“On perusal of both the Regulations, unambiguously it is deciphered that the student, who does not pass in two subjects will not be permitted to go for 3rd year. The term supplementary examination in clause 7.6 cannot be of all the subjects, it could be only of one. Thus the petitioner cannot be permitted to take the benefit of alleged ambiguity and clause 7.6, ibid. BDS course and MBBS course are totally different where the syllabus of BDS and the procedure of education is governed by rules and regulations promulgated by the Dental Council of India. The amendment cannot be sought for the convenience and benefit of the petitioner as has been sought to be challenged in the manner and mode, as indicated above. The framers of the Regulations are well aware that the accuracy and intelligence for treating the patients are much more important than the normal practice. Dentists are required to adopt procedure while treating a patient as all nerves of the teeth are connected to the brain. Thus the regulation in not permitting the student, who failed in two subjects to the next year is fully justified and do not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly, when this Court cannot assume the role of an expert, in such circumstances. I also do not find any fallacy, illegality or jurisdictional error in the regulation.
