Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
Dental Council of India – Appellant(s)
Versus
Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal, Hingoli & Ors. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4926 OF 2017 (@ S.L.P. (Civil) No. 26887 OF 2016)
Decided On : 11-04-2017
(1984) 1 SCC 307; (2004) 6 SCC 76; (2012) 5 SCC 628; (2012) 7 SCC 433; (2015) 4 SCC 580; (2016) 11 SCC 530 – Relied upon
(2015) 10 SCC 19; (2016) 11 SCC 225 – Referred
(b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Parameters for exercise of jurisdiction – Restated – Interim order. (Para 7, 21)
(c) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Interference with interlocutory order – Parameters – Reasons to be indicated. (Para 9)
(2000) 5 SCC 57 – Relied upon
(d) Precedent – Purpose – To have consistency – And finality. (Para 22, 23)
(2001) 1 SCC 748; (2013) 15 SCC 414; (2002) 4 SCC 234 – Relied upon
(e) Words and Phrases – ‘Humility’ and ‘request’ – Supreme Court ‘requesting’ High Court with ‘humility’ – Should be appositely understood – Such a ‘request’ requires attention which is disciplined and concerned awareness. (Para 25)
Dental admission – College no having approval for session 2016-17 – Three students admitted in pursuance of High Court order – College receiving approval for 2017-18 – Seats for the three students directed to be adjusted from the academic session 2017-2018 – Respondent-college directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs. (Para 26)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a dental college, submitted its scheme on 29.07.2015 for grant of permission to start post-graduate course of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics along with four other specialties.
The Executive Committee of the Council found many a deficiency relating to infrastructure, teaching faculty and other physical facilities in the respondent-college.
The Executive Committee found that the respondent-college fulfilled the eligibility criteria at the undergraduate level. The Executive Committee observed that there were deficiencies and the college was required to submit compliance.
The Committee decided to recommend to the Government of India not to grant permission to the respondent-college for starting the post-graduate courses.
The Government of India disapproved the scheme of the respondent-college for starting MDS course in the specialty of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics for the academic session 2016-2017.
The High Court held that the admission process undertaken by the petitioner is at the risk of the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court should not pass interim orders in the matters of admission, more so, when the institution had not been accorded approval.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
Though this Court ordinarily is loath to interfere with interim orders or directions issued by the High Court, yet the impugned order dated 27.05.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 4529 of 2016 by the learned Vacation Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, constrains, in a way, obliges us to pen a verdict with some concern, for abandonment to write a decision in the obtaining circumstances would tantamount to playing possum with the precedents, which need to be recapitulated by the High Courts.
2. The facts are simple. The respondent, a dental college, vide letter dated 26.05.2015, submitted its scheme on 29.07.2015 for grant of permission to start post-graduate course of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics along with four other specialties. A team of Dental Council of India (for short, ‘the Council’), the appellant herein, conducted a pre-PG assessment of the respondent-college on 17th and 18th November, 2015 and submitted its report to the Council. The assessment report submitted by the said team was placed before the Executive Committee of the Council in its meeting held on 03.12.2015 whereupon the Committee found many a deficiency relating to infrastructure, teaching faculty and other physical facilities in the respondent-college. The Committee decided to call upon the respondent-college to rectify the deficiencies and submit its compliance within seven days. The said decision was communicated vide letter dated 08.12.2015. The respondent-college vide its letter dated 17.12.2015 submitted its compliance report whereafter the assessors of the Council carried out a compliance verification assessment of the respondent-college on 21.12.2015. The case of the respondent-college was placed before the Executive Committee for consideration, which found that the respondent-college fulfilled the eligibility criteria at the undergraduate level. On 29.01.2016, the Council decided to carry out the physical assessment of the dental college in order to ascertain the infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty and other physical facilities in respect of four postgraduate specialties and in accordance with the decision, inspection was conducted on 28th and 29th January, 2016. The assessment report was considered by the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 12.02.2016 and it observed that there were deficiencies and the college was required to submit compliance.
3. As is evident from the materials brought on record the decision of the Committee was communicated to the college on 18.02.2016 whereupon the respondent-college communicated that the defects had been removed. The Council proceeded to verify the compliance made by the college and keeping in view the various facilities and regard being had to the decision of this Court in Royal Medical Trust (Registered) and another v. Union of India and another, (2015) 10 SCC 19 decided to recommend to the Government of India not to grant permission to the respondent-college for starting the post-graduate courses. The Government of India, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent-college, vide letter dated 21.03.2016, required the Council to verify/review the schemes and further desired to furnish its revised recommendation.
4. The communication received from the Government of India was placed before the Committee and the Committee keeping in view the cut-off date, postulated in Royal Medical Trust (supra) and Ashish Ranjan and others v. Union of India and others, (2016) 11 SCC 225 decided to reiterate its earlier stand and accordingly it was communicated to the Government of India on 28.03.2016. The Government of India after considering the recommendation of the Council, vide letter dated 31.03.2016, disapproved the scheme of the respondent-college for starting MDS course in the specialty of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics for the academic session 2016-2017.
5. Being dissatisfied with the decision of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
