Wf .;.l.l..'"'"f ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH1 W.P.fClNo. &oS? Of 2010 PETITIONERS \\9/^ ^ y^y \0~ -^ o>v .-''' x'/ '->' »' 1) Pi5aish Khandelwal, aged 24 years, S/o. Shri Nandkishore Khandelwarl R/o. Cement House, Near Old Bus Stand, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) :2) Meenakchhi Boddun, aged 25 years, D/o. Sudhir Boddun, R/o. Boddun Nursing Home, G.E.Road, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS :1) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Health Department Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) :2) Director, Medical Health Education, Mantralaya Premises, Old Nurses Hostel, Raipur (C.G.) ^" ....^" :3) Union of India, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Dented Education Section) Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. :4) Dental Council of India, through the Secretary Mirza Aiwam-a-Galib Marg, Kotla Road, New Delhi :5) Chhattisgarh Dental College & Research Institute (run by Youth Foundation of India) through the Principal, P.B. <s No.25, Sundra Rajnandgaon (C.G.) :6) Dr. Shweta Singh, aged bout 26 years, D/o. Shri M.P.Singh, R/o. Qr.No. 179-B, Sector-1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f^^w^s^w.^^S^w., HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W. P. (C) No,2882 of 2010 Petitioner Dr. Shweta Siagh Versus Respondeuts S'tate of Chhattisgarh 8& ofhers W. P. (C]_ No. 3085 of 2010 Petitfoner-s Piyush. Kliandelwal & aaofher Versus Respondents State of Clihattisgarh & ofliers ^: -4 WRIT PE'TITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DB: Hon'ble Mr. I. M. Quddusi, & Hon'ble Mr. N. K. Agarwal, JJ. Shri Varu.u Sharma, Advocate for fhe petitioner m W.P, (C) No, 2882 of 2010. Shri H. B. Agai'wal, Seiiior Advocate with Ms Itu Rani Miikharji, Advocate for the petitioners ia W.P.(C) No. 3085 of 2010. Shri Yasliwaut Siagh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/ State. Ms, P'ouzia Mirza, Assistarit Solicitor Geueral for the Uuion of India aiid Dental Council of India. Shri Soiix-abh Daagi, Advocat^ for fhe respondent - Chhattisgarh Dental College & Research Institute. O RD B R (orall ( Passed on this 2nd day ofJuty, 2010 ) Per I. M. Ouddusi, J. 1. Heard leamed counsel appearing for fhe parties. 2. Writ Petition No. 3085/2010 ( Piyush Khaadelwal & aaother Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers) has beeu filed for recaUitig of fhe order dated 23.6.2010, passed by tliis Coiirt in W.P.(C} No. 2882/2010 ( Dr. Shweta Smgh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) an.d for quashuig of liie counseUiig notice dated 25.6.2010 fbr ^^^ M.D,S. course against fhe additional seats allotted by fhe Govt, of India, which was issued p'ursuant to the directions issued by fhis Court. The brieffacts offhe case are lliat fhe Chhattisgarh Dental College aLad Research Institute was graiited penB.issiou for starting M.D.S. course iti the specialties two seats of Periodontics aad two seats of Ortliodontics. The conditiou was tiiat ia nou-goverainental institiition 50% shaU be fUled up by fhe competent aufhority aiid remamio.g 50% by the inanagement of fhe in.stitutLon, on fhe basis of tfie merit, as per fhe Dental Council of India, Revised MDS Course Regulation, 2007 (As modi&ed upto 12th October, 2007), published in. tlie official gazette of India (Extraordiaasy). While grantiiig peniiission to atlot two seats of Periodoutics and two seats of Orfhodontics, it was mentioned by tlie order dated 28.5.2010, issued by fhe Under Secretary to tlie Govenxment of India, Miaistiy of Healfli and Painily Welfai'e (Dental Educatioii Section) ftiat in. case any admissions are made in. violation of the condition inentioned io. fhe permission letter, fhe action under Section 10 B of fhe Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993 wiU be in.itiated. The letter was sent by titie Dii'ectorate of tiie Medical Education, Chhattisgarh, Raipur on 9.6.2010 to flie Assistaat Director General (ME), Govermzient of India, Dii'ectorate General of Heatfh. Services (Medical Exainination Cell), New Delhi fhat tlie letter saiictionio.g four seats, as mentioned above, was received by the State Goveniment on 8U1 June, 2010, However, in view oftlie fact tliat the Honlale Supre.me Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 189/2010 (Naval Asija & Ors. Vs. Uiiiou oflndia & Ors.) has extended fhe counseliiig 6. 7. 8. m P,G, Coiirse to 30th Jime for this year only. They sought opmion for dorag tiie counselhig for remaiiiiag two seats ia the said course which was not done after 31st May. When no opiaion could be received, one of the caiididates uamely Dr. vShweta Siagh approached this Court by fltiag W,P.(C) No. 2882/2010 witli fhe prayer for a direction to tlie State Goveiiinient ~ Respondent No. 1 to condzict a counseUiig fbr adiaission ia Master of Dental Surgery (MDS) Course ia fhe respondeut No.4 iastitution i.e. Chhattisgarh Dental College 85 Research Institute, wifhra ftie tioie schedule prescribed by fhe Honl^le Siiprenie Court aad noiniaate two caadidates as per ihe appUcable provisions of law. The above matter (W.P.(C) No. 2882/2010) was taken up by this Court on 23.6.2010 aad a direction was given as au iatermi nieasure tfiat the State Goverament should follow the directions of fhe Honyble Sirpreme Court as fhe same is law of fhe laiid aiicl xaake arraiigenient for counselmg in. such a maaner so fhat fhe process of adinission of two seats shall be completed on or before 30.6.2010 i.e. fhe dead Une fixed by Hon'ble tlie Supreme Cozirt Pursuant to tlie above order ttie State GoveiTimeut cousidered fh.at the two seats came m the reseivation poHcy aad as such fhey issued notice for counseUng aod declared Shjd Naval Kuniar Jogi, who bek?ngs to Scheduled Caste and Dr. Shweta Siagh, who belongs to Scheduled Tribe. Their nuiabers in merit Mst were 10 aiid 11 respectively, to. the reser^ed qiiota tiiey were a.t serial No, 1 iii each categoiy. The Writ Petition No. 3085/2010 has been filed by Shri Piyiish Khaadelwal aad Ms Meenakchhi Boddxin who were at serial .^£S^;^ 10. 11. 12. 13. numbers 21 aiid 9 ni fhe nierit Ust, but fhe petitioner No. 1 belongs to general category aad petitioner No.2 belongs to O.B.C. categoiy. The laanagenient fiitfilled its quota oftwo seats ia respoiident No.4 tastitution aad reiaahiing two seats which were to be fiUed up by titie State Govermiient were also liUed up by ftie Maiiagezaent by giving admission to tliese two petitioners of W^P.No. 3085/2010 wiftiout niakiag aay counseling and also withoixt followiiig thie reservation poticy tih.ough fhe maaageiOLeut had no autliority to fill up fhese Iwo seats. We have been iiiformed fliat flie selected persons through fhe counseliag nainely Naval Kumar Jogi, Scheduled Caste aad Dr. Shweta Siagh, Scheduled Tribe have been given adnxission by the dental iastitute, though subject to tlie decisioii offhis Court. It is veiy surprisirig as to how the niaiiagem.ent has given adiaission without seekirig pennissiou fronj fhe State Govermiient agaiiist tlie quota for flie State Goveniinent when it was specifically directed fhat only managemeut is aufhorized to flU up 50% seats aad it has no jurisdiction to fill up reniamiag two seats unless fhe State Goverameut would give a green signal to tlie laaiiagenient or mtended not to fiU up Uie seats ofits quota. The contention of learaied counsel for the maiiagement is ttiat at the eleventti hour fhey received the extra sao.ction seats ice. on 33.5.2010 aiid th.at is why they had no otlier option except to fill up all flie four seats. But even tffhey received fhe san.ction letter offtie Sta.te Govemment for four seats ou 31st May, 2010, it was beyoncl tlieir jurisdiction to fill up more thaa 50% seats even at tliat time. However, when fhe Hon'ble Supreme Coiirt has extended the time /^ ^" 1 ^. °^ JJ '%-y 14. 15. till 30th June, tliere was no occasion for the management to give adniission to fhe caiididates, bypassiiigtiie reservation poUcy. Aiiy how, fiie State GoveiiiBient has made successful cozinselmg before 30t11 Jiine, 2010 wlii.ch was tlie dead .Une fixed by the Ho.ul)le Suprenie Co-urt aiid as such. flie action telcen by flie State Govemmeut is valid and tliese two persons (Naval Kumar Jogi, Scheduled Caste aiid Dr. Shweta Siagh, Scheduled Tribe), who got success ia counseliiig, followiDLg the resen/ration policy have got admission, fhe action of fhe State Govemnient is ai&ined aad the management of tlie institution is duty boiind fo allow theni to contiiiue flieii' studies. In view of tiie above fhe admissions iiiade by ihe maiiagemeut agaio.st ttie quota of fhe State Goveniment evea without foUowiag fhe reservation policy ond without seeknig any advice froia "the State Govertiiaent, are held illegal. In tlie result, tiie W.P.(C) No. 3085/2010 is dismissed aad the W.P.(C) No. 2882/2010 is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Thalmr ^