Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 608
PATNA HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE , ACJ, HONOURABLE MR. PARTHA SARTHY, J
The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna, Pin - 800015. – Appellant
Versus
Pramod Kumar Son of Upendra Ray Resident of Village - Sanjay Nagar Road No. -5, Post - GPO at Patna, Police Station - Jakkanpur, District- Patna, Pin - 800001. – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No.449 of 2025|Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12278 of 2024|Letters Patent Appeal No. 450 of 2025|Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13143 of 2024|Letters Patent Appeal No. 454 of 2025|Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11629 of 2024|Letters Patent Appeal No. 455 of 2025|Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12083 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr P.K.Shahi, AG., Mr.Anukriti Jaipuriyar (R.C. To A.G.)
For the Respondents: Mr.Siddhartha Prasad, Adv.
For UOI: Mr. K.N. Singh, ASG, Mr. Brajesh Kumar Pandey, CGC, Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, Adv.
For Dental Council of India: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, ASG, Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Lokesh Kumar, Adv.
Students from a de-recognized dental college cannot demand admission in government colleges but must be transferred to recognized institutions based on merit to ensure fairness in the admission process.
Headnote:(A) Dental Council Act - De-recognition of Dental College - Students of B.R. Ambedkar Institute of Dental Sciences were directed to be accommodated in other recognized Dental Colleges after the college was de-recognized by the Dental Council of India due to deficiencies in infrastructure and faculties - The State had no obligation to transfer students to a specific government college, but must facilitate their transfer to other recognized institutions. (Paras 2-15)
(B) Right to Education - Appearing in NEET examination does not confer a right to demand transfer to government college but allows for admission to available seats in recognized colleges - The allocation must consider merit and preserve fairness in admissions for all students. (Paras 5-10)
Facts of the case:
The writ petitioners, students of a de-recognized dental college, sought transfer to a government college following the de-recognition after deficiencies were cited by the Dental Council of India. The government was hesitant to provide specific admissions to the government college and instead offered transfers to other recognized private colleges.
Findings of Court:
The court modified the previous order, allowing students to choose from private colleges and prohibiting a specific transfer to a government college. The process of admission to other institutions must be conducted fairly, with consideration given to a draw of lots if no preferences were stated by students.
Issues: Whether the students had a right to be transferred to a government dental college and how their reallocation should be conducted while adhering to fairness principles.
Ratio Decidendi: Students have no inherent right to transfer to government colleges based solely on past enrolment in a de-recognized institution, as allocation must be based on merit and existing vacancies in recognized colleges. The court emphasized fairness in the admission process and the necessity of following due procedures.
Result: Appeals allowed, judgment modified - students to be allocated seats in recognized private colleges.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitioners are students of b.r. ambedkar dental college. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. objections from the state regarding student transfers. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. discussion of transfer process and fee structures. (Para 8 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. orders for transferring students to recognized private colleges. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. conclusion and disposal of appeals. (Para 18 , 19) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 29-04-2025
1. All these appeals have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The writ petitioners are all students of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “B.R. Ambedkar Dental College”) which stood de-recognized by the Dental Council of India (in short ‘DCI’) for not having followed the guidelines with regard to infrastructure and the academic faculties. However, a letter was issued by the Govt. of India to the DCI to look into the grievances of the students who had been admitted in B.R. Ambedkar Dental College and if possible make arrangements for their being transferred to other Govt. recognized Dental Colleges in the State of Bihar.
3. Pursuant to such a communication, a request was made by the DCI to the Govt. of Bihar for taking necessary steps for accommodating / transferring the students of B.R. Ambedkar Dental College to other Govt. recognized Dental Colleges in the State of Bihar.
4. When nothing was being done on this communication from the Govt., the writ petitioners filed various writ petitions in the Court, all of which were heard by a learned Single Judge, who passed separate orders in the writ petitions, directing the Govt. to accommodate the writ petitioners in the Govt. Dental College at Patna.
5. The appellant /State has serious objection to such a direction for two reasons.
6. All the writ petitioners /respondents in these set of appeals had appeared in NEET examination and on the basis of their performance, they were allocated seat in a private Dental College, namely, B.R. Ambedkar Dental College, which stood de-recognized later. The writ petitioners, therefore, cannot as a right demand for adjustment in the Govt. Dental College. All that they could legitimately ask for was their transfer to any other Govt. recognized Dental College in the State of Bihar.
7. The second objection to the judgment impugned is that at no point of time, the State Govt. had consented to transfer students of B.R. Ambedkar Dental College to Govt. Dental College, Patna.
8. A procedure, it has been informed, has been adopted by the Govt. in identifying Dental Colleges with vacant seats and the writ petitioners have been given the option for selection of their colleges from amongst the list of such colleges prepared. If no option were to be exercised by the students, the transfer had to be carried out by way of draw of lots. This process is only to avoid any objection with respect to arbitrariness in allocating seats in different Dental Colleges to the writ petitioners as the process referred to above would be a double-blind process, with perhaps no say to the State to handpick particular student for a particular college.
9. The respondents / writ petitioners have objection to the aforesaid stand of the Govt. in as much as the fee structure of different colleges are different and the respondents might end up paying more than what they had settled for when they took admission in B.R. Ambedkar Dental College. The other objection is that in this case, the allocation had to be done by the Dental Council of India and it was not for the Govt. to decide that the students / respondents would not be transferred to a Govt. Dental College but only to private Dental Colleges, having vacant seats. The other apprehension of the respondents is that they might miss out on the examination of the second year but this apprehension does not make up for any ground for the insistence of being admitted in a Govt. Dental C
