61.WPNo.28822019.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 2882 OF 2019

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 15082 OF 2022

IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 2882 OF 2019

Abhishek V. Mayekar

…

Petitioner/

Applicant

Versus

Maharashtra University of

Health Sciences, Nashik & Ors.

…

Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 2970 OF 2019

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 15181 OF 2022

IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 2970 OF 2019

Priyanka Subhash Tele

…

Petitioner/

Applicant

Versus

Maharashtra University of

Health Sciences, Nashik & Ors.

…

Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 3657 OF 2019

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3715 OF 2022

IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 3657 OF 2019

Avinash Girish Raut

…

Petitioner/

Applicant

Versus

Maharashtra University of

Health Sciences, Nashik & Ors.

…

Respondents

Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Rajshekhar V. Govilkar, Advocate for the Respondent

No.1.

Gaikwad RD

1/3

61.WPNo.28822019.doc

Ms. Smita R. Gaidhani a/w. Mr. Kedar Purav, Advocate for

the Respondent No.2.

Ms. Anamika Malhotra, Advocate for the Respondent No.3/

Dental Council of India.

CORAM:

S.V. GANGAPURWALA &

S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATED :

JULY 18, 2022

P.C.

1.

The petitioners are the students of BDS Course, who

had secured the admission in the academic year 2009-10

and 2010-11. As per the regulations operating then, the

student was required to clear 1^st year BDS in three years.

The petitioners in the present matters have cleared their 1^st

year of BDS after more than three years.

2.

The objection to the eligibility of the petitioners to

continue the course was taken in the year 2019 for the frst

time. The petitioners have allowed to continue the course for

all these years and were allowed to appear for 2^nd and 3^rd

year of BDS course also.

3.

The learned Counsel relies upon the judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court Bench at Nagpur in Ku. Teena

Rajesh Ghate versus Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences & Anr.¹, where the similarly situated students

were allowed to continue the Course on the ground that the

objection was not taken.

4.

Mr. Govilkar, learned Counsel for respondent No.1

submits that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3657 of 2019

was given a letter discharging him from the course as he has

1

Writ Petition No. 3674 of 2019 dtd. 25^th November 2019.

Gaikwad RD

2/3

61.WPNo.28822019.doc

not completed his 1^st year in three years in the year 2014

only and thereafter he fled writ petition and pursuant to

the order of the Court, he was allowed to appear in the

examination.

5.

It appears that in respect of petitioners in Writ

Petition No. 2882 of 2019 and Writ Petition No. 2970 of

2019, no objection was taken by the respondent and they

were allowed to continue the course and the objection was

raised in the year 2019 i.e. much belatedly.

6.

In view of the aforesaid, admissions of the petitioners

were not discharged upon failure to clear all subjects of 1^st

year in three years from the date of admission and the

Regulation brought on 27^th April 2015 would not apply.

Reliance can be placed on the judgment of Division Bench of

this Court at Nagpur in Ku. Teena Ghate (supra).

7.

We set aside the impugned communication. The result

of the petitioners’ examination be declared. The petitioners

in case are otherwise eligible shall be allowed to complete

the BDS course and shall not be released only on the ground

that the petitioners did not pass the 1^st year in three years.

Regulation dated 27^th April 2015 would not apply in these

petitions.

8.

The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No

costs.

9.

In view of disposal of writ petitions, interim

applications shall also stand disposed of.

(S. M. MODAK, J.)

(S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Gaikwad RD

3/3

RAJU

DATTATRAYA

GAIKWAD

Digitally signed

by RAJU

DATTATRAYA

GAIKWAD

Date:

2022.07.21

12:49:28 +0530