Luxmi Bai Institute of Dental Sciences & Hospital v. Union of India and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Nov 2009CWP/13946/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Dental Council of India to conduct a fresh inspection of the petitioner's dental college within two months. The court allowed the petitioner to submit a compliance report for consideration regarding the extension of increased intake capacity, though it noted admissions had already closed for the current session.

What the court decided

AI extract

Luxmi Bai Institute of Dental… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

1 rV

¶2

422

¶3

1
CWP NO13946of2009 1
F
IN TI1E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB ANIO HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARII
DATE OF DECIS1ON2 2009
uxmi Bai Instutc of Dental Scienccs O IIospital ctoner
11
VERSUS
0 Union ofIndia and another e
C e e Rcspondents
C5
c CORAM
Z
IlONBLE MRJUSTlCE PERMOD KOHLl
t
e PRESKNT MrC Nagpal Advocatefor the petilioner
ct1 MrGurminder Singh Advocatc for
0
mm Permod KohliJ
Z
t1 he petitioneris an unaidcd notlninory institution establishcd in
the State of Punjabto impartdental cducation lhe Institution was
establishcdby the socictynalnelyMa Bhagwati Educational
Socicty The petitionerapplied for cstablishment ofthe College
foi I3IOSCoursc Ior 60 intakc capacily ln the ycar 2000 Thc petitioner
1 applied for granl of permissionto thc Govcmmentof lndia throughDcntal
Council of India for the academic session 20010 7Fhcpermissionto
establish the collcgeand commence the I3IOSCourse for 60 studcnts was
ranted for the academic sesslOll 20002 The petitioncralso appliedfor
Sahil Soni
2016.03.21 12:25
Batra Amit2014.04.05 12: 17TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNALaffiliation to I3aba1arid Universityof Health Sciences l7aridkot in view of I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document
PHHC CHANDIGARH

423

0 C C Z 0 C5 0 m Z

r n

CWP NO3946 of2009 2

r the grantof by^{theGovernlnent} of^lndiaIDCI The IJniversityalso grantedaffiliation The petitionercomlnencedthe^course and admitted60 studentsfor the academicsession 200102 upto200708 Thc petitioneragainappliedfor^lncrease of the number of seats from 60 to 100for thc academicsession 200809 Thc Ministryof Ilealth and Family Wclfare IOental Governlnent of India vide its letter dated 1792008 grantedperlnissionto the petitionerfor 100 seats for the academicsession 200809 This was however for^a periodof one year The petitioneradmitted 100 studcntswith the increasedintake capacityduring^{theacademicsesSlOn} 200809 The was Iiable to fresh for continuation of admission for the lllCreasedintake capacityfor the next academic session 2005e2010 An inspectlon^was carried out by the team of the DCI on 1A2009 for grant of permlssionfor the 2 year I3DS^course for^theincreased capacityof^{40seats andas} were many^as four deficiencies communicated to thc petitionervide letter dated432009 1nnexureP The petitioncr claims that the said deflcicncies^were removed and that thesedeficiencies did not exist and^a detailed rcply^was sublnitted byit vide its letter dated 2932009 P Some deficiencics^were againcommunicatedto thc pctitionervide letter dated 1062009 lnnexure P49 his letter^was repliedon 2962009 vide AnnexureI5 claiming^thatno ex^1StS e The petitioneryet received another communication dated 82009 Annexure P69pursuanttothe decision takenbythe 13xecutiveCoinmittee of lhc DCI in its lneetingheld^on 772009^{and asmany assixdeflciencies}

¶12

were poinlcd^out It was followed by another letter dated 23 72009 Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 Annexure P issued by the Under by the Under the Under Secretarytoto the Governmentof India I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

Batra Amit2014.04.05 12: 17Annexure P issued by the Under by the Under the Under Secretarytoto the Governmentof India TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH

424

m f 0 C C Z

0t1 03 mW Z tl

1 the petitionerfrom makingadmissionfor the lncreasedseatsfor the academic session 200920 10 on account of various deficiencies allcgedIyindicated to the petitionervide earlier lctter dated 872009 Even this letter^was repondedto bythe petitionerglvingthe details of the staff deployedby^{itwhichis said tobe deflcient} Learned counsel for the petitionerhas argued^{that allthe} in fact do not exist and this fact defcicncics pointedout bythe respondents has bccn comlnunicated and lndicated^ln varloUS rcplies^filed by^the petitioner^With regard^to deflciencyof various doctors it is statedthat at the time of inspectionsolne of the doctors^were on leave due to vacation and affldavits of such doctors^were also forwardedto the However the havc not extended the recognition for the academicsession 200C20 10 The has also relied upon orderspassedbythis Court in CWP Nos21 of2006^and420 of2006^and also^an ordcr passedbythe HighCourt Orissa dated 682009 to canvas that under slmllar circumstancesthe Honble Court had extendedthe recognitionand at the^same time directed for fresh inspectionThe Orissa I IighCourt has also made directions in similar^manner though^lnterlln ln 0 nature Thc petitionerhas also refcrred to^a similar order dated 392009 passedby^{this CourtinCWPNo12901of2009} In the aforesaidorder this Court passedfollowingdirectionsl

¶18

¶19

44n view of the above circumstanccs this petilion1S disposed^{ofwithadirectiontotheDentalCouncilof} India to conduct inspectionof the by 109009 and the Governmentof India considerand Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 pass^afinalorder by 1582009 on consideration of the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

Batra Amit 2014.04.05 12: 17 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH

425

0 C X C5

08 Co 7 Z Llu

CWP NO3946 of2009

inspectionreport^asalso bytaking^{into considerationthe} ofthe petitionerdated48009 P7 If^the of the 1Sto be rejectedlt shall be by passing^a spcakingand reasonedorder If is found eligible^lll all respects the Universitywill conduct the special counsellingand allocatc thc studcnts to the College^before 2592009 31

¶29

¶30

A detailedreplyhas been Oled by noDental Council of Indiathroughits Stressingthe need for qualityand standard education in the aforesaidmedical^courses 11^1S statedthat in the inspection conducted by the of the IOCI on l A2009 various deliciencies were pointcdout The Collegehowever could notremove the deflcienCY thoughreply^was received The reportof^the College^was considercdbythe I3xecutiveCommitteeof the DCI in its meetingheld^on 762009 and it^was rccommendedto the Central Governmentnot to^renew its for the increased capacityof 40 scats on account of deficiencyofdoctors in different flelds At thc^same time the petitionerwas askcd to furnish compliancr e port^The petitioncrdid sublnit colnpliancc report^{andonthalbasls afresh} inspectionteam was deputedand inspection was carried out on l72009 for verifying^the compliancerepon Joint inspectionreport^ofthe was considered in the meetingheld^on 772009 but the Council agalnrecommended^to the Central Government not^torenew its perlnissionon account ofpersistentdeflciencies which have

¶31

beendetailed in the replyCentral Governlnent^on the recommendationsof Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25

¶32

Batra Amit2014.04.05 12: 17TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNALthe DCI comlnunicated to the petitionerits decision not to renew the I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document PHHC CHANDIGARH

¶33

426

¶34

7 CWP NO13946 of2009 5

m 1Z 0 X C5 Z

X clj C0 wm Z a

for increasedcapacityfor the academicsession 20092010 vide llS COllllllunlcatlOll dated 23 3009 I2161^The have furthermentionedthat^no admissions^are after 3092009 ln vlew of^{thedirections} of Honble SupremeCourt in Mridul1 Dhar vse

¶39

Union of India200512 SCC 650

¶40

I havc hcard learned counsel for the particsin dctail he petitioner claims that all deflciencies pointedout by the Inspcctorshave been removed However the DCI which is entrustedwith the jobof carrylngout of^{thc IOental} Collegesdeputcdvarlous teams for the inspection and all the inspectionteams reportedvanous dcflciencles On account of

¶41

deflciencies the DCI recommendednot to exlend the for the second batch of the studentsto the I3DS Coursc for the increased seats for the Academic Session 200C2010 The Ccntral Government acceptedthc recolnmendationand informedthe petitionervide^Ietterdated 2372009

¶42

¶43

Il^is arguedon behalf of the petitionerthat the petitionerhas already rcinovcd thc dcficicncies The last report^scnt by^the petitioner lS datcd 3072009 It^hasbeen arguedon behalf of^thc pctitionerthat this report^{has notbeenconsldered} by^the DCIIGovernmentofIndia Obviously^{whentheGovernlnent} of^{Indiahaddeclined10renew} the rccognltion^Oll 23 72009 this colnplianccreport^was not put before lt having^bccnsent to the decision takcn by the Governmcnt of India^on the recommendationof the DCI ln 3 1 of^the judgment

¶44

in Mridul Dhars case supra the Honble SupremcCourt has fixed the r

¶45

Cuoff date^as 30

¶46

for tnakngadmissionto the medical^courses

¶47

Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25

¶48

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

Batra Amithe cut 6ff No di rcction can be issued to thc 2014.04.05 12: 17 date is alreadyover TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH

427

tlr

1 0 C X C5 X Z 0

O5 0 em Z Qm

CWP NO13946 of2009 6 to extendthe recognitionfor the academic^sesSlOll 20092010 lIl vlew of^themandate of^{the aforesaid} judgment^{Itishoweverdeemed} that the be directed to^reexamlne the entlreissue in the lightof the compliancr e port^dated 3072009^{and the} will deputca fresh team for the inspectionofthe^{institutioninthe} light^ofthc compliancercport^{andonthe basis ofthefresh} inspection^the may consider the questionof cxtension of increased intake capacityto the BDS^course from 60 to 100for the ncxt academicsession It lS pertinentto rnention that mostlythe controversyis raised duringthe period^{ofadmissionitwould} be ifthe matteris examinedand considcred bythe within^a periodoftwo lnonths In the event the petitionerhas removed the deflciencies and all the forlnalities the lnay grant for the increasedintakecapacityfrom the next academic^sesslon With the aforesaid observationsldirections thi s petitionis disposcd of

¶56

4
PERMOD KOHLII
JUDGE

¶57

I2e1102009 NIFK

¶58

l1 NOTEWhether^to bereferred^to Reporteror notlYES

¶59

b 1w
L0FAA
J4Ar
Ie
1
Batra Amit
2014.04.05 12: 17
TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL
PHHC CHANDIGARH

¶60

Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Luxmi Bai Institute of Dental Sciences & Hospital v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Luxmi Bai Institute of Dental Sciences & Hospital v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajender Kumar Tanwar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Amar Singh Vs UOI and Ors.

Sahdev Singh Baj Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kanwar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab Etc.Q

Ankit Garg Vs Punjabi University Patiala and Ors.

Bir Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.