, the adherence to Dental Council of India Regulations, the authority's decision-making process, and the appropriate relief for the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the migration of the students was illegal and violated the rules and regulations set by the Dental Council of India. It emphasized the need for strict adherence to the regulations and criticized the authorities for showing misplaced sympathy towards the students. The court also highlighted the importance of following due process and issuing fresh advertisements if migration criteria were to be changed.
Final Decision: The court decided not to cancel the migration of the students due to the human angle and financial implications, but rejected the petition of one student for illegal migration. It ordered compensation for the petitioner in the form of payment of her fees at the parental college by the State of Himachal Pradesh and awarded costs to the petitioner.
Deepak Gupta, J.-This case is a classic example of how misplaced sympathy can sometimes wreck the careers and put in jeopardy the future of young students.
2. The petitioner and private respondents 5 to 19 and Ms. Parul Tanwar, petitioner in CWP No.2402 of 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the students) are all students of BDS. They were all admitted to the BDS course in the academic session 2007-2008. All the students were admitted to private Colleges in the State. It is a well known fact that the fees in the private Colleges is much higher than the fees being charged in H.P. Dental College and Hospital at Shimla. The difference is manifold. Therefore, we can understand the anxiety of the parents as well as the students to ensure that the students get admission into the Government Dental College. After the combined entrance test is held, admission to the various Colleges is made on the basis of counselling. It is borne out from the record and is a matter of public knowledge that the students who have qualified the entrance test with higher marks opt to join the Government Medical and Dental Colleges.
3. The Principal of the Government Dental College issued an advertisement which appeared in the newspaper on 6th December, 2008 inviting applications for migration to the 2nd Professional BDS Course in Government Dental College, Shimla. The last date for submission of application was 15th December, 2008. The relevant terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement were as follows:
“Terms and conditions:
1. Migration to the student to H.P. Govt. Dental College and Hospital Shimla will be considered by the Dental Council of India only in exceptional cases on extreme compassionate grounds i.e.
(i) Death of supporting guardian issued by competent authority,
(ii)Disturbed conditions declared by the Government in the Dental College area. Migration on other grounds shall not be allowed.
2. He/She must have passed first professional BDS from the Institution recognized by the Dental Council of India/Govt. of India. 3.The applicant/candidate should have passed 1st professional BDS examination. The copy of first year BDS mark sheet is to be attached.”
4. Pursuant to this advertisement a number of students applied for migration. Their cases were forwarded to the Dental Council of India and consequently an order was issued on 31st January whereby respondents 5 to 19 were permitted to migrate from private Dental Colleges to H.P. Dental College and Hospital, Shimla. From the letter allowing the migration it is apparent that the migration was allowed strictly on the basis of marks obtained in the first year BDS in order of merit. The petitioner had also applied for migration on 29th January, 2009 when she came to know that the migration was being allowed on the basis of merit and not on the basis of the conditions laid down in the advertisement. Her application was not considered and therefore she has filed the writ petition being CWP No.462 of 2009.
5. The main allegation of the petitioner is that the migration of respondents 5 to 19 has been allowed without following the Regulations of the Dental Council of India (DCI). According to the petitioner, in case migration was to be allowed on the basis of merit this should have been specifically stated in the advertisement. The petitioner verily believed that the migration would be allowed only on the compassionate grounds mentioned in the advertisement by following the DCI Regulations and therefore did not apply for the same. If she had known that the respondents were going to permit migration on the basis of the merit in the first year BDS course she would have also applied for migration. Since she had obtained 519 marks in the BDS course she would have ranked 7th in the merit and would have definitely been allowed migration. According to the petitioner in case the DCI decided to relax the conditions and allow migration on merit basis, fresh advertisement should have been made.
