http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3295  of  2001 Appeal (civil)  3296-3297        of  2001 Transfer Petition (civil)       437      of  1999

PETITIONER: THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUBHARTI K.K.B. CHARITABLE TRUST & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/04/2001

BENCH: M.B. Shah & S.N. Variava

JUDGMENT:

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J Shah, J.

Leave granted.

   Dental  Council of India has challenged the order  dated 15.9.1997  passed  by  the High Court of  Allahabad  [R.R.K. Trivedi  and  M.  Katju, JJ] in Civil Misc.   Writ  Petition No.25780  of  1997.   The  writ petition was  filed  by  the respondent-Subharti  K.K.B.   Charitable Trust ("Trust"  for short)  who  had established a Dental College at Meerut  and applied to the Central Government for permission to commence teaching  for  academic year 1996- 97.  It was alleged  that respondent-Trust   was  meeting   the  qualifying   criteria stipulated in the guidelines issued by the Dental Council of India  ("DCI"  for  short) regarding  establishment  of  new Dental  College having strength of 100 students.  Inspection Committee  of  the  Dental College of India gave  report  in favour of the establishment of college.  However, the second Inspection  Team while acknowledging that the Dental College has  satisfied  the  qualifying  criteria,  recommended  for starting  with  the  batch of 60 students only and  on  that basis  the  Central  Government granted  permission  to  the respondent  for  starting  college with  60  students  only. Hence,  respondent-  Trust filed writ petition in  the  High Court  for  a mandamus directing the Central Government  and the  DCI  to accord approval to the establishment of  Dental College  with  annual  batch of 100 students instead  of  60 students.   The  Court observed that from the second  report submitted  by  the Inspection Committee it appears that  the Institution  has  complied  with all  the  requirements  for admitting  a batch of 100 students, but strangely enough the comment  given  at the bottom of the second report that  the existing infrastructure in terms of land building, equipment and  staff  etc.  was adequate for 60 admissions.  The  High Court also held that no proper reason was assigned as to why the  DCI permitted only admission of 60 students instead  of 100  students when the Institution has complied with all the requirements  as  per  the guidelines of Dental  Council  of India  for  admitting 100 students.  The  Court,  therefore,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

held  that the authority has acted arbitrarily since despite the  Institution’s having all infrastructure and  facilities for  admitting 100 students as per the guidelines of  Dental Council, it was allowed to admit only 60 students.  Finally, the  Court  allowed  the writ petition by its  judgment  and order dated 15.9.1997 and its operative part reads thus:-

   "In  the present case, we find that the authorities have acted  arbitrarily since despite the petitioner’s having all the infrastructure and facilities for admitting 100 students as  per the guidelines of the Dental Council, it was allowed to admit only 60 students.  This action of the respondent is clearly  arbitrary and illegal...A Mandamus is issued to the respondents  to  accord approval to the  petitioners  Dental College  for  admitting  annually a batch  of  100  students instead of 60 students."

   That order is challenged in this appeal.

   Pending   hearing  in  S.L.P.    (C)  No.22222/97,   the respondent filed another writ petition No.8299/99 before the High Court.  In that petition, the respondent submitted that the  High Court vide order dated 15.9.1997 issued a writ  of mandamus  to the appellants herein to accord approval to the respondent’s  Dental College for admitting annually a  batch of  100 students instead of 60 students, but the  appellants were not allowing the students of the batches to appear into 1st  year and IInd year examination in 1998-99 on account of pendency of SLP (C) No.22222/97 against the said order.  The High  Court by order dated 26.2.1999 directed the appellants herein  to allow the students of B.D.S.  course of 1st  year and IInd year to appear in the examination provisionally and the  Director  Central  Medical Education,  UP  Lucknow  was directed  to  forward the names of the students in  the  BDS entrance test for 1998-99 forthwith.  The High Court further by  order  dated  17.4.1999  directed  the  DCI  to  get  an inspection  done  of  the  institution   in  question  by  a Commission,  which  consisted (1) District Judge, Meerut  or any  Addl.  Distt.  Judge nominated by him;  (2)  Principal, Medical College, Lucknow or any suitable person nominated by him;   and (3) Dr.  K.K.  Malhotra (member DCI) Professor in Lucknow  Dental College, Lucknow, and to submit report after inspecting  the  College.  Against orders dated 26.2.99  and 17.4.99,  DCI  preferred S.L.P.(C) No.8464-65 of 1999  along with  Transfer Petition (C) No.  437/99 for transfer of W.P. No.  8299/99 before this Court.

   This  Court passed various interim orders.  On 23rd July 1999,  after  hearing learned counsel for the parties,  this Court passed the following order:  -

   "Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to file an  additional affidavit alongwith the inspection report  of the  Dental  Council.  The High Court has appointed  another Committee  to  inspect  the college headed  by  the  learned District  Judge.   We  direct the Committee  headed  by  the learned  District Judge to send its report within two weeks. If  the  inspection  by the learned District Judge  has  not already  taken  place, the learned District Judge will  give notice  to both parties, complete the inspection as directed by  the High Court and send the report of inspection  within two weeks.  Copies of the report to be given to both sides.

   Issue  notice on the transfer petition.  Learned counsel for  the  petitioner  is permitted to serve  notice  on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

respective  learned  standing counsel for the respondent  in this court additionally."

   On  3.5.2000,  this  Court passed the  following  order: "For  the  first year batch 1998-99, the respondent  had  an order  of  the High Court for admission of students.   There was  neither  any  order  of  the Court  nor  of  any  other authority  for permission to conduct its own examination for admission  for  1999-2000.  But the respondent conducted  an entrance  examination for the two batches for 1998-1999  and 1999-2000.

   Prima  facie, we are not inclined to pass any orders  in favour  of the respondent college, so far these two  batches are  concerned.  The respondent college is direct to suspend classes  for  these two batches of 1998-1999 and  1999-2000, until further orders.

   The  next  question  is with regard to  the  first  year batches  1996-97  and  1997-98, who have now  completed  two years  and also the course for 3rd year and are awaiting the 3rd year examination.

   So  far  as admission for 1996-1997 batch is  concerned, permission  was granted by the Dental Council of India,  for 60  students  and  for the remaining 40 students,  the  High Court  of  Allahabad  appears to have granted  an  order  in favour of the respondent institution.

   So  far  as  the  first  year  batch  for  1997-1998  is concerned  there was no order of the Court for admission  of students.   But the respondent relies only upon an order  in respect  of 1998- 1999, and by implication assumed that, for 1997-1998,  it  must be treated that there is an  order  for admission,   and  proceeded  to   admit  100  students   for 1997-1998.

   It is contended that the students who have been admitted for first year batch 1997-1998 were from a list given by the Director   General,  Medical  Education,   UP,  as  per  the statement  made by the respondents before us.  The  Director General  of Medical Education, UP will verify and confirm to this  Court  whether  the  second  year  batch  of  students admitted  by  the  respondents   institution  for  the  year 1997-1998  was from the list furnished by the said  Director General,  on the basis of merit at entrance examination.  In case,  it  is found that the 1997-1998 batch of  first  year students  have  been  admitted  from a  list  given  by  the Director  General as above mentioned, then we could consider the  question  whether they should be permitted to take  the third  year examination.  As stated earlier, the two batches for  1996-97  and 1997-98 have completed the first year  and second  year  courses.  Question will be if they  should  be permitted  to  take their examination in  November-December, 2000.

   So far as the examination of May, 2000 in the third year is  concerned,  we are not inclined to grant  permission  to these  students  of  the first year batch of  1996-1997  and 1997-1998,  but question of their taking the examination  of May, 2000, will be decided at the next date of hearing after verifying  if  the 1997-98 first year batch was  from  merit list.   By that time, we will be having the fresh inspection report also.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

   So far as fresh inspection is concerned, there have been several  inspection officers appointed by the Dental Council of  India earlier.  There have also been certain inspections done under the orders of the Court by the District Judge and another  Committee which is supposed to have accompanied the District  Judge.   Now,  we  would  like  to  have  a  fresh inspection  report and a final one.  It will be necessary to inspect once for all, to ascertain whether all the necessary conditions for grant of permission for conducting the course for  the first, second, third and fourth year are  satisfied and  whether  all the necessary infrastructure is  available with  the  colleges in respect of the courses for  the  four years,  including  faculty and other staff.  We,  therefore, direct  a fresh inspection by a Committee as specified lower down in this order.

   The  inspection  will  be  made in respect  of  the  new premises  which  has  been constructed by  the  institution, which  is  situated at Meerut Municipality.  The  inspection team will also inspect the hospital, which is supposed to be attached to these institutions.

   It is made clear that the Dental Council will give their final   report   once  for  all  in  respect  of   all   the infrastructure  for  the conducting the Course for the  four years  exhaustively  without  keeping back any  item  to  be pointed out later.

   The  Inspection  team  will be nominated by  the  Dental Council  of India.  But the Chairman of this Committee  will be  the  Head  of the Department of  Dental  Sciences,  Post Graduate  Institute  of Medical Sciences,  Chandigarh.   The Inspection  will be conducted within a period of three weeks from  today  in  the  presence of  the  Principal  or  other representatives  of the institution who will cooperate  with the  inspection.  The report will be submitted to this Court within six weeks from today.  Copies of the report will also be  given  to the Dental Council of India.  Counsel for  the Council will make copies and give them to the respondents.

   We  may,  however, say that we do not approve the  order passed by the High Court, particularly, the orders passed on 26th  February,  1999 and 17th April, 1999 granting  various approvals  and the mandamus which was granted to the  Dental Council of India to grant approval.

   In  this  connection,  the  judgment of  this  Court  in Medical  Council  of  India v.  Stae  of  Himachal  Pradesh, (Civil  Appeal  No.5046/1998),  decided   on  16.2.2000,  is relevant.   The  following passages in that  judgment  deals with a similar situation.

   "We  find  force  in  the   submission  of  the  learned Additional  Solicitor General.  Since the refusal was  based on deficiencies for running a Medical College, it would have been  appropriate  for the High Court to have  remitted  the matter to the Medical Council of India or the Union of India for re-considerations even if it was of the opinion that the order  of  the Medical Council of India deserved to  be  set aside,  rather  than  to  have issued  a  writ  of  mandamus directing grant of permission.

   List  these  matters as part-heard in the third week  of July,  2000  for further orders that may be passed  in  this behalf."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

   Thereafter, on 2.11.2000, the Court passed the following order:

   "Pursuant  to  the  directions issued by this  Court  by order  dated 1.5.2000 the medical team headed by the Head of the  Department  of  Post   Graduate  Institute  of  Medical Sciences,  Chandigarh  had filed its report and pointed  out various  deficiencies existing in the Dental College set  up by the respondents.

Learned Solicitor General has taken us through the report and the deficiencies mentioned therein.

   Learned senior counsel appearing for the institution has made an effort to say that there is a valid explanation with regard to the deficiencies pointed out by the Dental Council of  India.  But we make it clear that we are not inclined to accept any explanation in regard to the deficiencies pointed out  by  the  inspection team.  It will be for the  team  to certify  to  this  court  that  every  deficiency  has  been rectified.

   Learned  senior  counsel appearing for  the  respondents states  that  all defects have been removed and  that  fresh inspection  can  now  be made.  We,  therefore,  direct  the Dental  Council of India to request the same team, as far as possible,  to  make  an inspection at an  early  date  after issuing  notice  to  the  institution and  conduct  a  fresh inspection  and  submit  its report within four  weeks  from today."

   At  the  outset, we would reiterate that  under  Section 10-A  of  the Dentists Act, 1948, it is the function of  the Central  Government to accord approval for establishing  the Dental  College and the High Court ought not to have  passed the  order  straightway according the approval  despite  the Inspection  Report  submitted  by  the  DCI  and  the  order refusing  to  grant  such permission passed by  the  Central Government.  In such cases, if the High Court finds that the order  passed  by  the  Central Government is  de  hors  the statutory  provisions  or  arbitrary for some  reasons,  the course  open  to it was to remit the matter to the  DCI  for re-inspection  of the establishment and for  reconsideration by  the  Central Government rather than to issue a  writ  of mandamus  as  quoted  above.  [Re.  (1) Medical  Council  of India  v.  State of Himachal Pradesh (2000) 5 SCC 63 :   (2) Union  of India v.  Era Educational Trust and Another (2000) 5 SCC 57]

   Further  in exercise of the powers conferred by  Section 10A  read  with  Section 20 of the Dentists Act,  1948,  the Dental  Council of India, with the previous approval of  the Central  Government,  had  framed regulations for  grant  of permission  to  set up new dental college,  by  notification dated  1.9.1993  published  in the Gazette of  India,  which inter alia provide as under:-

   "The  Central  Government on the recommendations of  the Dental Council of India, may issue a letter of intent to set up a new Dental College with such conditions or modification in  the  original proposal as may be  considered  necessary. The  formal  permission  will  be granted  after  the  above conditions   and   modifications  are   accepted   and   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

performance  bank  guarantees  for  the  required  sums  are furnished by the applicant.

   The   formal  permission  will   include  a   time-bound programme for the establishment of the Dental College.  This permission   will   include   a  clear-cut   definition   of preliminary  requirements to be met in respect of buildings, infrastructural  facilities,  dental and  allied  equipment, faculty  and staff etc.  before admitting the first batch of students.  The permission will also define annual targets to be  achieved  by  the  applicant to  commensurate  with  the in-take of students during the following years.

   The  above permission to establish a new Dental  College and  admit students will be granted for a period of one year and  will be renewed on yearly basis subject to verification of the achievement of annual targets and revalidation of the performance  bank  guarantees.  This process of  renewal  of permission will continue till such time the establishment of the  Dental College and expansion of the hospital facilities is  completed and a formal recognition will be granted after four  years  of the Dental College by the Dental Council  of India.   Unless  the  College fulfils the  requirements  for various  stages  of development to the satisfaction  of  the Dental  Council of India further admissions are liable to be stopped."

   Further   while   upholding  the   validity   of   these Regulations,  in  Medical  Council  of India  v.   State  of Karnataka  and others [(1998) 6 SCC 131, at 154] this  Court has  observed that these regulations are framed to carry out the  purposes  of  the Medical Council Act and  for  various purposes  mentioned  in Section 33.  If a  regulation  falls within the purposes referred under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act, it will have mandatory force.  Similarly in the State of Punjab & Ors.  v.  Renuka Singla and others [(1994) 1 SCC 175], Court held thus:  -

   "It  cannot  be  disputed   that  technical   education, including medical education, requires infrastructure to cope with  the  requirement  of giving proper  education  to  the students,  who are admitted.  Taking into consideration  the infrastructure, equipment, staff, the limit of the number of admissions  is fixed either by the Medical Council of  India or  Dental Council of India.  The High Court cannot  disturb that  balance  between the capacity of the  institution  and number  of admissions, on "compassionate ground."  (emphasis added)

   Hence,  it  is to be reiterated that law as  it  stands, Court’s  jurisdiction  to  interfere   with  the  discretion exercised by such expert’s body is limited even though right to  education  is  concomitant  to  the  fundamental  rights enshrined  in  Part III of the Constitution.  It is  equally true  that unless there are proper educational facilities in the  society,  it  would  be  difficult  to  meet  with  the requirements  of younger generation who have keen desire  to acquire  knowledge  and education to compete in  the  global market.  It is required to be accepted that for establishing educational  institutions, government machinery or funds are neither  sufficient  nor adequate and the necessity  of  the private  institutions cannot be denied.  However, since ages our  culture and civilization have recognized that education is  one  of  the  pious  obligation of  the  Society  to  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

discharged  by the ’learned’ and/or the State.  It is for us to   preserve  that  rich  heritage   of  our   culture   of transcending  the education continuously unpolluted.  In the recent  past, a notion has developed that it is a  religious and   charitable   object  to   establish   and   administer educational  institution.   This Court in Unni  Krishnan  v. State of A.P.  [(1993) 1 SCC 645 at 751 (para 197)] observed as  under:-  "Education  has  never been  commerce  in  this country.   Making it one is opposed to the ethos,  tradition and  sensibilities  of  this nation.  The  argument  to  the contrary  has an unholy ring to it.  Imparting of  education has  never  been  treated  as a trade or  business  in  this country  since  time immemorial.  It has been treated  as  a religious  duty.   It  has  been  treated  as  a  charitable activity.  But never as trade or business."

   At  present, there is tremendous change in social values and  environment.   Some persons consider nothing  wrong  in commercialising   education.     Still    however,   private institutions cannot be permitted to have educational ’shops’ in the country.  Therefore, there are statutory prohibitions for  establishing and administering educational  institution without  prior  permission  or  approval  by  the  concerned authority.   On  occasions, the concerned  authorities,  for various  reasons,  fail  to   discharge  their  function  in accordance   with  the  statutory   provisions,  rules   and regulations.   In  some  cases,  because   of  the  zeal  to establish  such  educational institution by  persons  having means  to  do so, approach the authorities, but  because  of red-tapism  or for extraneous reasons, such permissions  are not  granted  or are delayed.  As against this, it has  been pointed out that instead of charitable institutions, persons having means, considering the demands of the market rush for establishing  technical  educational institutions  including medical  college  or dental college as a commercial  venture with  sole  object of earning profits and/or for some  other purpose.   Such  institutions  fail  to  observe  the  norms prescribed  under the Act or the Regulations and exploit the situation  because  of  ever   increasing  demand  for  such institutions.   In such cases, permission is refused by  the authorities  without  there  being any  bias  or  extraneous considerations.   It  is, therefore, submitted  that  Courts normally  should not interfere with a decision taken by  the expert  body  such as Medical Council or Dental  Council  by straightway  issuing  mandamus  directing the  authority  to grant  approval or permission to establish such institution. Where  the  authority has refused approval, the  institution may  not  be well equipped to impart education and  may  not have  qualified  teachers,  staff  or  other  infrastructure necessary  for  running the institution.  If  permission  is straightway  granted  by the Court, society,  education  and ultimately the students suffer.

   Mr.   Harish  N.   Salve,   learned  Solicitor   General appearing  for the appellant further contended that the  MCI and  DCI being the expert bodies having powers to  supervise the  qualifications  or eligibility standards for  admission and   invigilation   to     prevent   substandard   entrance qualification  in  these  courses, judicial  review  of  the decision  of  these expert bodies is not excluded,  but  the courts  would  be slow to interfere in the decision of  such expert bodies.  For this, he placed reliance on the decision of  this  Court  in  Krishna Priya  Ganguly  and  Others  v. University  of Lucknow and Others [(1984) 1 SCC 307] wherein Court observed:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

   "...   whenever  a  writ petition is  filed  provisional admission  should not be given as a matter of course on  the petition  being admitted unless the court is fully satisfied that  the petitioner has a cast-iron case which is bound  to succeed  or the error is so gross or apparent that no  other conclusion is possible."

   He also referred to a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court  in  State of Maharashtra v.  Vikas Sahebrao  Roundale and  others [(1992) 4 SCC 435] wherein it was held that  the students   of  unrecognized   and  unauthorized  educational institutions could not have been permitted by the High Court on  a writ petition being filed to appear in examination and to  be  accommodated in recognized institutions.  The  Court observed  "slackening  the  standard and  judicial  fiat  to control  the  mode  of education and  examining  system  are detrimental to the efficient management of the education".

   Similarly in Guru Nanak Dev University v.  Parminder Kr. Bansal [(1993) 4 SCC 401], another three-Judge Bench of this Court  interfered with the interim order passed by the  High Court  to  allow students to undergo internship course  even without passing the MBBS examination.  It was held that "the courts   should  not  embarrass   academic  authorities   by themselves taking over their functions." In A.P.  Christians Medical  Educational  Society v.  Govt.  of A.P.  [(1986)  2 SCC  667]  this Court observed that the Court cannot by  its fiat  direct the University to disobey the statute to  which it  owes  its  existence  and the regulations  made  by  the University  itself as that would be destructive of the  rule of law.

   There  cannot  be  any dispute that normally  the  court should not interfere with the functioning of the educational institutions,  particularly,  expert bodies like the MCI  or the  DCI.  Still however, the question is posed that if such bodies  act  arbitrarily for some ulterior purpose,  whether the court has the power to set right such arbitrary exercise of  power  by such authorities.  We find the answer to  this question in the affirmative.  We also agree with the learned Solicitor  General that educational institutions should  not be  permitted to be commercialized for earning money, but at the  same time, the courts can do very little in this  field as it is the function of the expert bodies, such as, Medical Council  of India or the Dental Council of India.   However, citizens  would  loose  faith in such  institutions  if  the allegations  made  in this appeal are repeatedly  made  with regard to the Inspection Reports and granting of approval by the  Central  Government.   We leave this question  for  the Central  Government to deal with appropriately as it is  the function  of the concerned authorities to plug the loopholes and see that in such matters nothing hanky panky happens.

   In  this  case,  learned Solicitor  General  Mr.   Salve submitted  that  apart from previous inspection reports  and the  report  of  the  inspection team  constituted  by  this Court’s   order  dated  3.5.2000   pointing  out  number  of deficiencies  in  the Dental College,  certain  deficiencies were  still  found.  Therefore, the recommendations  of  the Dental  Council  to  the  Central Government  not  to  grant renewal  of the College and limiting students strength at 60 were  valid, just, proper and legal.  Finally, on 12.4.2001, when  the matter came up for hearing, it was brought to  our

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

notice  that still DCI has raised certain objections.  As it was  contended by Mr.  Shanti Bhushan learned senior counsel for the respondent that the College established by the Trust was  one  of  the best colleges in the  country  having  all infrastructure  required  as  per the  statutory  rules  and guidelines,  on  his request, Solicitor General  accompanied him  to  visit the College premises along with some  eminent doctors including the Chairman of the DCI.

   After being satisfied that the College is complying with all the stated requirements, during the course of hearing of the  matter,  learned  counsel for the parties  agreed  that considering  the facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed by this Court on 3.5.2001, following directions be issued:  -

   1.   As far as the grant of requisite permission to  the College  is concerned, the current status of the  facilities would  justify  grant  of  permissions to admit  up  to  100 students  in  the  first year, and renewals for  the  second year, third year and the 4th year B.D.S.  Course.  In so far as  the teaching staff is concerned, the College  undertakes to  ensure  provision of complete teaching staff as per  the regulations  and to the satisfaction of the Council and  the Central Government.

   2.  Subject to satisfaction of the prescribed conditions and conduct of the examinations, the final recognition shall be considered as per the regulations.

   3.  The Dental Council of India is directed to forthwith forward  to  the  Central   Government  its  recommendations consistent with the aforesaid.

   4.   The Central Government is further directed to grant appropriate    permissions/renewals     based      on    the recommendations of the Dental Council of India forthwith, in any  event, not later than a period of three weeks from  the date of recommendations made by the DCI.

   5.   The  order  directing suspension of  classes  shall stand withdrawn with respect to eligible students.  For this purpose,  eligible  students shall be of the  following  two categories-

   i.   Those  students  who have appeared  in  any  common entrance  test  held  by any State  Government  (whether  by itself or through any other authority) and have obtained not less  than  50%  of the total marks in English  and  Science subjects taken together at the qualifying examination or 50% of  the  total marks in English and Science subjects at  the competitive entrance examination.

   ii.   Those  students, other than those falling  in  (i) above,  who have obtained not less than 50% marks in English and  Science  subjects  taken  together  at  the  qualifying examination, the total number of such students not exceeding 15% in each batch.

   6.   The  respondent College is directed to give to  the DCI  and  the  B.R.  Ambedkar University, Agra,  within  six weeks,  the  list of the "eligible students" admitted by  it (other  than those allotted by the Director General, Medical Education,  State  of U.P.) and the marks obtained  by  such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

students  in  the  common entrance test held  by  the  State Government  and the qualifying marks together with the  mark sheets  of the CET and the qualifying exam.  The  respondent college shall only permit such "eligible students" to attend classes and appear in the examinations.

   7.   The  University is directed to permit the  eligible students  as  mentioned above, who have  attended  requisite number  of classes in accordance with the regulations of the DCI, to take the appropriate examinations in accordance with the rules of the University.

   8.   Director  General,  Medical   Education  may  allot further  students on the aforesaid basis in accordance  with the  rules, provided he is satisfied that sufficient time is available  prior  to  examination for  completing  requisite number of classes as per the regulations of DCI.

   Since  parties  have agreed to the above directions,  we order  accordingly.  But we make it clear that this order is passed  in  peculiar facts and circumstances of the  present case and will not be treated as a precedent.

   Now,  considering  the aforesaid agreed order, the  next question  pertains  to the students who are admitted by  the respondent-College  for the academic year 1996-97,  1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000.  It was submitted that as the College has  granted admission to hundred students for each academic year  despite  the fact that DCI has granted  permission  to admit only 60 students, the Court may pass appropriate order so  that the Institution does not take statutory  regulation for   granted  and  use   the  Educational  Institution  for commercial purpose of making money.

   As  against  this,  learned senior counsel  Mr.   Shanti Bhushan  submitted that the Institution has given  admission to 100 students on the basis of the order passed by the High Court  of Allahabad and, therefore, it would not be just  to hold  that  Institution  has  acted de  hors  the  statutory regulations.   He pointed out that this Court has not stayed the  operation of the impugned order passed by the Allahabad High Court.  It has been pointed out that respondent College functions  on ’no profit no loss’ basis and it would not  be in  the  interest  of society to drag the  management  to  a situation  where  it  may  be compelled to  close  down  the institution.   In  any  case, it would be a  great  loss  of public  money  besides jeopardising the career  of  students admitted.   For  this purpose, he referred to State of  H.P. and  others  v.   Himachal   Institute  of  Engineering  and Technology,  Shimla [(1998) 8 SCC 501] and submitted that in such  a situation either the seats must remain vacant and be wasted  or  the management must be permitted to  fill  those seats  on  a reasonable criteria adopted by the  management. He  submitted that an effective solution has to be found out as  observed by this Court, otherwise the Institution  would not   be  able  to  meet   the  expenses  for  running   the professional  course  and  would be placed on  the  Hobson’s choice  of either suffering huge losses or closing down  the Institution.   It  is his contention that  ultimately  after establishment of college, for running it, the finance has to come from those students as per the Scheme envisaged in Unni Krishnan’s case (Supra).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

   In  this  case,  Central   Government  undisputedly  has granted  approval  for  establishing Dental College  to  the respondent-Trust.   Only  question was -  whether  students’ strength  should  be 100 as contended by the Trust or 60  as contended by the DCI.  Hence, considering the peculiar facts of  this  case, particularly, the order passed by  the  High Court  of Allahabad on 5.9.1997 issuing a mandamus to accord approval  to  the  Dental College for admitting  annually  a batch  of  100 students instead of 60 students and the  fact that  this  Court has not stayed the operation of  the  said order  and also the further orders passed by the High  Court on  26.2.99  and 17.4.99 in Writ Petition No.8299/99, we  do not  think  that it would be just and proper to disturb  the admissions   granted   by   the    Dental   College.    Some irregularities  are taken care of in the afore-stated agreed order.   Further, it has been pointed out that the  students for  the  academic session 1997-98 were admitted much  after January  1998  and similarly, the students for the  academic session 1998-99 were admitted after June 1999.  The teaching in  the  college  has been suspended by this  Court’s  order dated  3.5.99.  As such, the students of the first  academic session,  uptil now, have only studied for a period of 2 1/2 years,  the  students of the second batch have  studied  for 11/2  years and the students of the third batch have studied for approximately 6-months.  Hence, it is ordered that these students  would only be permitted to sit in the examinations as per the regulations of the Dental Council of India laying down  the  requirement of attendance of minimum classes  for each year for the four years duration of the BDS course.

   In  view of the foregoing, the Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.22222 of 1997 and 8464-8465 of 1999 stand disposed  of  accordingly.  The Transfer Petition No.437  of 1999 is also allowed;  writ petition No.8299 of 1999 pending before  the High Court stands transferred to this Court  and is  disposed  of accordingly.  There will be no order as  to costs.