Jodhpur Dental College pulled up for unauthorised admissions, BDS students allowed to retain degrees

"It is true that the admissions were taken by the private respondents in the BDS Course in the Jodhpur Dental College purely at their own risk and responsibility, yet the Jodhpur Dental College, being aware of their obligation not to admit the candidates without undergoing the CET, allowed such candidates to take admission, probably motivated by the money considerations. The Dental Council of India has rightly objected to these admissions, but does not seem to have taken any action against the Jodhpur Dental College as envisaged under the Dentists Act, 1948 and the regulations framed there-under. That apart, the private respondents have now undergone the entire BDS course, maybe under the orders of this court and it would be too harsh to denude them of their degrees. It would be a sheer waste of medical education," observed the HC bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar while deciding appeals by the Dental Council of India and All India Council for Technical Education challenging a 2023 order that had granted full relief to the students.

The Government of India launched a Special Scholarship Scheme (SSS) 2014-2015 for the students of the erstwhile State of Jammu of Kashmir. The said scheme provided that the students of Jammu and Kashmir who had passed the 12th Class Examination and had an annual income for the year 2013-2014 less than Rs 6 lakhs would be eligible for availing the benefit of the scheme, as a consequence of which, the concerned three students duly applied for the said scholarship at the facilitation centres established by the Government of J&K.

It was claimed by the students that having secured 88%, 56%, and 77.2% marks respectively, they appeared for counselling and were selected for BDS course at Jodhpur Dental College in the month of April 2014. After their selection, they got admitted and deposited the requisite fee with the Jodhpur Dental Colege and pursued the course.

Consequently, they passed the first-year examination in May 2015, and after depositing the requisite fee and charges, they were promoted to second year of BDS. While they were pursuing their 2nd year in college, they received notices from their college on 27.10.2015 mentioning that they had been discharged from pursuing the BDS course in pursuance of a decision taken by the Dental Council of India on 27.08.2015 on the grounds that they did not appear in the competitive entrance examination for undergoing the BDS Course. Aggrieved by this, the students approached the Jammu and Kashmir High Court seeking relief. 

Opposing the plea, the Union of India submitted that the scheme was launched for providing Special Scholarship to the students of J&K was admitted, subject to the verification of antecedents of the students and the eligibility criteria. It was also admitted that even though the students were eligible to avail the scholarship scheme, they did not adhere to the revised procedure adopted for the grant of scholarship for the year 2014–15, as two of the three petitioner students did not attend the counselling session at all for the allotment of seats. Even though one of the students had attended the counselling, she was allotted the Engineering Branch in Vaishno College of Engineering, and many students had taken admission in various colleges/institutions of their own, the State Government was requested to collect and verify the details of such students, and upon furnishing details of such students numbering 914, the benefit of scholarship in question was extended to them in the 16th IMC Meeting.

Meanwhile, the Dental Council of India stated that admission in the BDS course is governed and regulated by revised DCI/BDS Course Regulations of 2007, and the students obtained admission for undergoing BDS course in the aforesaid college in violation of the said regulations, though it was admitted that the respondents did figure in the list of students who had applied for availing Special Scholarship Scheme launched by the Government of India.

The J&K UT submitted that the launch of the scheme by the Union of India was admitted, and it was reiterated that the scheme was launched in the year 2011-12 in the year 2011-12 providing special scholarship for 5000 students per year (250 for medical students, 250 for engineering students, and 4500 for general degree courses), and that since in 2011–12 only 38 students availed the benefits of the scheme, as such the State Government was called upon by the Union of India to give wide publicity to the scheme so that the target of 5000 scholarships could be achieved.

During the year 2013-2014, after revision of the guidelines, 3747 students got the benefit of the scheme, and it was decided by the Union Government that for the year 2014-15 onwards, the entire process of admission under the scheme would be administered by All India Council for Technical Education through the process of counseling. Accordingly, AICTE conducted the process of counselling in the months of August–September 2014 and more than 2000 admissions were made. From the year 2014, the State Government entrusted the implementation of the scheme to the Secretary to Government of J&K, Higher Education Department, and consequently 2120 students were granted provisional admissions in various courses upon undertaking a counseling process. It was stated that the State Government had a limited role in the whole process and that since some of the students had obtained admissions of their own in the colleges of their choice, as such, they were not extended the benefits of scholarship.

After considering the students' plea, the writ court in its order dated 14.12.2023, allowed the plea and this judgment was challenged by DCI before the High Court.

While considering the matter, the HC bench perused the judgment impugned, and observed that the writ court allowed the plea by the students on the analogy of the judgment dated 26.03.2018 passed by a Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

The writ court, while allowing the plea, held that there was no reason to take a different view from the view taken by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 26.03.2018, as the students form and constitute one class with those students who stand protected by the Division Bench. The writ court also observed that the Division bench had not restricted the protection granted as a one-time exception only to the petitioners of that case, but had intended the same to all similarly situated students.

While adjudicating the appeal by DCI, the HC bench observed that other than respondent No. 1, one of the students, the other two respondents did not attend the counselling nor were they ever allotted any college much less Jodhpur Dental College and General Hospital, Jodhpur, Rajasthan without counselling/without having been allotted the aforesaid college.

"It is thus beyond pale of any discussion that all the three respondents took admission in BDS Course in the Jodhpur Dental College, Rajasthan without counselling/without having been allotted the aforesaid college. The admission of the contesting respondents was thus unauthorized and without any sponsorship by the AICTE or the Government of Jammu & Kashmir," observed the HC bench.

"This would mean that the private respondents having not been sponsored by AICTE/ J & K Government have disentitled themselves to the benefit of scholarship scheme promulgated by the Government of India for their admission are not in tune with the revised guidelines issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education for academic year 2013-2014," it further noted.

In view of the aforesaid, the HC bench observed that the only question that required to be determined was whether in the absence of any sponsorship or allotment of institute by the AICTE or the Government of India, the admissions taken by the private respondents and given by the Jodhpur Dental College are legally permissible and whether the impugned communications cancelling the registration/admission of the private respondents in BDS Course in Jodhpur Dental College were legally sustainable.

The court observed that with a view to maintain the standards of dental education imparted by various Dental Colleges/Institutions in the country, the Parliament framed Dentists Act, 1948. Under the Dentists Act 1948, the DCI was constituted and it is entrusted with a statutory duty to take all necessary steps as are required for maintaining the highest standards of dental education in all Dental Colleges in the country.

At this outset, the bench observed, "In terms of Section 21 of the Dentists Act, 1948, the Dental Council of India is empowered with the prior approval of the Union of India to frame regulations for laying down minimum standards of infrastructure, educational qualification, experience of teachers and other requirements for conduct of Dental Courses...It is not in dispute and is a trite law that the regulations made under Section 20 of the Dentists Act 1948 like the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India under Indian Medical Council Act are binding on all University and Colleges conducting Dental/Medical Courses."

"The regulations provide for admission to the BDS Courses only to the candidates who appear and get selected in PC/PMT and not otherwise. Admittedly, none of the candidates, i.e., the private respondents have appeared in Competitive Entrance Examination conducted for admissions to the BDS Courses. It is also not forthcoming as to on what basis and particularly when there was no sponsorship by either AICTE or the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, the Jodhpur Dental College gave admissions to the contesting respondents...Viewed thus, it cannot be said that the admissions taken by the private respondents in the BDS Courses in Jodhpur Dental College had any sanctity of law. The Writ Court has, by and large, accepted this stand of the appellants. However, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition purely on equitable consideration having regard to a Division Bench judgment of this court rendered in LPAOW No. 12/2018 c/w LPAOW 13/2018, whereby the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in OWP No. 701/2015 Sania Ishaq and Ors. Vs. Union of India, dated 7th June 2017, was upheld," it observed.

After going through the judgment passed by the Single Judge in Sania Ishaq and Ors, where the learned Single Judge, having regard to the object of the Special Scholarship Scheme approved by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs, as also the fact that no uniform procedure had been followed in sponsoring the candidates for admission to various courses, took an equitable view in the matter, the bench noted, "The learned Single Judge was of the view that the admissions taken by the writ-petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition were not in consonance with law, yet protected the same by way of one-time exception. Mind it, this judgment was also pertaining to the candidates who had taken admissions of their own in various colleges and universities for academic session 2014-2015."

In this case also, the bench noted that the students were admitted to the BDS course for the academic year 2014-2015 in Jodhpur Dental College, and of course, without having been sponsored by the AICTE or the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, "Their admissions are per se not covered by the Special Scholar Scheme promulgated by the Government of India," noted the HC bench.

The court also examined the role of Jodhpur Dental College in this regard, and how the college allowed the admissions. In this regard, the bench noted,

"It is true that the admissions were taken by the private respondents in the BDS Course in the Jodhpur Dental College purely at their own risk and responsibility, yet the Jodhpur Dental College, being aware of their obligation not to admit the candidates without undergoing the CET, allowed such candidates to take admission, probably motivated by the money considerations. The Dental Council of India has rightly objected to these admissions, but does not seem to have taken any action against the Jodhpur Dental College as envisaged under the Dentists Act, 1948 and the regulations framed there-under. That apart, the private respondents have now undergone the entire BDS course, maybe under the orders of this court and it would be too harsh to denude them of their degrees. It would be a sheer waste of medical education."

"We cannot lose sight of the fact that when the private respondents took admissions in BDS Course in Jodhpur Dental College, they were only 10+2 and had hardly attained majority," it also noted.

Regarding the role of the Dental College, the bench noted that

"In such circumstances, and particularly in view of no clear stipulation contained in the advertisement notification issued by AICTE for sponsoring candidates for admissions under special scholarship package promulgated by the Government of India, the private respondents took a risk and pursued their BDS Course in the Jodhpur Dental College. The college which was under an obligation not to admit such students, also admitted and permitted them to pursue the course."

Therefore, the Court concluded that the students should be granted relief as there was no doubt that they possessed the eligibility qualification to seek admission. However, it clarified that they would not be entitled to the benefit of Scholarship under the Special Scholarship Scheme.

"In these circumstances, asking the appellants to release scholarship in favour of the contesting respondents would be tantamount to putting premium on their misadventure and wilful violation of the scheme. Purely on the grounds of equity and deriving inspiration from the earlier Division Bench judgment of this court, we intend to invoke the equitable jurisdiction vested in this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India and provide that the admissions of the private respondents in the BDS Course in the Jodhpur Dental College shall be treated as valid admission and direct the Principal, Dental College Jodhpur, Rajasthan to issue Degree Certificates in favour of the contesting respondents provided they have successfully undergone, completed and qualified the BDS Course, the communications of appellant-Dental Council of India dated 27th of October 2015 issued in respect of the contesting respondents, notwithstanding," it further held.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/jammu-kashmir-hc-bds-candidates-311615.pdf

Also Read: NEET PG candidates who join seats upto round 2 of AIQ or State quota counselling cannot participate in further rounds under any quota: HC