Madras High Court
J. Drusillin Joomy vs The Dental Council Of India on 4 February, 2021
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 4/2/2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
and
M.P.No.20958 of 2020
J. Drusillin Joomy ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Dental Council of India
rep. By its Secretary
Aiwan-E-Galib Marg
Kolta Road, Temple Lane
New Delhi 110 002.
2. The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University
rep. By its Registrar
69 Anna Salai, Guindy
Chennai 600 032.
3. The Principal
Saveetha Dental College
Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical
Sciences University (SIMATS)
162 Poonamallee High Road
Chennai 600 077.
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
4. The Principal
Sri Mookambika Institute of Dental Science
Padanilam, Kulasekharam
Kanyakumari District 629 161 ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records
relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent Dental
Council of India in No.DE-Academic/114 (Migration)/2020 dated
14/9/2020 to approve forthwith the petitioner's application seeking
Migration from the third respondent College, namely, Saveetha Dental
College, Chennai to the fourth respondent College, namely, Sree
Mookambika Institute of Dental Science, Kulasekharam, Kanyakumari
District.
For petitioner ... Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy
For respondents ... Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi
Additional Government Pleader
for R.1.
Mr.Ravichandran
Standing Counsel
for R.2
2/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
Mr.Godson Issac for R.4
ORDER
This writ petition is filed against the order dated 14/9/2020, made in
DE-Academic/114 (Migration)/2020 by the Dental Council of India,
wherein the request of the petitioner seeking migration from the third
respondent college, viz., Saveetha Dental College, Chennai, to the fourth
respondent college, viz., Sri Mookambika Institute of Dental Science,
Kanyakumari District, has been rejected, on the ground that migration
sought for by the petitioner is against the Dental Council of India
Regulation, 2007.
2. As per the Regulation, Migration is permitted from recognised
Dental College to recognised Dental College only when the candidate apply
for migration within a period of one month after passing the first year BDS
on compassionate ground criteria i.e., (i). Death of supporting guardian and
(ii). Disturbed conditions as declared by Government in the Dental College
area.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
3. The petitioner who is the native of Nagercoil, got admission in the
third respondent College for the five year BDS Degree course in the
academic year 2018 – 2019. During the end of the first year course, she was
diagnosed with Polycystic Ovaries and the petitioner suffered abnormal
uterine bleeding at irregular intervals with severe muscle cramps. She was
under serious medication and on frequent follow up from the Doctor at
Kanyakumari District and she completed her first year course. The
petitioner made a request for migration from the third respondent College to
the fourth respondent College depending on her health condition.
4. Considering the medical condition, vide, letter, dated 17/7/2020,
the third respondent has given No Objection for migration, permitting the
petitioner to continue her remaining course in any other Dental Colleges,
recognised and approved by the Dental Council of India. With this No
Objection certificate, the petitioner has approached the fourth respondent
College. Having vacancy in the second year BDS course, the fourth
respondent is also willing to take the admission of this petitioner, vide,
letter, dated 19/8/2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
5. In view of the no objection certificate issued by the respective
transferor college and the transferee College, the petitioner made a request
to the Dental Council for their approval. The request of this petitioner was
rejected, by impugned order, dated 14/9/2020, on the ground that the
petitioner does not fulfill the provision of BDS Course Regulations, 2007.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, placed reliance on a
judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in The Dental
Council of India – Vs – Trishanthi M.N. & Anr. (W.A. No.1435/2018 –
Dated 9.7.2018) it has been held as follows:-
“Having given thoughtful consideration to the
submissions made and having examined the record with
reference to the law applicable, we are not inclined to
consider interference in the order passed by the learned
Single Judge in this case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
The relevant part of BDS Regulations, 2007,
pertaining to migration, reads as under:
"IV. Migration:
1. Migration from one dental college to another is not a
right of a student. However, migration of students from one
dental college to another dental college in India may be
considered by the Dental Council of India. Only in
exceptional cases on extreme Compassionate grounds*,
provided the following criteria are fulfilled. Routine
migrations on other ground shall not be allowed.
(2) Both the colleges, i.e. one at which the student is
studying at present and one to which migration is sought,
are recognized by the Dental Council of India.
(3) The applicant candidate should have passed first
professional BDS examination.
(4) The applicant candidate submits his application for
migration, complete in all respects, to all authorities
concerned within a period of one month of passing
(declaration of results) the first professional Bachelor of
Dental Surgery (BDS) examination.
(5) The applicant candidate must submit an affidavit stating
that he/she will pursue 240 days of prescribed study before
appearing at IInd professional Bachelor of Dental Surgery
(BDS) examination at the transferee dental college, which
should be duly certified by the Registrar of the concerned
University in which he/she is seeking transfer. The transfer
will be applicable only after receipt of the affidavit.
Note 1:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
(i) Migration is permitted only in the beginning of IInd
year BDS Course in recognised Institutions.
(ii) All applications for migration shall be referred to
Dental Council of India by the college authorities. No
Institution/University shall allow migration directly
without the prior approval of the Council.
(iii) Council reserves the right not to entertain any
application which is not under the prescribed
compassionate grounds and also to take independent
decisions where applicant has been allowed to migrate
without referring the same to the Council.
Note 2: *Compassionate ground criteria.
(i) Death of supporting guardian.
(ii) Disturbed conditions as declared by Government in the
Dental College area."
In the case of Dr.Anand Rai (supra), the Madhya
Pradesh High Court was essentially considering the issues
raised before it that the benefit of migration was being
allowed in undeserving cases to the children and relatives
of ministers and officers, while the same was being denied
to others. In the given circumstances, and to curb the
improper and rather questionable implementation of
Regulations, the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed and
directed as under:
"It is also observed that the provisions relating to migration
provided under the Regulations framed by the M.C.I. and
D.C.I. have to be strictly adhered to and the benefit
thereunder can only be granted in respect of cases which
fall within the parameters contained therein, keeping in
mind the other mandatory regulations of the M.C.I. and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
D.C.I. relating to vacancy of seats, adhering to the teacher
student ratio, mid session migrations and the fact as to
whether migration from private medical colleges can be
granted in Government medical colleges to students who
have otherwise been unable to qualify for admission in
such Government colleges on merits by adopting the
devious method of migration.
However, as both the M.C.I. and D.C.I. have stated before
this Court on affidavit that they shall in future be careful
and vigilant in exercising this power and that they shall not
give any undue benefit to the relatives and children of
either ministers, I.A.S. Or IP.S. officers and shall generally
apply these regulations to all category and class of students
and as on date, we are not required to examine the validity
of any order of migration in the present petition, the
petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a
direction to the M.C.I. and the D.C.I. to strictly adhere to
the regulations relating to migration, by implement them in
a uniform manner without discrimination and ensuing that
they are not utilized for the purposes of granting benefit
only to high placed individuals and that they are exercised
only in cases which fulfill the criteria laid down and
prescribed under the M.C.I. and D.C.I. Regulations.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition
filed by the petitioner stand disposed of."
The matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
C.A.No.18766/2017 had been of appeal against an interim
order passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court.
In the said case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court
did not interfere with the decision of DCI in declining to
provide for migration on health grounds. However, in
appeal, the Division Bench, even while issuing notices,
passed an interim order of mandatory nature, whereby it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
was enjoined upon the authorities to allow the migration, as
prayed for.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not approve of such a
mandatory order that was passed without considering the
Regulations and the applicable decisions and at the interim
stage. Hence, while setting aside such an interim order, the
Supreme Court directed the High Court to dispose of the
intra Court appeal at an early date.
We may also take note of the fact that the said intra Court
appeal before the Delhi High Court was ultimately decided
on 08.05.2018, where the Division Bench took the view
that the aforementioned Note 2 of the Regulations, even
while elaborating on the criteria of extreme compassion for
migration, restricted the discretion of DCI to only two
given conditions. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court
also pointed out that the challenge to the aforesaid two
conditions was not being considered, for the appellant
seeking the aid of general regulations permitting the DCI to
authorize migration on the ground of extreme compassion.
In the result, the Court declined to interfere in the exercise
of discretion by the DCI, which had taken into account the
medical records of the candidate.
In contrast to the above decision of the Delhi High Court, it
is noticed that in the case of Fathima Thameema PK
(supra), which was relied upon by the learned Single
Judge, the Division Bench of Madras High Court found the
case of writ petitioner therein to be that of degeneration of
L4, L5 and L5-S1 disc bulge and as per medical report, her
condition was to aggravate upon undertaking 84 kms of
travel everyday. In that case, the Division Bench of Madras
High Court approved the view of the Single Judge that the
referred Regulation was not an exhaustive one and the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
petitioner's case was to be viewed with compassion in view
of her health condition. The order passed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Anhad Raj Singh (supra) was also
cited to which, the Madras High Court pointed out that
therein, the candidate was suffering from asthma, but the
medical condition of the writ petitioner was different and
severe and was of an exceptional character.
Having examined the law applicable, we are unable to
agree with the submissions made on behalf of the appellant
that the two circumstances enumerated in Note 2 of the
Regulations relating to migration are those of 'only' criteria
on which the migration could be allowed.
The said Regulation IV is indeed made for allowing
migration from one dental college to another; of course, not
as a matter of right and only in exceptional cases on
extreme compassionate grounds. Noteworthy it is that the
strict requirements towards eligibility for migration have
been spelt out in clauses (2) to (5) and then in Note 1 of
Regulation IV ibid., giving effective control to the
appellant - DCI over the matter and restricting permission
to migrate only after completion of the first professional
BDS examination and only in the beginning of II year BDS
Course.
It is not the case of the appellant that the writ petitioner is
otherwise ineligible on any of the conditions mentioned in
the said clauses (2) to (5) and Note 1.
As regards the compassionate grounds, we are
clearly of the view that the expression 'only' occurring in
clause (1) of Regulation IV merely specifies that migration
could be allowed only in exceptional cases. With respect,
we are unable to find any reason to interpret the said
expression to mean that the migration is restricted to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
two circumstances mentioned in Note 2 or that migration
could never be granted except for the said two
circumstances.
On a purposive interpretation of the provisions
contained in said Regulation IV, we are clearly of the view
that the two grounds mentioned in Note 2, though are of
extreme nature i.e., death of the supporting guardian and
disturbed condition as declared by the Government in the
area in question but then, the said Note 2 cannot be
considered to be that of exhaustive enumeration of all the
possible grounds for permitting migration on
compassionate basis. For its very nature and purport, the
said Note 2 could only be considered as illustrative of some
of the extreme compassionate grounds, but we are unable
to read in the said Regulations any such restriction that the
migration could never be allowed except on the said
grounds stated in Note 2.
It needs hardly any emphasis to point out that apart from
the two circumstances mentioned in the said Note 2, there
could be several other imponderables, which may occur in
the life of a candidate and for which, migration may have
to be sought for, so as to continue with the studies in an
appropriate manner. Extreme conditions of illness and
health problems could be one such eventuality. We do not
propose to itemize various other conditions, which may
ultimately be of handicap for a candidate to properly
pursue the studies in one institution and which may
reasonably be met by way of migration to an appropriate
institution but the possibility of such eventualities cannot
be ignored. The fact that there could still be other grounds
than those mentioned in Note 2 finds indication in clause
(iii) of Note 1, where the appellant - DCI has reserved the
right not to entertain any application not falling under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
prescribed compassionate ground. The said clause is at
least indicative of the fact that there may be an application,
which may not fall strictly under the enumerated grounds.
The appellant, undoubtedly, carries the right not to
entertain any such application but it inhers in such a right
that the same would be exercised in a reasonable manner;
and, it is not laid down as a rule of thumb that every such
application which does not fall strictly under the
enumerated grounds has to meet with denial alone,
irrespective of the nature of ground for seeking migration.
The migration is allowed under the Regulation IV itself, of
course, in exceptional cases, but on extreme compassionate
ground. When such a proposition is adopted for the reason
of compassion towards the candidates, one would only be
left to wonder, if an extreme adverse medical condition of a
candidate would not evoke compassion?
For what has been discussed hereinabove, with respect, we
are unable to follow the decision of the Delhi High Court
in Anhad Raj Singh case (supra), where the High Court has
proceeded on the assumption that the circumstances stated
in Note 2 of Regulation IV are the 'only' grounds on which
migration could be allowed and they restrict the discretion
of DCI. In fact, the migration itself is permitted in
exceptional cases on extreme compassionate grounds.
When it has not been specified in the Regulations that such
extreme compassionate grounds are also limited to the
circumstances mentioned in Note 2, we find no reason to
read any such restriction in the matter of discretion of DCI.
Looking to the object and purpose of the said Regulations,
we are inclined to agree with the decision of the Madras
High Court in Fathima Thameema PK (supra) that the
Regulation IV is not an exhaustive one. In the said case,
compassionate ground migration was allowed to the
candidate suffering from extreme medical conditions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
The facts of the present case bring forth two peculiarities.
One is that the writ petitioner is shown to be suffering from
Cervical Spondylitis and has been advised bed rest and to
avoid travel. The severity of the referred ailment may vary
from person to person, but the case of the writ petitioner
had been of troublesome nature, as could be noticed from
the fact that the treating hospital has advised her bed rest
and to avoid travel.
The other peculiar aspect of the matter is that the writ
petitioner is seeking migration from one college in the city
of Bengaluru to another college in the same city, but while
specifically pointing out that in the college of migration,
she would be able to avail hostel facility so as to avoid
travel and would be nearer to KIMS Hospital for her
treatment.
The reasons and circumstances mentioned by the writ
petitioner cannot be said to be of any pretentious projection
of her case. On the contrary, the specific reason for
migration so as to avail the hostel facility and thereby to
avoid travelling as per the medical advice appear to be
more of her bona fide. Avoiding travel in a city like
Bengaluru by the student who is Cervical Spondylitis
patient and who is advised bed rest cannot be ignored as an
irrelevant or baseless ground.
It is also noticed that the appellant - DCI, in its impugned
endorsement dated 24.10.2017, did not advert to the
ground as stated by the writ petitioner seeking migration,
but rejected her prayer only with reference to the aforesaid
two circumstances mentioned in Note 2 and then, to the
aforesaid decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in
Dr. Anand Rai's case. We are unable to approve the
approach of the appellant - DCI in rejecting a prayer for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
migration without even adverting to the ground and the
reasons and the circumstances stated by a candidate.
The learned Single Judge has taken into comprehension all
the facts and circumstances of the case and has, thereafter,
granted the relief to the writ petitioner on relevant
considerations. In the given set of facts and circumstances,
we are unable to find any such error or infirmity in the
order passed by the learned Single Judge, which may call
for interference in this intra Court appeal.
In view of the above, the appeal fails and is, therefore,
dismissed.”
7. In yet another decision in the case of Dental Council of India –
Vs – Fathima Thameema PK (2017 SCC OnLine (Mad) 10905), a
Division Bench of this Court, relating to similar issue, held as under :-
7. On going through the said regulation, the
learned Single Judge appreciated the facts that the
writ petitioner was referred to Medical Board and the
Medical Board, on examination of the writ petitioner,
gave its report to the effect that the petitioner is
suffering from lumbar disc disease with degeneration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
of L4, L5 and L5-S1 disc bulge and that her
condition would aggravate if she undertakes travel
and finding that she had to travel 84 kms every day,
which is not advisable medically, and has come to the
conclusion that the petitioner's position fits into the
definition of compassionate ground.
8. The learned Single Judge also appreciated
the fact that though the governing regulation, viz.,
Regulation IV speaks only about two grounds, viz.,
death of supporting guardian and distributed
condition as declared by Government Dental College
area, and has rightly held that such regulaation is not
an exhaustive one and the petitioner's case has to be
viewed with compassion only in view of her health
condition as evidenced by the proceedings of the
Medical Board dated 13/10/2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
9. So far as the decision relied upon by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant is
concerned, we find that it has arisen out of an interim
order passed by the Delhi High Court and the
candidate concerned therein was said to have been
suffering from Asthma, whereas the medical
condition of the writ petitioner in the case on hand is
very pathetic as she is suffering from lumbar disc
disease with degeneration of L4, L5 and L5-S1 disc
bulge and that her condition would aggravate if she
undertakes travel. Moreover, in the said decision
itself, it was observed that the attention of the Court
was invited to the earlier decisions which had
expounded that such transfer can be only in
exceptional situation and that it is not a right of the
student.
10. Therefore, we are of the view that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the
governing Regulation is not an exhaustive one and
the petitioner's position fits into the definition of
compassionate ground and the petitioner's case has to
be viewed with compassion only, in view of her
health condition as evidenced by the proceedings of
the Medical Board dated 13/10/2017. We do not find
any reason to interfere with the said order passed by
the learned Single Judge as we find that the
petitioner's case, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of its own and the pathetic condition
of the petitioner, is an exceptional one for grant of
migration. Accordingly, the order passed by the
learned Single Judge is confirmed and the appellant
Dental Council of India is directed to comply with
the order passed by the learned Single Judge within a
period of three weeks from today so that the precious
time of the student in pursuing the course shall not be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
wasted.
11. With the above observation, the writ
appeal stands disposed of. No costs.”
8. In a recent judgment, the First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.482
of 2020, in THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, NEW DELHI Vs. 1.
PSR LAKSHMI BHUVANESHWARI PREETHI AND 3 OTHERS,
paragraph Nos.9 to 12 held as follows:-
9. The limited question that arises for
consideration is whether the first Respondent is
entitled to the approval of the Dental Council for the
proposed migration from the third Respondent to the
fourth Respondent College. The BDS Regulations
of the Dental Council govern the aforesaid question.
The BDS Regulations relating to migration were
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dental
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
Council of India v. Anhad Raj Singh (2018) 1
SCC 723, wherein the interim order of the Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court that directed the
authorities to permit the candidate to join the
transferee college was reversed not only on the
ground that the interim direction amounted to
granting the final relief but also because Regulation
IV of the BDS Regulations and the objections on
that basis were not considered by the Division
Bench. On perusal of Note 1(i) of Regulation IV of
the BDS regulations, it is clear that migration is
permitted only in the beginning of the II year BDS
Course in recognized institutions. The proposed
migration by the first Respondent is for the purpose
of joining in the third year BDS Course in the fourth
Respondent College. Apart from Note 1(i), we find
that Regulation IV (4) and (5) also provide that the
candidate should apply within a stipulated period
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
and also submit an affidavit stating that she will
complete 240 days of prescribed study before
appearing for the II year examination. These
requirements underscore the fact that migration is
permissible only at the commencement of the II year.
Indeed, the learned single Judge was also conscious
of the fact that the BDS Regulations do not permit
migration, in these facts and circumstances, and
recorded the same in paragraph 10 of the impugned
order. Thus, the order of the learned single Judge
cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
10. Nevertheless, we note that Regulation IV
also stipulates that migration is not a student's right
and a request for migration would be considered by
the Dental Council only in exceptional cases on
extreme compassionate grounds, and that routine
migrations on other grounds shall not be allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
Note 1(iii) stipulates, inter alia, that the "Council
reserved the right not to entertain any
application which is not under the prescribed
compassionate grounds". Note 2 specifies
'compassionate ground criteria' as the death of a
supporting guardian or disturbed conditions, as
declared by Government, in the Dental College area.
The present request for migration is on the basis that
the student encountered various problems, as
detailed above, in the third Respondent College
especially with regard to the demand of exorbitant
fees. While the reason for seeking migration does
not satisfy the aforementioned prescribed
compassionate grounds criteria, this is, undoubtedly,
not a request for a routine migration. It also cannot
be construed as a whimsical or unreasonable request
when the facts and circumstances are viewed in
totality. While two compassionate grounds criteria
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
are specified in Note 2 (i) and (ii) of Regulation IV,
Note 1 (iii) thereof appears to provide some latitude
and discretion to the Dental Council by stipulating
that the Dental Council reserves the right to reject an
application that does not satisfy the prescribed
compassionate grounds criteria. This clause, in our
view, confers a discretion but does not impose an
obligation on the Dental Council to reject an
application that does not meet the prescribed
compassionate grounds criteria. Nonetheless, this
discretion is intended to be exercised reasonably and
non-arbitrarily and the test would always be whether
the application for migration satisfies the
compassionate grounds requirement, be it on the
compassionate grounds criteria prescribed in Note 2
(i) and (ii) or otherwise. For example, a student may
be subject to physical violence or sexual harassment
in a college and may seek migration for these
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
reasons. In each case, the Dental Council would
have to examine if it qualifies as a compassionate
ground by exercising its discretion judiciously.
Thus, in our view, the compassionate grounds
criteria in Note 2 (i) and (ii) are illustrative and not
exhaustive.
11. On the facts of this case, we are acutely
conscious of the fact that the student has obtained a
transfer certificate from the third Respondent
College and her career is likely to be severely
affected unless some arrangement is made for the
continuation of her education. Keeping in mind this
situation and the discussion in the preceding
paragraph, in case the first Respondent is willing to
join the II year BDS course and the fourth
Respondent College is willing to admit her in the II
year, we grant leave to the first Respondent to make
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
a fresh representation to the Dental Council through
the Dr. M.G.R. Medical University for permission to
migrate by joining the II year of the BDS course.
Upon receipt of such representation, the Dental
Council is directed to consider the same in light of
the observations contained herein and pass orders
thereon on merits within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of such representation. Before
parting with the case, we note that the facts and
circumstances set out above highlight the necessity
for the Dental Council to revisit the BDS
Regulations on migration so as to create a frame
work that ensures high standards of dental education
while also enabling migration, on reasonable
grounds, in a wider range of situations.
9. Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned counsel appearing for the
Dental Council of India made his submissions by referring the reason for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
migration, and the Regulations. However, he admits that pursuant to the
orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court as also the Karnataka
High Court, Dental Council of India has addressed the Secretary to
Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, vide letter
dated 22.2.2019, along with the revised BDS Course Regulations (9th
Amendment) Regulations, 2018, for necessary amendment to the
Regulation. The same is under the consideration of the Government of
India. The Dental Council of India is also following it with the Government
with frequent reminders and a last reminder was made on 8/1/2021.
10. The First Bench of this Court in Lakshmi Bhuvaneswari
Preethi's case (supra), had observed that it is time for the Dental Council of
India to revisit the Regulation and comprehensively make amendments with
regard to migration on compassionate grounds by prescribing the grounds
that would fall within the ambit of compassionate grounds and not to go
merely on the present prescription as the facts and circumstances of each
and every case requires to be looked into in proper perspective before a
decision is taken by the Dental Council of India on the request for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
migration.
11. Further, it is not out of context here to point out that even
according to the Dental Council of India, the matter relating to amendment
is pending before the Government for necessary action since long. In such a
scenario, it would not be prudent for the Dental Council of India to keep the
issue in the present case pending, awaiting the outcome of the amendment
to be made by the Government and instead, the Dental Council of India,
taking into consideration the medical condition of the petitioner requires to
act immediately, so that the petitioner's health condition does not deteriorate
any further.
12. On a careful consideration of the totality of the circumstances, it
reveals that the petitioner is suffering from Polycystic Ovaries, and inspite
of the acute medical condition, which harms her health, the petitioner is
intending to pursue her studies, which has necessitated her to take the pains
to approach both the 3rd and 4th respondent college for necessary No
Objection Certificates and the 3rd and 4th respondent colleges, having found
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
the medical condition of the petitioner warrants permitting the migration,
has given the No Objection Certificate to the petitioner.
13. It is also to be borne in by the 1st respondent that the future
prospects of the petitioner hinges on the approval that is to be granted by the
1st respondent, else the studies of the petitioner would be gravely affected
and she would be prejudiced if she is deprived the migration from the 3 rd
respondent to the 4th respondent college, which would have a detrimental
effect on her education and further career. Red tapism in the form of
regulations, as noted above, should not be a stumbling block for the
motivated candidates to pursue their education. In such a backdrop, the
Dental Council of India, cutting across the red tape, is bound to take a
decision keeping in mind the overall medical condition of the petitioner in
the light of the decisions of the Court referred to above and take an
affirmative and positive decision in favour of the petitioner relating to her
migration from the 3rd respondent to 4th respondent college.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
14. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the impugned order of
rejection passed by the 1st respondent/Dental Council of India is hereby set
aside and the matter is remanded back to the Dental Council of India/the 1 st
respondent herein for taking a decision afresh on the basis of the materials
and also keeping in mind the orders passed by the Courts relating to
migration, which have been discussed above as also the decision in the
present case and shall pass orders on the migration of the petitioner from the
3rd respondent to the 4th respondent college within a period of three weeks,
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the 1st respondent
is also directed to take steps to have the amendment to the Regulations
carried out at the earliest so that the deserving candidates be not made to run
from pillar to post seeking for migration which will have a detrimental
effect on their studies.
15. This writ petition is disposed of, with the aforesaid
observations and directions. No costs.
4/2/2021
Index: Yes/ No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
mvs.
Note: Issue order copy on 8/2/2021
To
1. The Secretary
Dental Council of India
Aiwan-E-Galib Marg
Kolta Road, Temple Lane
New Delhi 110 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
B.PUGALENDHI,J
mvs.
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.16893 of 2020
4/2/2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
