SANJEEV LALL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are students of Budha Institute of Dental Science and Hospital, Patna. THEy have filed the writ petition for issue of direction to the respondents to hold examination of Master of Dental Surgery, hereinafter, referred to MDS for brevity, of the students for the session 1997-2000 who have already completed the course and are eligible for the examination and also for direction to published the result of the said examination.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are that petitioners passed Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) from different Universities. Pursuant to the admission notice published by the Budha Institute of Dental Science and Hospital, respondent No. 5, they took admission in MDS course in the year 1997 for the session 1997-2000. THEy completed the course from the Institution, respondent No. 5, which is affiliated to the Magadh University, respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 5 was granted permission by the Dental Council of India, hereinafter, referred to as DCI, after thorough inspection for imparting MDS course vide letter dated 1.9.1997, Annexure-3, copy of which was sent to the Government of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and also to the concerned authority including respondent No. 5. THE said fact was also confirmed vide letter dated 25.1.2000, Annexure-3/1. Earlier Magadh University, respondent No. 3, had cancelled the affiliation of respondent No. 5 and as such CWJC No. 3582/91 was filed which was allowed and the order of cancellation of affiliation was quashed vide judgment and order dated 10.11.1994, . THE DCI, respondent No. 4, vide letter dated 17.5.2000 directed respondent No. 5 not to admit the students in post graduate course till further orders. Respondent No. 5 has filed CWJC No. 6768/2000 for quashing the said communication in which petitioners and other have filed intervention petition and the matter is pending for disposal. THE petitioners in these circumstances have moved this Court for issuance of direction to the respondents to hold examination of MDS and publish the result as indicated above.

(3.) A separate counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 wherein it has been stated that in view of the amendment in Dentist Act, 1993 No. Dental College can start a new course without permission of the Central Government and affiliation by the University. Respondent No. 5 has not been affiliated for MDS course by the University and as such no examination has been taken.