HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writs No. 3260/2017 Biyani Shikshan Samiti, R-4 Sector-3 Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.through Its Secretary Dr. Sanjay Biyani, Aged About 46 Years, Son Of Late Shri Jugal Kishore Biyani, C-1, L.S. Nagar, Opposite Biyani Girls College, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare (Dental Education Section), Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi

2. Dental Council Of India, Aiwan-E- Galib Marg, Kotla Road, New Delhi Through Its Secretary ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Poonia Mr. Anil Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajdeepak Rastogi, ASG with Mr. Ashish Kumar Mr. Vedant Agrawal Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj Mr. Angad Mirdha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI

Order

24/04/2018 By this writ petition a challenge is made to the Notification dated 21.05.2012 to substitute Regulation 6(2)(h) of Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Biyani Shikshan Samiti submits that the Regulation 6(2)(h) has been amended affecting the rights of the petitioner. A reference of the provision, before amendment, has been given. It is to demonstrate difference between the amended and unamended provision. As per the unamended provision, the requirement for the applicant was to have a General Hospital of not less than 100 beds with necessary infrastructure facilities including teaching pre-clinical, para-clinical and allied medical sciences in the campus of the proposed dental college. Such a General Hospital is to be owned or managed by the applicant. The alternative was to have proposed Dental College in the proximity of a Medical College recognised by the Medical Council of India. It is with a condition of facility of training to the students in the subjects of Medicine, Surgery and Allied Medical Sciences. The distance from Medical college was also given. By the amended provision under challenge, the requirement is to attach proposed Dental College with the Government/Private Medical College recognised by the Medical Council of India at the distance of 10 kms by road apart from many other conditions. The subsequent amendment permits distance of 30 kms instead of 10 kms.

The challenge to the amended Regulations has been made as it is infringing rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India. A condition has been imposed for attachment of the Dental College with Government/ Private Medical College.

There is no sanctity to attach a Dental College with a Medical College as the course of BDS is quite different than MBBS course taken in the Medical College. As per the unamended provision, a Dental College was to be in the campus of a General Hospital of not less than 100 beds with necessary infrastructure facilities including teaching pre-clinical, para clinical and allied medical sciences. The sanctity of the hospital was to give practical training to the students. It is more so when the condition was even not only for attachment of General Hospital but teaching facilities in pre-clinical, para clinical and allied medical science. In the alternative, attachment to a Medical College.

The students were getting training in the attached Medical Hospitals in the same campus, which would not be available now thus the purpose sought to be achieved has been frustrated. It is to have proper teaching and training of the students. In view of the above, prayer is made to struck down the amended Regulation 6(2)(h) of the DCI Regulations, 2006 with direction to consider case of the petitioner Samiti for approval of Dental College as per unamended provisions.

It is further stated that the Notification dated 21.5.2012, amending the Regulations, would be in contravention