Case: Dental Council of India Vs. Anhad Raj Singh &amp; Another

The respondent No.1 filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, being Writ Petition (Civil) No.3515 of 2017, challenging the decision of the Dental Council of India (the appellant herein) rejecting the request for migration from M.N.D.A.V. Dental College and Hospital, Solan to Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College, Ludhiana, on medical grounds. The said decision vide Annexureto the writ petition was communicated to the appellant, which readsfor Migration from MNDA Dental College, Solan to Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College, Ludhiana in 2nd year BDS Course on Medical>I am directed to refer to your letter dated 10.2.2017 alongwith the other documents thereby requested DCI for your migration on medical ground/ill health and to say that the Executive Committee of the Dental Council of India in its meeting held on 09.03.2017 considered your letter referred to above and after some discussion and deliberation, decided asExecutive Committee has examined the matter strictly in consonance with the statutory provision of migration, prescribed in the Revised BDS Course Regulation, 2007, according to which migration is allowed only on two grounds i.e. (i) Death of supporting guardian & (ii) Disturbed conditions as declared by Govt. in the Dental College area, but in the present case, the migration has been sought for only on medical ground which is not permissible under the Regulation.Moreover, the Honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh atthe W.P.No.7836/2016, in the matter of Sh.Anand Rai v. Medical Council of India & Ors.has,directed DCI to strictly compliance to Regulation of migration without deviation therefrom, the request of applicant for migration from MNDA Dental College, Solan to Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College, Ludhiana in 2nd year BDS course may not be acceded to.With the above, the decision of the Executive Committee of the DCI is communicated to you for your information and ready reference.Yours faithfully,(Dr.Sabyasachi Saha)SecretaryDental Council of India.The learned Single Judge after adverting to the aforementioned communication, opined that the decision of the Dental Council of India was unexceptionable. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 25.4.2017. The respondent No.1 filed Letters Patent Appeal, bearing LPA No.336/2017 against the said decision. Additionally, the respondent No.1 filed interlocutory application, bearing C.M. No.2190/2017 to allow the appellant to join second year BDS Course at Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College, Ludhiana. The Division Bench while issuing notice on the Letters Patent Appeal vide impugned judgment dated 31.05.2017, granted interim direction permitting respondent No.1 to join the second year BDS Course in the Dental College situated at Ludhiana, i.e. Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College, Ludhiana and for appearing in the supplementary examination, which would be subject to the outcome of the appeal.3. This interim order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is the subject matter of this appeal. This Court while issuing notice on 9.10.2017, in the appeal, stayed the operation of the impugned order.

Court's reasoning:
6. After considering the rival submissions we are disposed to accept the argument of the appellant that the nature of interim order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is nothing short of a mandatory order. For, direction has been given to the appellant during the pendency of the appeal and more so, without even briefly adjudicating the concerns and objections of the appellant about the impermissibility of migration. We find that the High Court has not even adverted to the aspects noted by the appellant in the communication sent to the respondent No.1 whilst rejecting the request for migration. The said communication has been reproduced in its entirety in the earlier part of this judgment. Besides, the Division Bench has also not considered the efficacy of Regulation IV of the Regulation, 2007 and the two decisions of this Court referred to earlier. It is not necessary for us to examine the merits of the controversy required to be decided in the Letters Patent Appeal pending before the Delhi High Court.