SHRUTI MITTAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to notice inviting applications for admission to M.D.S. (Orthodontics) for the academic year 1996-97, petitioner applied. She was placed at serial No.2 in order of merit. Two students were admitted to the course. Petitioner being ranked No.2 was offered provisional admission as is evident from Annexure P-1 dated 2.5.1996. It is stated therein that admission is subject to final approval of the Dental Council of India. In compliance with that order, the petitioner who was working as Demonstrate/Registrar in the Dental College since 1995 resigned the post and joined the course.

(2.) Dental Council of India at its meeting held at Madras on 29.12.1987 granted permission to respondents 1 and 2 to start M.D.S. (Orthodontics) course with admission of one student. As per regulations adopted by the Council number of admission to M.D.S. courses in each speciality shall not be more than two students per Post-graduate course per year. It further stated that at any one time there shall not be more than four students under one Post- graduate teacher. On the basis of this regulation, respondents 1 and 2 took the stand that two students in M.D.S. (Orthodontics) can be admitted. The reason is that when Dental Council allowed respondents 1 and 2 to admit one student to M.D.S. (Orthodontics) that should have been one Postgraduate teacher competent to coach that student. Regulations allowed one Postgraduate teacher to guide two students. On this basis, respondents 1 and 2 took the stand that two students can be admitted and the admission given to the petitioner is proper.

(3.) Dentists Act, 1948 was amended by the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993, Act No.30 of 1993. By that Act, Section 10-A was added to the parent Act. Clause (1) of that Act, inter alia, stated that no authority or institution shall increase its admission capacity in any course of study except with the previous permission of the Central Government. On the date when the amending Act came into force, respondents 1 and 2 had permission only to admit one student to M.D.S. (Orthodontics) course. When they wanted to increase the admission capacity in 1996, respondents 1 and 2 should have taken the previous permission of the Central Government in terms of the provisions contained in Section 10-A of the Act. It is common case that respondents 1 and 2 did not apply to the Central Government for increasing the admission capacity to M.D.S. (Orthodontics) from one to two seats, but the admitted two students since the College was having entire infrastructure and teaching staff for the purpose. We emphasis this aspect in view of M.D.S. Course Regulations, 1987, adopted by the Dental Council of India. As per that Regulation, each Postgraduate teacher can properly guide two students. Dental Council allowed admission to one student in M.D.S. (Orthodontics). This was so done because there was a competent Postgraduate teacher in the institution. Since that teacher can safely coach two students to the course cannot be considered as illegal, but it was not in compliance with the statutory requirement. When second respondent institution is having sufficient infrastructure and teaching staff to coach two students for M.D.S. (Orthodontics), absence of prior approval for admitting second student can be termed as an irregularity. That irregularity cannot adversely affect the interest of the petitioner who has become a victim of action or inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2.