Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2022 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1484 - SC - Indian LawsConstitutional Validity of Notification dated 21st May, 2012 vide which the Appellant-Dental Council of India had substituted Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006 - HELD THAT:- One of the grounds on which the impugned Notification has been struck down is that it is beyond the scope of powers of the Council Under Section 10A(7)(d) of the said Act. The Division Bench of the High Court has relied on Clause (d) of Sub-section (7) of Section 10A of the said Act to come to a conclusion that Clause (d) refers to adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the number of students likely to attend the institution. It has held that a requirement of hospital was already fulfilled in the pre-amended Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Regulations. It has further held that Clause (d) does not refer to Medical College. It was therefore held that the impugned Notification requiring the Dental Colleges to be attached with the Government/Private Medical College was beyond the scope of Sub-section (7) of Section 10A of the said Act and, therefore, inconsistent with the said Act. The Division Bench of the High Court found the impugned Notification dated 21st May, 2012 to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, on the ground that the Dental Colleges established prior to impugned Notification would not be required to be attached with the Medical Colleges, whereas, the Dental Colleges, established after the impugned Notification, will be compelled to be attached to such Medical Colleges - It cannot be said that the Council has taken into consideration the factors, which are not relevant or germane for the purpose to be achieved. The object to be achieved is to provide adequate teaching and training facilities to the students. If in the wisdom of the expert body, this can be done by attaching a Dental College to the already existing Medical College, it cannot be faulted with. The amended Regulation cannot be said to be one, which is manifestly arbitrary, so as to permit the Court to interfere with it. On the contrary, we find that the amended Regulation 6(2)(h) has a direct nexus with the object to be achieved, i.e., providing adequate teaching and training facilities to the students. On the ground of judicial propriety also the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition for a prayer, which already stood rejected. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 24th April, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is not sustainable - Appeal allowed.
|