[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Vikash Sharma vs The Registrar on 20 April, 2026

Author: M.Dhandapani

Bench: M.Dhandapani

____________
W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on Pronounced on
07.04.2026 20.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P. NO. 50509 OF 2025
W.P. NOS.323, 1127 & 3617 OF 2026
AND
W.M.P. NOS. 56561, 56562 & 56563 OF 2025
W.M.P. NOS. 12967, 388, 1314, 4033, 385 & 1315 OF 2026

W.P. No.50509 of 2025

Vikash Sharma .. Petitioner

- Vs -

1. The Registrar
Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University
No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy
Chennai 600 0032.

2. The Principal
Tamil Nadu Government Dental College & Hospital
Chennai 600 003.

3. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Secretary to Government
Health & Family Welfare Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

4. The Dental Council of India
Rep. By its Secretary

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

National Dental Commission Building
Plot No.14, Sector – 9
R.K.Puram, New Delhi 110 022. .. Respondent

W.P. No.323 of 2026

K.Sandheep .. Petitioner

- Vs -

1. The Director
Dental Council of India
Aiwan E-Galib Marg
Kotla Road, New Delhi 110 002.

2. The Registrar
Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University
No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy
Chennai 600 0032.

3. The Principal
K.S.R. Institute of Dental Science & Research
K.S.R. Kalvi Nagar, Kuchipalayam Post
Tiruchengode 637 215, Namakkal Dist. .. Respondents

W.P. No.1127 of 2026

K.Sandheep .. Petitioner

- Vs -

1. The Union of India
Rep. By its Secretary to Govt.
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Dept.
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110 011.

2. The Secretary
Dental Council of India

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

Aiwan E-Galib Marg
Kotla Road, New Delhi 110 002.

3. The Registrar
Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University
No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy
Chennai 600 0032.

4. The Principal
K.S.R. Institute of Dental Science & Research
K.S.R. Kalvi Nagar, Kuchipalayam Post
Tiruchengode 637 215, Namakkal Dist. .. Respondents

W.P. No.3617 of 2026

M.Ashamalar .. Petitioner
- Vs -

1. The Registrar
Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University
No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy
Chennai 600 0032.

2. The Dental Council of India
Rep. By its Secretary
Aiwan E-Galib Marg
Kotla Road, New Delhi 110 002.

3. The Principal
Madha Dental College & Hospital
Madha Nagar, Kundrathur
Chennai 600 009. .. Respondents

WP No. 50509 of 2025 Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this
Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned letter dated 10.10.2025 vide Ref. No. EXIII(2)/ 26602/ 2025
issued by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently
3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

directing the 1st respondent to accept the petitioners examination form and
permit the petitioner to appear for the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (B.D.S)
University Examination scheduled in February 2026 in respect of the sole
remaining subject namely conservative Dentistry and Endodontics and further
direct the 1st respondent to apply the nine- year outer limit rule in a fair,
reasonable and non mechanical manner, taking in to account the COVID 19
related systemic disruption, institutional and departmental delays and the fact
that the petitioner a near-complete student with only one examination
remaining.
WP No. 323 of 2026 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying this Court to issue a writ of Declaration declaring the impugned
communication of the 3rd respondent dated 12.11.2025 in Ref.361/KSRIDSR/2025
as null and void, unconstitutional, arbitrary and consequently direct the
respondents to extend the time permitting petitioner to complete the 3 subjects
and rotatory internship for the course of BDS 2017- 2018.
WP No. 1127 of 2026 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying this Court to issue a writ of declaration declaring the impugned revised
B.D.S. Course (7th Amendment) Regulation 2015 in No.DE-87(1)(7)-M2-
2017/9897 dated 13.09.2017, issued by the 2 nd respondent is deemed extension
of B.D.S. Course Period till 11.09.2027 instead of 9 years duration of B.D.S. Course
commencing from academic year 11.09.2017 to 2018
Or
declaring the impugned revised B.D.S. Course (7th Amendment)
Regulation 2015 in No.DE-87(1)(7)-M2-2017/9897 dated 13.09.2017, issued by
the 2nd respondent for outer time limit for completion of 9 years period of B.D.S.
Course, consequential order of Discharge dated 12.11.2025 in reference
4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

No.361/KSRIDSR/2025 issued by the 4 th respondent as unconstitutional, ultra-
virus, arbitrary and unreasonableness, consequently, direct the respondents to
extend the time permitting the petitioner to complete the 3 subjects and rotatory
internship for the course of BDS 2017-2018.
WP No. 3617 of 2026 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records of the 1st respondent in his impugned proceedings in
Ref.No.ACII(1)22962/2025 dated 18.8.2025 relating to the rejection of the
petitioners request for condonation of break of study and quash the same and to
grant permission to continue the BDS Degree course and appear for the final year
examination.
For Petitioners : Mr. V.C.Janarthanan, for
Mr. C.Prabhakaran in WP 323 &
1127/2026
Ms. R.Rayeesha Fathima in WP
3617/2026
Mr. K.Venkatesh @
Dr.V.K.Swamy in WP 50509/25

For Respondents : Mr. Subramanian Vaidyanathan
for Dental Council of India in all
petitions
Mr. Sivavaithanathan for T.N.
Dr. MGR Medical University in
all the petitions
Ms. M.Sneha, Spl. Counsel for
RR-2 & 3 in WP 50509/25
Mr.Richardson Wilson for R-3 in
WP 3617/2026
R-1 – Not Ready Notice in WP
1127/2026
No Appearance for R-4 in WP
1127/2026
5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

COMMON ORDER

The application of 9 year outer limit for completion of B.D.S. Course from

the date of inception into the educational stream in view of the amendment

made to the BDS Course Regulation, 2015 resulting in the negation of the

representation given by the petitioners by permitting them to partake in the

examination and also complete their internship, which has led to the filing of the

present writ petitions.

2. The facts of the individual petitions are not dealt with in detail and as

the gravamen of the pleadings raised by the petitioners fall within a very narrow

sphere, suffice to capture the essence of the said averments in the present

petitions so as to analyse the issues raised in the present petitions.

3. The petitioners, upon clearing and coming out successful in the NEET

examination were selected and admitted to the respective Dental Colleges for

pursuing BDS course during the academic year 2017-2018. The petitioners have

continued in the said course and had completed the major portion of the four

year course barring certain exams in a semester, or a semester or the final year

exams. However, when they sought the indulgence of the respective

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

respondents to permit them to write the exams and complete the BDS course,

the same was rejected citing that double the duration of the above course has

passed and, therefore, as per the amendment made to B.D.S. Course (7 th

Amendment) Regulations, 2015 (for short ‘Regulations, 2015’) aggrieved by

which the present petitions have been preferred.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners submitted that

the amendment made vide Regulations, 2015, is in gross violation of Articles 14

and 19 of the Constitution and it is not in tune with Section 20 (2) of the Dentists

Act, 1948.

5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the intention of

the legislation must be to ensure that students, who are unable to complete the

papers within a particular time frame for reasons beyond their control by

restricting the maximum time limit of 9 yers to complete the degree course

would amount to deprivation of the rights of the students to complete the course

successfully. Therefore, the impugned regulations is against the interest of the

petitioners and it violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

the Constitution, as it otherwise spoils the efforts of the petitioners in pursuing

their BDS career.

6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that in respect of

MBBS course, the outer time limit to complete the course is fixed at 10 years

whereas for BDS course, it is fixed at 9 years, which time prescription is without

any rationality and equality and, thereby, there is clear violation of the

guarantees provided under the Constitution. Further, the period of 9 years

restriction fixed under Regulations, 2015, has no nexus with the impugned clause

and the objects sought to be achieved in order to maintain the standard of dental

education.

7. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that during the period

in which the petitioners were undergoing their studies, there was the intervening

period of lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic in which the Apex Court had

extended the period of limitation for the purpose of filing cases and by the same

analogy, the limitation insofar as the prescription of the time period of 9 years

also would have to be extended, as the said pandemic period had crippled the

petitioners from attending the classes and completing the subjects and appearing

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

in the examinations, which have had a cascading effect on their career, as they

were not able to finish the course within the time prescribed in the Regulations,

2015.

8. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the petitioners

and their family members were affected with COVID, thereby, they could not

move out for more than 7 months and the recovery had also been time

consuming and this also has been a factor in the petitioners not being able to

complete the BDS course within the prescribed period of 9 years and the 9 years

restriction had curtailed the academic advancement of the petitioners and just

like the extension of limitation by the Courts insofar as filing of cases is

concerned, the respondents ought to have extended the period during which the

lockdown was imposed, which would have enured to the benefit of the

petitioners.

9. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that clearance of all

the subjects within a period of 9 years as provided in the amendment to

Regulations, 2015 would only have to be read that the said period of 9 years

would start ticking only from the date when the examination falls due for the first

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

time and it would not be taken to be from the first day of the petitioner in the

BDS course as such a construction would not only defeat the purpose for which it

was amended, bit it would also be against the interest of the students for whose

benefit the said amendment was carried out.

10. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the insistence

on production of ‘No Due Certificate’ due to which the delay has arisen, which is

now put against the petitioner, cannot be a precondition to forward the

petitioner’s application as such insistence is wholly arbitrary and illegal and

against the interest of the petitioners and also their education and their career.

It is the submission of the learned counsel that at best, the petitioners should

have been permitted to continue the course subject to payment of dues as

recognized by the Apex Court in various decisions.

11. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the delay,

which had arisen on account of the respective respondent college not forwarding

the representation of the petitioners, which were submitted way back in the year

2024, seeking permission to take up the examination and also the further

internship period cannot be put against them by the respondents to reject the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

representation of the petitioners as it not only violates the constitutional

guarantees, but also impinges on the rights of the petitioners to right to

livelihood, which, if not for completion of the course, would jeopardize their

entire career.

12. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that before carrying

out the amendment to Regulations, 2015, the mandatory prescription of having

consultation with the State and Central Governments as provided for under

proviso to Section 20 (g) and (h) of the Dentists Act have not been complied with

and, therefore, the said amendment is grossly perverse, arbitrary and it is de hors

the legal sanction as provided for under the aforesaid provisions of the Dentists

Act.

13. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that it is settled

principle of law that procedural technicalities should not stand in the way of

substantive justice and denying a student the right to write the final examinations

after having completed all clinical quotas and paid the fees would be nothing but

a ‘civil death’, which cannot be allowed to be perpetrated against the students.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

14. In fine, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the present

cases are fit for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court to grant the

relief so that not only the constitutional guarantees are safeguarded, but the lives

of the students is also saved and their effort in obtaining medical seats may not

be allowed to go waste due to certain acts of the respondents such as delay,

thereby, substantial justice is rendered to the petitioners. Accordingly, they pray

for allowing the present writ petitions.

15. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel placed reliance

on the decision of this Court in Nizvy Sunil Prakash – Vs – The Secretary, Dental

Council of India & Ors. (2014 (1) CTC 257).

16. Per contra, the concise and combined submissions advanced by the

learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents in support of their plea

could be briefly summarised thus :-

16.1 The Dental Council of India is the authority vested with the

responsibility of discharge and maintenance of highest standards of dental

education throughout the country and in the discharge of the said function,

through the Dentists Act, which is pari materia to the Medical Council of India

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

Act, 1956, the authority is vested with the responsibility of framing the necessary

regulations for the discharge of the statutory obligations.

17. It is further submitted that it has been the consistent ratio of the Apex

Court that the regulations framed are binding and mandatory and that all the

State enactments, rules and regulations framed by the respective Universities,

etc., with regard to the conduct of medical/dental courses, to the extent they are

inconsistent with the Act and Regulations made by the Medical Council are

repugnant by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution inasmuch as the said Act is

relatable to Entry 66 List 1 Schedule VII of the Constitution, which view has been

reaffirmed by the Constitution Bench in Dr.Preeti Srivastava – Vs – State of M.P.

& Ors. (1997 (7) SCC 120).

18. It is the further submission that in discharge of the statutory obligation

towards the maintenance of the standards in dental education, by virtue of the

provisions of Section 20 of the Dentist Act, the Council is empowered, with the

prior approval of the Union of India to frame regulations for laying down

minimum standards for the conduct of dental courses.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

19. It is further submitted that only in exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948, the Dental Council of India, with the

previous sanction of the Central Government has brought Amendment to the

existing BDS Course Regulations, 2007 by introducing the impugned amendment,

which prescribed that any student, who does not clear the BDS course in all the

subject within a period of 9 years, including one year compulsory rotary paid

internship from the date of admission shall be discharged from the course. It is

further submitted that the amendment is applicable only in respect of those

students who have been admitted in BDS course in any dental institution after

the date of commencement of the regulation, viz., 27.4.2015 and the same is

applicable to the petitioners.

20. It is further submitted that the amended regulation was in force when

the petitioners were admitted in the academic year 2017-2018 and they are

bound by the said amendment. Further, the petitioners having got admission

into the BDS course under the amended regulations and having appeared for the

examinations under the very same Regulations several times, it is not open to the

petitioner to maintain a challenge to the direction of the College/University

which is in consonance with the Regulations.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

21. It is the further submission that the duration of the BDS course

programme cannot be open ended and the Dental Council cannot go contrary to

its own Regulations by relaxing the provisions which are mandatory in nature and

there is no provision under the Dentists Act, which gives any leverage to the

Dental Council to relax the regulations even in extraordinary circumstances.

22. It is the further submission that all the petitioners have joined the

course during the academic year 2017-2018 and the respective

respondent/Universities had forwarded the representation for permission for the

students to appear in the examination, but a verification of the relevant records

revealed that the petitioners have failed to complete the BDS course within the

time frame provided under the amended Regulations and even if the petitioners

are allowed to write the examination, which is due for the academic year 2026,

being the 9th year of their course, that would not suffice, as the petitioners would

need to undergo the Compulsory Rotatory paid Internship, that too within the

stipulated period of 9 years, which they could not complete and, therefore, the

amended regulation would come into play and necessarily the petitioners

required to be discharged from the course.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

23. It is therefore the submission that following the amended regulations

and the petitioners not having completed the exams and they could not complete

the internship also within the period of 9 years as mandated in the regulations,

the petitioners representations were rejected and they were directed to be

discharged, as the said regulations are mandatory and, therefore, no exemption

can be granted to the petitioners.

24. It is the further submission of the respondents that the plea of

COVID-19 pandemic would not in any way help the petitioners as after the

pandemic, examinations were regularly conducted between March, 2021 and

February, 2024 on more than 9 occasions and the petitioners failed to utilise even

the examinations sessions of February, 2025 and August, 2025 and, therefore,

they cannot now come and plead that the pandemic has caused great damage

and the limitation period, as extended by the Apex Court with regard to filing of

cases, should be made applicable to them, is grossly erroneous and impermissible

as the petitioners had more than five years of time after the pandemic and,

therefore, cannot plead that the pandemic as a reason for claiming any

extension.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

25. It is the further submission that there was no delay in forwarding of

the representation of the petitioners seeking permission and extension for

completing the course and that the non-payment of fees was not the criteria in

delaying the forwarding of the application. It is the submission that even through

there was outstanding amount towards fees, the application of the petitioners

were forwarded immediately to the Dental Council for consideration and, in fact,

recommendation was made that their case may be sympathetically considered.

Therefore, the delay alleged by the petitioners is only to eke sympathy from this

Court and there is no actual delay.

26. In fine, it is the submission on behalf of the respondents that the

callous attitude of the petitioners in not completing the examination and the

internship within the time stipulated under the Regulations has resulted in the

discharge of the petitioners from their admission and it is not due to any fault on

the respondents, who have merely followed the rule of law in letter and spirit

and, therefore, their discharge is based on the Regulations and, therefore, no

interference is warranted with the said order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

27. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the

decision in Dr.Ranjan Agrawala – Vs – University of Delhi & Ors. (2023 SCC

OnLine Del 3762).

28. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced

by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials

available on record.

29. The responsibility of discharge of duty and maintenance of the

standards of dental education throughout the country is vested in the Dental

Council of India, which is akin to the Medical Council of India. There is no dispute

with regard to the same. Therefore, for maintaining the standard in education

and for the discharge of the duties entrusted to it, power has been conferred

under the Dentists Act, 1948, to make regulations, which is provided for u/s 20

and for better appreciation, the same is quoted hereunder :-

“20. Power to make regulations.—(1) The Council may, with the approval of the Central Government, 4[by notification in the Official Gazette,] make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act to carry out the purposes of this Chapter.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such regulations may—

(a) provide for the management of the property of the Council 5***;

(b) prescribe the manner in which elections under this Chapter shall be conducted;

(c) provide for the summoning and holding of meetings of the Council and the Executive Committee, the times and places at which such meetings shall be held, the conduct of business thereat and the number of members necessary to constitute a quorum;

(d) prescribe the functions of the Executive Committee;

(e) prescribe the powers and duties of the President and Vice-President;

(f) prescribe the tenure of office and the powers and duties of the Secretary 6[and other officers and servants of the Council and Inspectors and Visitors appointed by the Council];

[(fa) prescribe the form of the scheme, the particulars to be given in such scheme, the manner in which the scheme is to be preferred and the fee payable with the scheme under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 10A; (fb) prescribe any other factors under clause (g) of sub- section (7) of section 10A;

(fc) prescribe the criteria for identifying a student who has been granted a dental qualification referred to in the Explanation to sub-section (3) of section 10B;]

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

(g) prescribe the standard curricula for the training of dentists and dental hygienists, and the conditions for admission to courses of such training;

(h) prescribe the standards of examinations and other requirements to be satisfied to secure for qualifications recognition under this Act;

[(ha) the designated authority, other languages and the manner of conducting of uniform entrance examination to all dental educational institutions at the undergraduate level and post-graduate level;]

(i) any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed under this Act:

Provided that regulations under clauses ( g) and (h) shall be made after consultation with [State] Governments.

(3) To enable the Council to be first constituted, the Central Government may make regulations for the conduct of the elections to the Council, and any regulation so made may be altered or rescinded by the Council in exercise of its powers under this section.

[(4) Every regulation made under this section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made before each House of Parliament, while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the regulation or both Houses agree that the regulation should not be made, the regulation

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that regulation.]” (Emphasis Supplied)

30. Even a bare perusal of clause (g) and (h) of sub-section (2) of Section

20, it is clear that power with regard to curricula for the training of dentists,

dental hygienists and conditions for admission to courses of such training,

standards of examinations and other requirements has been vested with the

Dental Council. However, the only condition prescribed under Section 20 (1) is

that the Regulation framed by the Dental Council should have the approval of the

Central Government and that the State Government shall also be consulted with.

31. From the above, it is clear that while approval from the Central

Government is mandatory for the purpose of framing and putting into force the

regulation framed by the Dental Council, however, with regard to the role of the

State Government is concerned, it is only that consultation shall be had with

them. The approval of the State Government for framing regulation is not

required and the approval of Central Government alone is suffice.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

32. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioners that the approval of the

Central Government for amendment to the Regulation and also consultation with

the State Government before amendment have not been undertaken and,

therefore, the amendment to the regulations cannot be enforced.

33. To counter this contention, on behalf of the respondents, the meeting

of the Council held on 20th and 21st December, 2013 in which the aforesaid

amendment to the Regulation was proposed has been placed along with which

the letter dated 17.10.2014 seeking approval of the Central Government for

making the necessary amendment has also been sought for to which, vide

approval dated 27.01.2015, the Government of India has granted its approval.

From the above communications, it is evident that the procedure for amending

the said Regulation as prescribed u/s 20 of the Dentists Act has been properly

undertaken. Further, as stated above, it is only a consultative process that is to

be undertaken by the Dental Council with the State Governments, which could

only be said that it is prior to proposing the amendment as after the amendment

is coined by the Dental Council, no necessity would arise for consultation with the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

State Government and it is only forwarding of the amendment to the Central

Government for approval.

34. In the present case, as stated above, once the amendment is

proposed, the only inference that could be drawn from it is that consultation with

the State Governments have been completed, which would also be evident from

the said minutes dated 7.10.2014, wherein the Dental Council has, in clear terms,

stated that after discussion and deliberation in the matter, the following

amendment was proposed. This is a clear indicator that the discussion, which is

meant in the said minutes is the discussion, which the Council would have had

with the State Governments, as after discussion, the matter would have been

deliberated by the Council leading to the said amendment proposed.

35. Further, it is also to be pointed out that the process of consultation

with regard to framing a Regulation imposing a time period for completion of the

course/examination had already been proposed and come in the form of

Regulation and the present substitution is only an amendment, which is to

benefit the students to complete the course within the period prescribed, which

has been elongated by the said Regulation. Therefore, the deliberation and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

discussion of the magnitude which would take place at the first instance may not

have taken place at this point of time, as new regulation has been framed, but

only an alteration/change to the existing regulation. Therefore, the consultative

process is only a discussion and not the opinion of the State Government, as the

Dental Council is vested with the authority to maintain the standards of

examination and in such a scenario, the consultative process for the purpose of

making certain amendments would not necessarily be exhaustive as an

exhaustive discussion and deliberation would have taken place at the inception of

framing the regulation and any minor alterations/amendments in the regulations,

which are not detriment to the State/Universities would not stand curtailed

under clause (h) of sub-section (2) to Section 20. Therefore, the contention of

the petitioners that there is violation of Section 20 (2)(g) and (h) is clearly

erroneous and misconceived and, therefore, the said amendment cannot be held

to be bad. The decision in Nizvy Sunil Prakash case (supra), therefore, in no

manner would support the case of the petitioners.

36. Coming to the case amendment proper, the amendment fixes a time

period within which the students should complete the course and for better

appreciation, the same is quoted hereunder :-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

“Any student who does not clear the BDS course in all the subjects within a period of 9 years including one year Compulsory Rotating Internship from the date of admission shall be discharged from the course.”

37. In this regard, it is the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioners

that the 9 year period would operate for each and every year examination and,

therefore, if a student is writing the 4 th year examination, then 9 years would be

available to the student to complete the course from the date of the 4 th year

examination, which would be inclusive of the Compulsory Rotating paid

Internship. Though such an argument is advanced, it could only be held to be a

last straw that the petitioners want to hold on to save themselves from the

clutches of discharge.

38. Even a bare perusal of the amendment would reveal that it clearly

signifies that all the subjects, irrespective of the year of exams written by the

students, should be completed within a period of 9 years, which would also

include the period of one year Compulsory Rotating Internship. This would only

indicate that the course duration is four years and four additional years are

provided to a student to complete the course, if any subjects are in arrears and

have not been cleared, with one year made available for completing the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

Compulsory Rotating Internship. Only in that regard, the word double the

duration of the course has been employed while addressing the representation of

the petitioners, as it is 4 + 4 years, which is given to complete the course.

39. It is to be pointed out that a time frame has to be fixed by the Council

for completing the course and it cannot be left to the choice of the students to

complete the course at his convenience. The prescription of period is provided

so as to weed out persons, who have not completed the course as over a period

of time, education undergoes reformative process in the form of change in

curriculum due to advancement in medical fields and, therefore, the change in

curriculum would definitely bar the conduct of examination in the older

format/curriculum. Only to safeguard the interests of the students as also to

benefit the public from the latest advancement in medical field by changing the

curriculum to the needs of the hour, the period has been prescribed. The said

prescription cannot be said to be erroneous and it cannot be allowed to continue

for decades together for the student to complete the course. Therefore, the

contention advanced is clearly against the spirit of the Regulation and the same

cannot be entertained and, accordingly, the said contention is rejected.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

40. The next contention is with respect to the individual case of the

petitioners, three in number of which the petitioner in W.P. No.50509/2025 is left

with one paper to complete; the petitioner in W.P. No323/2026 has one

semester to complete and the petitioner in W.P. No.3617/2023 has to complete a

full years examination. The above is barring the period of Compulsory Rotating

Internship, which is to be for a period of one year upon completing all the exams.

41. The details of the individual petitioners and the date of their joining

the course has been placed before this Court. It is the admitted case of the

parties that the petitioners joined the course during the academic year 2017-

2018 and by the year 2026, the nine year period would come to a close. As per

the amendment, the petitioners have to complete all the papers including the

Compulsory Rotating Internship within a period of nine years. In this scenario,

even, for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that the petitioners are allowed

to write the examination, even then, the petitioners would only be able to

complete the examination within the period of 9 years and yet fall short by a

period of one year by not being able to complete the Compulsory Rotating

Internship by application of the amended Regulation as the 9 year period

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

prescribed under the Regulation is inclusive of the Compulsory Rotating

Internship period.

42. Further, it is to be pointed out that the said Regulation is mandatory as

there is a clear prescription of period of 9 years, which cannot be extended as the

BDS course itself is not an open-ended course, but a structured time bound

course. Further, it is not the case of the petitioners that the Regulation permits

the Council to grant exemption/extension and in the absence of any such

provision, which gives power to the Council to grant extension/exemption, the

mandatory nature of the period under the Regulation clearly bars the Council

from exercising any discretionary powers and rightly appreciating the position,

the Council has refrained from granting any relief by rejecting the

representations of the petitioner, which cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary

or unreasonable; rather it is within the framework prescribed by the Regulations

and necessarily the said order of rejection deserves to be upheld.

43. Though the petitioners have alleged that delay had occasioned on the

part of the College/University, but for which they would have had enough time to

complete the examinations and also the Compulsory Rotating Internship,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

however, no materials evidencing the said contention has been placed by the

petitioners. On the other hand, the respondents have placed materials to show

that after the COVID-19 pandemic, almost 9 examinations were conducted during

which period the petitioners could have attempted it to complete the course.

The petitioners have miserably failed to attend the exams and coming at the 11 th

hour with this plea by dangling the chain of sympathy, this Court cannot exercise

its extraordinary jurisdiction as the lethargic act of the petitioners has resulted in

this scenario which has warranted their discharge from the course. The

petitioners have not been diligent enough to continue the education inspite of

the fact that the regulation itself provides extended timelines to complete the

course and that being the position, the discharge of the petitioners for failing to

complete the course within the time stipulated by the Regulations cannot be

interfered by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, as this is not an

extraordinary situation necessitating an extraordinary relief; rather it is a human

made situation, which does not require any extraordinary remedy.

44. For the reasons aforesaid, all the writ petitions fail and, accordingly,

the same are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.








https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                         ____________
                                                                          W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch




                                                                                20.04.2026
                     Index        : Yes / No
                     GLN




                     To

                     1. The Secretary to Government
                        Health & Family Welfare Department
                        Government of Tamil Nadu
                        Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

                     2. The Principal

Tamil Nadu Government Dental College & Hospital Chennai 600 003.

3. The Director Dental Council of India Aiwan E-Galib Marg Kotla Road, New Delhi 110 002.

4. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy Chennai 600 0032.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.50509/2025, etc. Batch

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

GLN

PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN W.P. NO. 50509 OF 2025 W.P. NOS. 323, 1127 & 3617 OF 2026

Pronounced on 20.04.2026

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis