Delhi High Court
Swami Vivekanand Subharti ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 8 December, 2016
$~33
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 08.12.2016
+ W.P.(C) 7340/2015
SWAMI VIVEKANAND SUBHARTI UNIVERSITY ... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhatnagar with Ms. Rupi Sagar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Mimansak
Bhardwaj, Advocates for respondent No.1.
Mr. T. Singhdev with Ms. Puja Sarkar, Advocates for
respondent No.2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
08.12.2016
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, by the present petition, seeks a direction to the
respondent - Union of India to accept the nomination of an elected
representative of the petitioner as a member in the Dental Council of India.
It is contended that the representation is sought under Section 3(d) of the
Dentists Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). It is submitted that
all other requirements of the said Act are satisfied.
2. Reliance is placed on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this
Court dated 26.11.2013 in WP(C) 7326/2013 titled Shree Guru Gobind
Singh Tricentenary University vs. Union of India & Anr., wherein, the
petitioner therein was granted representation in the Medical Council of
India under a similar provision i.e. Section 3(1)(b) of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956.
3. The respondent - Union of India has opposed the petition, primarily,
on the ground that the representation has not been granted in the Dental
Council of India from any private University. It is contended that since the
petitioner is a private University, hence, the representative of the petitioner
was not notified as a member of the Dental Council of India.
4. Section 3(d) of the Dental Council of India Act, reads as under:-
"3. Constitution and composition of Council.--The Central
Government shall, as soon as may be, constitute a Council
consisting of the following members, namely:--
***** ***** *****
(d) one member from each University established by law
in the States which grants a recognised dental qualification,
to be elected by the members of the Senate of the University,
or in case the University has no Senate, by the members of the
court, from amongst the members of the Dental Faculty of the
University or in case the University has no Dental Faculty,
from amongst the members of the Medical Faculty thereof"
5. In terms of Section 3(d) of the Act , from each University,
established by law in the States and which grant recognized dental
qualification, one member, who is elected by the members of the Senate of
the University and where there is no Senate of the University, by the
members of the Court, from amongst the members of the Dental Faculty of
the University and, further, in case the University has no dental faculty
from amongst members of the Medical Faculty thereof, is to be one of the
members of the Dental Council of India.
6. The terminology used in section 3(d) is "University established by
law in the States". The requirement of the said section is that it should be a
University established by law in the States. The contention of the
petitioner is that the petitioner is a University setup under Swami
Vivekanand Subharti Vishvavidyalaya Uttar Pradesh Adhinium 2008,
(Uttar Pradesh Adhiniyum Sankhya 29 of 2008) as passed by the Uttar
Pradesh Legislature and assented to by the Governor on September 04,
2008.
7. The said section does not make a distinction between the
Universities. There is no distinction in the said Act between private or
other Universities. The requirement is that it should be a University
established by Law.
8. The stand taken by the respondent - Union of India that they have
not notified any member from any private University is not substantiated by
the provisions of law. Since the Act does not make a distinction between
the Universities, the action of the Central Government in denying the
representation of the petitioner University in the Dental Council of India
cannot be sustained. Since, the Petitioner University is established by law
in the State, it satisfies the requirement of section 3(d) of the Act and is thus
entitled to a representation of one member on the Dental Council of India.
9. In similar circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Shree Guru Gobind Singh Tricentenary University (supra) has permitted
the representation of the petitioner therein in Medical Council of India. In
that case, there was a distinction made by the statute in University and the
Deemed University. However, such a distinction is not made by the Dentist
Act, 1948 insofar as the representation to the Dental Council of India is
concerned. In terms of Section 3(d), every University established by law in
the State and, which grants a recognized dental qualification, is entitled to
representation of one member in the Dental Council of India.
10. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent -
Union of India is directed to issue a notification including the name of Dr.
Nikhil Srivastava, the nominee of the petitioner University, in the list of
members of the Dental Council of India. The said Notification shall be
issued within one week.
11. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No orders as to cost.
12. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
DECEMBER 08, 2016
st
