Adherence to the time schedule for granting permission for BDS courses, as mandated by the Dental Council of India Act, 1948, Section 10, is crucial. Attempting to mislead the court and violating the prescribed time schedule can lead to dismissal of the petition.

1. This Writ Petition, at the instance of a Dental College, seeks a direction to the Dental Council of India to forward the names of 17 students belatedly admitted by the institution for the year 2013-2014, beyond the cut off date prescribed for completing the admission process.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

2. The petitioner obtained approval from the Dental Council of India to establish a Dental College at Madurai in the name and style of 'Best Dental Science College' with an intake of 50 students. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application for increase of intake from 50 to 100. There were certain earlier litigations initiated by the petitioner. Since those proceedings are not relevant for deciding this Writ Petition, I am not dealing with those aspects. The Dental Council of India finally granted approval to the petitioner for increase in intake from 50 to 100. The proceedings dated 14 October, 2013 issued by the Government of India very clearly shows that permission to increase the intake from 50 to 100 was granted for the academic year 20142015. The petitioner, notwithstanding the original condition imposed by the Government of India, on the basis of the recommendation made by the Dental Council of India that the additional seats should be filled up only from the academic year 2014-2015, appears to have admitted 17 students in excess of the intake of 50. Those 17 students were not permitted to write the examination by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University. The petitioner, immediately, filed this Writ Petition.

3. According to the petitioner, the Dental Council of India, vide its proceedings dated 30 September, 2013, granted permission to increase the intake from 50 to 100. In view of the proceedings dated 30 September, 2013, 17 students were admitted on 30 September, 2013 itself. The petitioner, therefore, wanted the Dental Council of India to forward the names of 17 students to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University for the purpose of registration and to issue them hall tickets.

SUBMISSIONS:

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Dental Council of India, vide its proceedings dated 30 September, 2013 increased the intake from 50 to 100 with effect from the academic year 2013-2014. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.19421 of 2013. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court, by order dated 28 November, 2013, directing the University to consider the question of affiliation for the year 2013-2014, within a period of two weeks. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner has given an undertaking that students would not be admitted for the year 2013-2014 without getting prior permission from the Hon'ble Supreme Court or any other competent authority. The Central Government, thereafter, granted permission to admit the students. The petitioner was, therefore, fully justified in making admission. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, wanted the Dental Council of India, to send the names of 17 students to the University , so as to enable them to appear for the examination.

5. The learned counsel for the University contended that the petitioner made admission after the cut off date. According to the learned counsel, permission was given by the Dental Council of India after the cut off date and as such, the petitioner was not correct in making admission. The learned counsel, by placing reliance on the order dated 28 November, 2013 in W.P.(MD) No.19421 of 2013, contended that the petitioner has given an undertaking before this Court that admission would not be made without the permission of Supreme Court or the Central Government. However, in the affidavit filed in support of the present Writ Petition, they have stated that admission was made before 30 September, 2013. This is clearly a contradictory statement made with a view to mislead the Court. The learned counsel, by placing reliance on various judgments of the Supreme Co