High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-06-22Petition allowed; Ext.P9 quashed; the 1st respo...

The Principal, K.M.C.T. Dental College, Manassery, Kozhikode v Dental Council of India and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 11954 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Gopinath P.
Judgment Date: 2023-06-22
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed; Ext.P9 quashed; 1st respondent directed to register the name of the additional 5th respondent as a candidate validly admitted during the academic year 2022-23.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; Ext.P9 quashed; the 1st respondent directed to register the additional 5th respondent as a valid admitted student for 2022-23.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The Principal, KMCT Dental College, Manassery, Kozhikode

Respondents

Dental Council of India
Kerala University of Health Sciences
Commissioner for Entrance Examinations
Union of India
Addl.R5 Kum. Diya Fatima

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.M. Saneer
• Tony George Kannathanam

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Prakash M P
• Sri P. Sreekumar
• Sri V.K. Sunil
• Senior Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Principal of KMCT Dental College, Manassery, Kozhikode, filed WP(C) 11954/2023 challenging the Dental Council of India's refusal to modify the admitted student list for the BDS course for the academic year 2022-23. The petitioner submitted that, for 2022-23, 93 students were allotted to KMCT by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, and an additional candidate (the 5th respondent) joined on 28 December 2022. The government fixed 14 January 2023 as the last date for admission, which was extended to 14 January 2023. The college reported the admitted students to the University and to the 3rd respondent; however, due to an inadvertent omission, it did not report the details of the 5th respondent to the Dental Council of India, even though the details had been uploaded and informed to the University and the 3rd respondent. Ext.P9, the DCI order, refused to modify the list on the ground that the last date had expired. The petitioner contended that the admission of the 5th respondent occurred on 28 December 2022, before the cut-off, and the omission was inadvertent; thus, relief under Article 226 was warranted. The court held that the non-reporting was an inadvertent error and, distinguishing Priya Gupta, allowed the petition. Ext.P9 was quashed, and the 1st respondent was directed to register the 5th respondent as a valid admitted student for 2022-23, thereby upholding the college’s remedy to rectify the record. This decision emphasizes that writ relief is available to correct administrative lapses where an admission predates the cut-off date.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Locus standi doctrine

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that 93 students were allotted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, and the 5th respondent joined on 28 December 2022. The last date for admissions was 14 January 2023, with extensions thereafter. The college reported admissions to the University and to the 3rd respondent, but an inadvertent omission prevented reporting the 5th respondent to the Dental Council of India, although the details were uploaded. Ext.P9 (DCI order) declined to modify the list on the ground that the last date had expired. The petitioner contended that the 5th respondent’s admission occurred before the cut-off, the reporting lapse was inadvertent, and there was locus standi to seek relief under Article 226. The Court should therefore rectify the record and register the 5th respondent.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (2012) 7 SCC 433 mandates that last dates for admission cannot be extended, and no modification can be made after the cut-off. They contended that the petitioner was not an aggrieved party and had no locus standi. They noted that the University and 3rd respondent had records indicating admission within the cut-off and that the DCI’s Ext.P9 should stand. The respondents urged dismissal or rejection of the petition, maintaining the last-date principle and the need to preserve the integrity of the admission process.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others	[(2012) 7 SCC 433]	Distinguished	The Court cites Priya Gupta to state that there cannot be admissions or regularizations after the last date; however, in this case the admission occurred before the cut-off and the reporting lapse was inadvertent, so the case is distinguished.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against The Principal, K.M.C.T. Dental College, Manassery, Kozhikode v Dental Council of India and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.`** ## **`THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1945`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 11954 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` THE PRINCIPAL, K.M.C.T. DENTAL COLLEGE, MANASSERY.P.O. KOZHIKODE – 673 602. BY ADVS. P.M.SANEER TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTLA ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110 011.` - `2 KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE. P.O., TRICHUR – 680 596.` - `3 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM – 695 001.` - `4 UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAWAN, MAULANA AZAD ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110 011.` - `5 ADDL.R5 KUM. DIYA FATHIMA, 1ST YEAR BDS STUDENT, KMCT DENTAL COLLEGE, MANNASERRY.P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673 602 [ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20/04/2023 IN I.A.1/2023 IN WP(C) 11954/2023] BY ADVS. SRI.PRAKASH M P, SC SRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SC SRI.V.K.SUNIL, SR.GP` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C) NO. 11954 OF 2023 2 ## JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Principal of the K.M.C.T Dental College, Manassery, Kozhikode. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the rejection of the request made by the petitioner to correct a mistake that occurred while uploading the details of the students who have been admitted to the college for the BDS course during the academic year 2022-23. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the instructions of Adv.P.M.Saneer, would submit that for the academic year 2022-23, several students were allotted for admission to the college of the petitioner by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, the 3[rd] respondent herein. It is submitted that 93 out of the students allotted by the 3[rd] respondent had joined the college after completing the necessary formalities. It is submitted that the additional 5[th] respondent was also one of the students, who was allotted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations and she too joined the college on 28.12.2022. It is submitted that 28.12.2022 was the last date initially fixed by the Government of India for admission to BDS WP(C) NO. 11954 OF 2023 3 courses for the academic year 2022-23 and this date was later extended upto 14.01.2023. It is submitted that the petitioner was required to inform the details of admissions granted following the allotment by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations to the 3[rd] respondent, the University and to the Dental Council of India. It is submitted that in the case of the additional 5[th] respondent, by an inadvertent omission, the petitioner failed to report the details of her admission to the Dental Council of India though the details had been uploaded and thus informed to the 2[nd] respondent University as also to the 3[rd] respondent, Commissioner for Entrance Examinations. It is submitted that the petitioner therefore filed Ext.P8 request before the Dental Council of India, which was rejected by Ext.P9 essentially on the ground that no further modifications could be made to the list of students admitted as the last date for admissions had expired on 14.01.2023 and directing the discharge of the additional 5[th] respondent from the course. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Dental Council of India would refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others WP(C) NO. 11954 OF 2023 4 [(2012) 7 SCC 433] to contend that when a last date is fixed for admission of students by the Government of India to various professional courses, the Dental Council of India cannot extend the last date of admission in any manner. It is submitted that this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot extend the last date fixed for admission and this is also a fairly well settled legal proposition. The learned Standing Counsel for the Dental Council of India would also submit that the petitioner is not the aggrieved person and no writ petition is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent University and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3[rd] respondent do not dispute that the College had informed the details of the admission granted to the additional 5[th] respondent on or before 14.01.2023, which was the last date fixed for admission. 5. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Dental Council of India, the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent University and the learned Senior Government Pleader WP(C) NO. 11954 OF 2023 5 appearing for the 3[rd] respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The facts of the case clearly show that the non reporting of the details of the additional 5[th] respondent to the Dental Council of India can only be an inadvertent mistake. The students, including the additional 5[th] respondent were allotted to the College of the petitioner by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations. The petitioner had also informed the details of admission to the 2[nd] respondent University and to the 3[rd] respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations on or before the last date fixed for admissions. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Priya Gupta (supra) only indicates that there cannot be any admissions granted or regularized after the last date of admission. It is clear from the facts of the present case that admission was actually granted to the additional 5[th] respondent on 28.12.2022 itself, which is well before the last date fixed for admission, which was on 14.01.2023. The inadvertent error on the part of the petitioner to report the same to the Dental Council of India on or before 14.01.2023 cannot treated as similar to a case where no admission was granted prior to the last date fixed for admission. The mistake is admittedly in WP(C) NO. 11954 OF 2023 6 the hands of the petitioner College. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the Dental Council of India that the petitioner has no locus standi to approach this court by filing the above writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be accepted. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent University and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 3[rd] respondent – Commissioner for Entrance Examinations makes it evident that admission was granted to the additional 5[th] respondent before the cut off date and the details of the admission were also informed to the University and to the 3[rd] respondent. In answer to a specific query from this Court, it is the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent University that the details of admission had been uploaded electronically as is evident from Ext.P6 and therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the additional 5[th] respondent was actually granted admission prior to the cut off date. For all these reasons, this writ petition is liable to be allowed. Therefore, Ext.P9 will stand quashed and 1[st] respondent is directed to register the name of the additional 5[th] respondent as a candidate WP(C) NO. 11954 OF 2023 7 validly admitted during the academic year 2022-23. Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE DK WP(C) NO. 11954 OF 2023 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11954/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1A COPY OF THE ADMISSION SLIP DATED 28- 12-2022 ISSUED BY THE ENTRANCE COMMISSIONER. Exhibit P2A COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28-12- 2022 SUBMITTED BY DIYA FATIMA.K.V., TO THE COLLEGE. Exhibit P3A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO CEE/717/2022-TA4 DATED 24/12/2022 ISSUED BY THE ENTRANCE COMMISSIONER. Exhibit P4A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO KMCT/DC/2022/243 DATED 28-12-2022 SENT BY THE COLLEGE TO THE COMMISSIONER. Exhibit P5A COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.DCI/ADMISSION/ADMSN/NEETUG/BDS/014/ 2022-23/2022/8556 DATED 27/12/2022 AND THE TIME SCHEDULE ISSUED BY THE DCI. Exhibit P6A COPY OF THE REGISTRATION REPORT GENERATED AND DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE UNIVERSITY Exhibit P7A COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES ADMITTED BEFORE 14-1-2023, UPLOADED TO THE DCI Exhibit P8A COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 22-2-2023, SENT TO THE DCI. Exhibit P9A COPY OF THE ORDER NO DCI/ADMISSION/ADMSN/BDS/CLG/300/2022- 23/2023/10879 DATED 17-3-2023 ISSUED BY THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA. RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R1 (1)TRUE COPY OF THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INIDA CIRCULARS DATED 14.10.2022, 02.12.2022 20.12.2022 AND 27.12.2022 ANNEXURE R1 (2)TRUE COPY OF THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA LETTER DATED 17.03.2023 ```