SAMRITI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner got admission in the Bachelor of Dental Surgeon Course [for short 'BDS Course'] in the SGT Dental College, Gurgaon vide registration No. 7771 (SGT) in the academic session 2010 -11. Her college is affiliated to Pt. Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak [for short 'the University']. In the 1st year of BDS Course, there are three subjects, namely, (i) General Anatomy including Embryology and Histology, (ii) General Human Physiology and Biochemistry and (iii) Dental Anatomy, Embryology and Oral Histology. The petitioner appeared in the 1st year examination of BDS course three times in the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 but she could pass only in one subject, namely, Dental Anatomy, Embryology and Oral Histology. However, she passed the practical examinations of all the three subjects but she was discharged from the BDS Course by the respondents in view of the provisions of BDS Course Regulations, 2007 [for short 'the Regulations 2007'] notified on 25.7.2007 in which it is provided that "any student who does not clear the first BDS University Examination in all subjects within 3 years from the date of admission, shall be discharged from the course". Although, she could not pass two subjects out of three in the 1st academic year, yet she was allowed to study in the 2nd year of BDS Course but was not permitted to appear in the 2nd year examination of the BDS Course on the ground that she did not clear two subjects of the 1st year of the BDS Course. It is alleged that the Regulations 2007 has been further amended by the Regulations called Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007, which has been notified in the month of February 2014 [for short 'the Regulations 2014'], in which the existing clause that "any student who does not clear the 1st year BDS Examination in all subjects within 3 years from the date of admission, shall be discharged from the course" has been substituted with the clause that "any student who does not clear the BDS course in all the subjects within a period of 9 years including one year compulsory internship from the date of admission shall be discharged from the course". It is submitted that corrigendum was also issued on 25.2.2015 in the Regulations 2014 wherein it was provided that "any student who does not clear the BDS course in all the subjects within a period of 9 years including one year compulsory internship from the date of admission shall be discharged from the course". The Dental Council of India further made amendment to the Existing principle Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007 called the Revised BDS Course (7th Amendment) Regulations, 2015, which was notified on 27.4.2015 in which the following substitution was made: -

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Regulation 2007 has already been held to be ultra vires and struck down by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P. (MD) No. 8276 of 2013 titled as "Nizvy Sunil Prakash v/s. The Secretary, Dental Council of India and others", decided on 29.11.2013, therefore, the petitioner is eligible to complete her BDS Course within 9 years and there is no such restriction to complete 1st year within three attempts in order to appear in the 2nd year examination.

(3.) Reply has been filed by the University in which it is alleged that the corrigendum in the Regulations 2004 was published in the official gazette on 27.4.2015 and has come into force on the date of its publication in the official gazette and the amendment made by way of said notification in the Regulations 2007 does not have retrospective effect because the petitioner was admitted in BDS Course in the year 2010 and has followed by the Regulations 2007 which were applicable till the date on which the Revised BDS Course (7th Amendment) Regulations 2015 came into force, whereas the University had discharged the petitioner on the ground that she could not pass the 1st year examination of BDS Course within three years from the date of her admission i.e. upto 2013 and the said decision was taken as per Clause 6.8 of Ordinance No. 13 of the University Calendar. It is further submitted that the decision of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court is not applicable to the case in hand because in the said case i.e. Nizvy Sunil Prakash (Supra), the Court was of the opinion that it is mandatory provision to consult with the State Governments before issuing the regulations under Ss. 20(2)(g) & (h) of the Dentist Act, 1984 [for short 'the Act'].