Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 12767
2025:KER:33629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J.
Athulya Ashokan D/o Ashokan K.K. - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) NO. 44086, 44754 OF 2024
Decided On : 13-05-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : AKHIL K.MADHAV, T.R.JERRY SEBASTIAN, KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)(K-175)
For the Respondent : SRI.V.VENUGOPAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.PRAKASH M P, STANDING COUNSEL, SRI.BINNY THOMAS, STANDING COUNSEL,SRI.VINOD BHAT S,SRI.SANEER P.M.,SRI.P.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(K/410/1994),SMT.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN(K/000767/2015),SMT.V.NAMITHA(K/1090/2011),SMT.GITANJALI SADAN PILLAI(K/004306/2024)
AKHIL K.MADHAV, T.R.JERRY SEBASTIAN, KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)(K-175), SRI.V.VENUGOPAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.PRAKASH M P, STANDING COUNSEL, SRI.BINNY THOMAS, STANDING COUNSEL, SRI.P.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(K/410/1994), SMT.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN(K/000767/2015), SMT.V.NAMITHA(K/1090/2011), SMT.GITANJALI SADAN PILLAI(K/004306/2024), SRI.GISON ALIYAS(K/003942/2023)
The court ruled that exceptional circumstances, such as natural disasters and pandemics, justify allowing students additional time to complete their BDS Course, ensuring adherence to equality principles under Article 14.
Headnote:
(A) Dentists Act, 1948 - Section 20 - BDS Course Regulations, 2007 - Petitioners, students of BDS Course, challenged discharge from Course due to non-completion within nine years - Court found that disruptions from floods and pandemic justified allowing students to continue and write examinations - Regulations of Dental Council must be adhered to, but exceptional circumstances warrant leniency. (Paras 6, 15, 16)
(B) Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Discrimination in academic standards - Court held that denying students from Kerala the same duration to complete their Course as others in India is arbitrary and violative of equality principles. (Paras 6, 16)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners joined BDS in 2015 and 2016 but faced disruptions due to floods and pandemic, leading to their inability to complete the Course within the stipulated nine years.
Findings of Court:
Petitioners allowed to continue and write examinations, treated as continuing students despite the University’s regulations.
Issues: Whether the petitioners should be allowed to continue their Course despite the University’s discharge policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for flexibility in academic regulations in light of exceptional circumstances affecting students' ability to complete their studies.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of in favor of petitioners, allowing them to continue their Course and write examinations.
JUDGMENT :
N.NAGARESH, J.
Petitioners in both these writ petitions are students who have joined the Course of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) in Colleges in the year 2015 and 2016. The writ petitions have been filed for orders directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to write the examination and to allow them to continue the Course. The parties and exhibits are referred to in this judgment as they are described/marked in W.P.(C) No.44086/2024.
2. The petitioners state that they joined the Course of BDS in their respective Colleges in the year 2015 and 2016. Though their Course period is over, they are yet to clear certain examinations/papers. According to the 3rd respondent-Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS), “any student who does not clear the BDS Course in all the subjects within a period of nine years, including one year compulsory rotatory paid internship from the date of admission shall be discharged from the Course”. The University issued Ext.P1 Examination Notification dated 23.11.2024 declaring to commence the BDS Examinations on 06.01.2025. However, the petitioners are not allowed to apply for the examinations as notified by Exts.P1 and P2. The petitioners were informed that since they got admission for the Course in the year 2015 and 2016, they have completed the Course duration and they will be discharged from the Course. They will not be allowed to further write the examination, in view of the guidelines issued by the 2nd respondent-Dental Council of India (DCI).
3. The petitioners state that their Batch is the most affected Batch due to the 2018 and 2019 Kerala floods and the Covid-19 pandemic which affected their regular Classes and examinations. The 3rd respondent-University has allowed students who are registered in the academic year 2010, 2011 and 2012 to complete the Course by giving them time till 31.12.2024. The University has also given mercy chance after the Course duration.
4. As per the Regulations of the DCI, the Course duration is four years and one year internship. However, the Course duration prescribed by the 3rd respondent-University is 4½ years plus one year internship. Those petitioners belonging to the 2016 Batch have completed only eight years. The students of 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014 Batches are still continuing the Course, whereas students of 2015 and 2016 Batches are not allowed to write the examination.
5. The Course duration (excluding internship) under the DCI Scheme was four years and a candidate had to pass the entire Course in eight years and then one year internship. This is evident from Ext.P6 clarification dated 19.01.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent. Thus, a candidate gets double the duration of the Course to pass the entire Course. Under the examination Scheme of the University, the duration of the Course itself is 4½ years. This situation prevails only in Kerala. In Kerala, the Course duration is nine years plus one year internship. Therefore, the petitioners should be permitted to clear the Course within ten years. However, the University has issued Ex.P7 order dated 18.12.2015 wherein it has been declared that “the total duration of the Course shall be nine years excluding internship”. Subsequently, Ext.P7 order was modified and the University issued Ext.P8 order dated 26.04.2017 wherein the period of nine years excluding internship mentioned in Ext.P7 has been modified as, “nine years including internship”.
6. The petitioners state that Ext.P8 has been issued based on Ext.P10 DCI Regulations, 2007. Exts.P7, P8 and P10 are discriminatory. The 3rd respondent-University cannot oust the students who have not passed the examinations without giving them a proper opportunity to write the examinations and continue the Course. The students who have taken admission in 2015 and 2016 have not completed nine years duration as stated by the respondents. When the BDS students across the country are given double the duration of the Course to complete the Course, denying the
