WP 4332/11 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4332/2011 Jawahar Medical Foundation's Annasaheb Chudaman Patil Memorial Dental College, through its Chairman Shri Bhaidas Chudaman Patil, age 74 yrs., occu.___ r/o Lane No.4, Dhule. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Medical Education & Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] The Maharashtra University o Health Science, through the Registrar, Wani Road, Nashik. ...Respondents... ..... Shri P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel h/f Shri Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.N. Kendre, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri R.N. Dhorde, Advocate for respondent no.2. ..... CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE: 20.06.2011 WP 4332/11 - 2 - PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking following relief: “(A) The Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of writ and thereby quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 10.06.2011 and may further be pleased to pass appropriate order of extending the time for the petitioner institution to admit the students for the MDS course in Public Health Dentistry for the academic year 2011-12 and issue appropriate orders for the said purpose.” 2] The petitioner is a registered public trust running medical college and dental colleges since 2002. The petitioner had applied for starting of MDS course in the speciality of Public Health Dentistry at their Annasaheb Chudaman Patil Memorial Dental College, Dhule for the academic session 2011/12. Their proposal / application dated 17.2.2011, however, was rejected by Dental Council of India (for short “the Central Council”) vide their letter/order dated 4.3.2011 on the ground that Dr.Arun Dodamani, who was appointed as Head of the Department, did not WP 4332/11 - 3 - possess requisite 10 years experience on the date of sending final recommendations to the Government of India i.e. 28.2.2011. The Government of India vide their communication dated 31.3.2011 informed to the petitioner the said decision of the Central Council. This communication, according to the petitioner, was received by them on 15.4.2011. They challenged the said communication and the decision / order dated 4.3.2011 of the Central Council in this Court by way of Writ Petition No.3629/2011 filed on 9.5.2011. On 27.5.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner, in Writ Petition No.3629/2011 submitted that the petitioner would make representation to the Central Council, pointing out the clause of the revised regulation that ten years teaching experience is not necessary. Such liberty was granted with direction to consider the representation on merits. The writ petition was ultimately withdrawn by the petitioner on 8.6.2011. The requirement of 10 years experience, according to the petitioner, was done away with in the revised Regulations of 2007. In view thereof and in view of the judgment of Kerala High Court in Writ Petition No.12080/2011 dated 29.4.2011, the petitioner approached to the Central Council on 31.5.2011, which, on the same day, granted permission for starting the MDS course in the speciality of Public Health Dentistry - 3 seats at their college from the academic session 2011-12. They were directed to complete the admission process as per the time schedule and insofar as admission to the academic year 2012-13 is concerned, it was made clear that it should be made only after obtaining renewal permission from the Central Government. It is against this backdrop, the petitioner approached respondent no.2 seeking extension of WP 4332/11 - 4 - time to admit students for the MDS course in Public Health Dentistry for the academic year 2011-12. 3] Admittedly, the cut-off date for admissions of the students for such courses was 31.5.2011. In view thereof, respondent no.2 vide their communication dated 10.6.2011, after making reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.306/2004 decided on 12.1.2005, refused to extend the time and permission to admit the students. We have perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in the said case so also the time schedule for submitting the proposals for registration and eligibility. The cut-off date for admission of the students was 31.5.2011. Apart from the observations, made by the Supreme Court in the afore- mentioned judgment, we find that the petitioner was not diligent enough to approach this Court or to the Central Council or to respondent no.2 in time. Admittedly, the petitioner was aware of the cut-off date, being 31.5.2011, since March, 2011 and that they were informed by the Government of India vide their letter dated 31.3.2011, the decision of the Central Council dated 4.3.2011. They filed Writ Petition No.3629/2011 on 9.5.2011 and withdrew the same on 8.6.2011. It was possible for the petitioner to approach Central Council once again, much before the cut-off date. However, they chose to approach the Central Council on 31.5.2011. Merely because the last date for accepting the application forms with late fee is 15.7.2011, that cannot be a ground for relaxing the time schedule fixed by respondent no.2 - University. WP 4332/11 - 5 - The Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) & another V/s Union of India & others (Writ Petition (Civil) No.306/2004) has observed that in case of the professional courses, it deserves to be emphasized that all concerned including Governments, State and Central both, MCI / DCI; colleges, new or old; students, boards, Universities, examining authorities etc. are required to strictly adhere to the time schedule wherever provided for. In the present case, according to the time schedule provided for by respondent no.2 vide circular No.1/11 dated 15.4.2011, the cut-off date for admission to the First Year post graduate degree dental course was 31.5.2011. 4] Keeping all these dates in view and considering the observations made by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.306/2004, in our opinion, the extension, as prayed for in the writ petition, cannot be granted. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (S.B. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.) ndk/c20611