IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 7565 of 2008 Between: 1 Dr. Rajani Kumar G, S/o. Sri G. Sanyasi Naidu, R/o. H.No. 17-1-391/S/426, Singareni Colony, Saidabad (Post), Hyderabad. 2 Dr. G. Vikram Reddy, S/o. G. Damodar Reddy, GMS Dental Clinic, Prakasam Bazar, Nalgonda. 3 Dr. Naresh, S/o. Lingamurthy, R/o. H.No. 11-2-47-6/1, Bharat Nagar, Siddipet, Karimnagar. 4 Dr. Vikas C Desai, S/o. Dr. C.D. Desai, Desai Dental Clinic, T.M.C. Complex, Shop No. B-2, Near Government Hospital, Talikoti, Karnataka. 5 Dr. Nikhat Fatima, D/o. S.T. Hyder, R/o. H.No. 12-12-244/A, Haji Colony, Arab Mohalla, Raichur -584 101. 6 Dr. E. Srinivasulu, S/o. E. Hanumaiah, R/o. Q.No. 82, APHB, Prashant Nagar Colony, Karimnagar. 7 Dr. Sanjay Ittoop, R/o. H.No. 1-4-190/5, Bhaskara Rao Nagar, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad. (All the Petitioners are Studying MDS Course In the Kamineni Institute of Dentral Sciences, Narketpally, Nalgond ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, Rep. by its Registrar. 2 The Governmentof Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Sciences Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Principal, Kamineni Institute of Medical Sciences, Narkeptally, Nalgonda District. 4 The Dental Council of India, New Dehi, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to setaside the Communication Bearing Ref.No. E5/MDS/P-I&II/1038/08-1, dated 12-3-20078 in so far as MDS part-I Examination on the file of the 1st respondent and by declaring the action of the 1st respondent as illegal and contrary to the Regulations of Univeristy Examinatin of the Revised MDS Course Regulation 2007 framed by the Dental Council of India and Consequently direct the 1st respondent to conduct the University Examination for the MDS 2007-2008 at the end of the Academic Year 2009-2010 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VENKAT RAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU The Court made the following ORDER : The writ petitioners are all students who are prosecuting the Post-Graduate Dental Sciences courses in various specialities in the Dental Colleges which are affiliated to the 1st respondent University. When the 1st respondent University has published the notification dated 12.3.2008 requiring all the colleges to notify the time table for the MDS, Part I (Basic Sciences) examinations to be held on 6.5.2008, they filed the present writ petition questioning the correctness of this notification issued by the 1st respondent as it is contrary to the Revised MDS course Regulations, 2007 framed by the Dental Council of India and therefore they prayed for the examinations to be conducted only at the end of the Academic Year 2009- 2010. The petitioners have all been granted admission into MDS course during the current academic year 2007-2008. Consequently, the 1st respondent University proposed to conduct Paper I Basic Sciences examination for them on 6.5.2008 and for the said purpose they have published the impugned notification. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that in terms of Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948, the Dental Council of India with the previous sanction of the Central Government framed Revised MDS course Regulations, 2007, which are also gazetted on 20.11.2007. In terms of Regulation 1(ii), these regulations shall come into force from the date of their publication in the official gazette and hence they have come into operation on 20.11.2007. These regulations have specified that there shall be one examination at the end of the three years. These regulations have also pointed out as to how the marks have to be distributed between theory, practical and clinical examinations as well as viva voce. Each student was required to appear for four papers, each carrying a maximum of 75 marks while practical and clinical examinations will be for 200 marks and viva voce for 100 marks. The syllabus distribution among the four papers in various specialties also been provided for. Broadly, there are seven speciality courses offered for study at the post-graduate level. In terms of the Revised MDS Course Regulations, 2007, students are required to appear for the examination only at the end of the three year duration of the course and not half way through. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the attempt of the 1st respondent University in seeking to conduct the examination for Paper I – Basic Sciences at the end of the 1st year of the three year MDS Course is therefore in conflict with and contrary to the regulations framed by the Dental Council. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka[1], learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that any action on the part of the 1st respondent – University to conduct the examinations in contravention of the regulations framed by the Dental Council of India will be an unconstitutional act as the entire sphere is covered by the Dentists Act which is enacted by Parliament and consequently, the 1st respondent University shall be refrained from conducting the examinations. Sri Nagarjuna Babu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University would submit that the Revised MDS Regulations framed by the Dental Council of India were in fact notified on 20.11.2007 by which time the academic session for the year 2007-2008 had already commenced and it way half way through. The writ petitioners and other students have all been admitted for the academic session 2007-2008 and that they are following the pattern as per the previous regulations which were in force till the new set of regulations were notified on 20.11.2007. It is not in dispute that as per the previous regulations, the post graduate students are liable to be tested and examined at the end of the 1st year of their three year post-graduate course in Paper I – Basic Sciences. Only in the rest of the subjects, they will be tested at the end of the three year course. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, the action of the 1st respondent University in notifying the schedule for examinations on 6.5.2008 is in conformity with the regulations which are in force at the time when the writ petitioners and others got admitted into MDS course for the academic session 2007-2008. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the course content has been thoroughly revised by the new regulations. Hence, very appropriately the Dental Council of India called them the Revised MDS Regulations. As against the 11 subjects which are sought to be taught at the post-graduate level as per the previous regulations, now the students are sought to be taught 13 subjects. There is also a change in the course content itself between the previous regulations and the new regulations. The current batch of students are therefore not taught in accordance with the new regulations, but they were guided in the matter of prosecuting their post-graduate studies by what has been set out in the previous regulations which held the field at the time of their admission. The learned Standing Counsel therefore would submit that the action of the University in conducting Paper-I – Basic Sciences examination on 6.5.2008 is therefore unexceptionable. On behalf of the Dental Council of India, Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, upon instructions, submits that the Dental Council of India is also of the opinion that the Revised MDS Regulations notified on 20.11.2007 shall be rendered applicable from the academic session 2008-2009 onwards as by the time these regulations could be got notified, the academic session for the year 2007-2008 had already commenced. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. The learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely right in pointing out that the MDS Revised Regulations published by the Dental Council of India have got to be followed by all institutions in the country where Post-graduate Dental Sciences courses are offered for training. There is no further freedom available to such institutions to make any departure from or giving effect to, or in complying with and conducting strictly in accordance with the regulations framed by the Dental Council of India. By the very composition and constitution and the nature of powers conferred on the Dental Council of India, it is an expert body, on the subject. It has the right to prescribe and determine the standards which have got to be necessarily adopted and followed by every institution where post-graduate courses are offered in Dental faculty. However, it will be relevant to notice that the Revised MDS Regulations were notified by the Dental Council of India on 20.11.2007, by which time the current academic session 2007-08 had already commenced. Students like the petitioners and others have all been admitted during the current academic session. Therefore, their training, their course content and curriculum would have been the same as was followed and adopted in accordance with the regulations which were holding the field at the time of their admission into the said course. No institution, much less the 1st respondent would have anticipated that there will be further improvements both quality wise and quantity wise in the matter of imparting training and research for the post-graduate dental students, as was now attempted at by the Revision MDS Regulations, 2007. In this view of the matter, the students have all been imparted teaching and training only in accordance with the course content which is prescribed as per the regulations holding the field at the time of their admission. The students like the petitioners could not have been trained in accordance with the revised MDS regulations which were published on 20.11.2007. Therefore, the 1st respondent University cannot be faulted to have carried on the academic calender in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Dental Council of India which were holding the field as at the time when the students were admitted for the academic session 2007-08. It could have been altogether different if the admission process to the post-graduate dental sciences has taken place any time on or after 20.11.2007. In this view of the matter, the fact situation prevailing as in the instant case is slightly at variance and hence the action of the 1st respondent University in trying to conduct the Paper I – Basic Science examination on 6.5.2008 cannot be faulted. But, at the same time, the 1st respondent University should have made this position clear to the students through the impugned notification itself. It had left the said information vaguely for the imagination of the students. The time for submission of the applications is now drawing to a close by 22.4.2008. Since this writ petition has been pending ever since 8.4.2008 and had undergone adjournments twice to enable the learned Standing Counsel to obtain necessary instructions in the matter, I direct the 1st respondent University to entertain the applications of all students that might be submitted right up to 25.4.2008 instead of refusing to receive such applications beyond 22.4.2008. I do not find any illegality behind the impugned notification and hence the writ petition is disposed of subject to the direction issued above to the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners has entertained an apprehension as to whether the examiners to whom the task of setting forth the question papers that will be entrusted by the 1st respondent University will bear in mind that the current batch of students are being tested with reference to the course content and syllabus contained in terms and in accordance with the regulations which were holding the field prior to publication of the Revised MDS Course Regulations on 20.11.2007. I have no doubt in my mind that the 1st respondent University will take all such steps and measures which are necessary including supplying to the prospective examiners the syllabus component in which the current batch of post- graduate dental sciences students are taught by the institutions affiliated to it. -------------------------------- Nooty RamamohanaRao, J Knk 18-04-2008 ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} [1] AIR 1998 SC 2423