(L. Nageswara Rao, Indu Malhotra and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.)
Medical Director, Kannur Dental College _______________ Appellant;
v.
Kerala University of Health and Sciences and Another __ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal Nos. 229-230 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 13923-13924/2020), decided on January 27, 2021
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. These Appeals have been filed against the judgment of the High Court by which the decision of the first Respondent-University not to grant affiliation to the Appellant-College for Undergraduate (UG) and Postgraduate (PG) courses for the academic year 2020-2021 has been upheld.
3. The Appellant-College was established in the year 2006 for conducting UG Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course. Recognition was granted in the year 2011 after completion of the first batch. Thereafter, PG courses were sanctioned in the year 2013. The first Respondent-University was granting periodical affiliation since 2006 onwards. An application for continuation of affiliation was preferred by the Appellant-College for the academic year 2020-2021. An inspection was conducted on 05.12.2019. Thereafter, the first Respondent-University directed the Appellant-College to furnish the appointment letters and joining reports of the lecturers/senior lecturers by a letter dated 21.01.2020. A reply was submitted by the Appellant-College by which the details sought were provided by the Appellant-College.
4. Workers who were engaged by contractors/service providers in the house keeping/cleaning sections of the Appellant-College went on strike in front of the college campus. From 11.02.2020 they did not permit the college staff and students to enter the college and they also damaged the property of the Appellant-College. The strike continued from 11.02.2020 to 24.03.2020.
5. On 05.03.2020 which happened to be the World Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics Day, a special programme was organized at Sahara Suites, Chakkarakkal, Kannur Auditorium which is situated outside the campus of the College. An inspection was conducted on 05.03.2020 when the staff members were not present in the college as they were attending the seminar.
6. The first Respondent-University issued a show cause notice directing the Appellant-College to submit particulars of each teaching faculty member. The Appellant-College submitted a detailed response to the show cause notice. Not satisfied with the explanation of the Appellant-College, the governing council of the first Respondent-University decided not to grant provisional affiliation to the Appellant-College for the academic year 2020-2021.
7. The Appellant-College challenged the decision of the first Respondent-University dated 29.04.2020 by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court of Kerala. The High Court refused to interfere with the decision of the first Respondent-University by holding that the Appellant-College could not produce the material that was sought for by the first Respondent-University to show that there is no deficiency in the faculty in the Appellant-College.
8. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant-College submitted that the minimum staffing pattern for under graduate dental studies for 100 admissions according to the Dental Council of India Regulations is 59. In other words, the minimum faculty that is required is 59. He stated that there are 98 faculty members which include the teaching staff of PG courses. According to Mr. Singh, the Appellant provided the particulars of all the 98 teaching staff members in the college has been published on the website of the University. He argued that even according to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first Respondent-University the total number of faculty available is 98 and the required staff in the college should be 90. The first Respondent-University deducted the names of 13 persons who were appointed by the college after the decision was taken by the University on 29.04.2020. According to the first Respondent, 85 faculty members are available. Obviously, the teaching staff in the PG courses was also included in 85. He argued that it is inconceivable that there is shortage of teaching faculty in the college which has been running from 2006 without any complaint whatsoever.
9. Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.R., learned counsel appearing for the first Respondent-University defended the decision of the University by arguing that there is serious doubt about the Appellant-College satisfying the minimum requirement of faculty. He submitted that 30 out of teaching staff graduated from the Appellant-College. 13 appointments were made in June-July, 2020 after the decision of the University on 29.04.2020. He submitted that this Court should not interfere with the decision of the High Court and the Appellant should not be permitted to admit the students for the present year.
10. Admittedly, the Appellant was recognised by the Dental Council of India in the year 2006. The degree granted by the University was recognised in 2011. Similarly, the Appellant was permitted to commence PG courses in 2011 and the PG degree was recognised in the year 2013. Even according to the learned counsel for the Respondent, there is no deficiency in the infrastructural facilities of the Appellant-College. The doubt expressed by the first Respondent-University relates to the faculty. No deficiencies were intimated to the Appellant when the first inspection was conducted on 05.12.2019. The Appellant was only directed to furnish the particulars of all the teaching faculty. There is no dispute that the college was closed due to the strike between 11.02.2020 to 24.03.2020. After the second inspection on 05.03.2020, the University directed the Appellant to submit the details of the faculty members. The particulars of the faculty members that was given by the Appellant-College was published on the website of the University. That list contains the names of 98 faculty members. As stated supra, the requirement of faculty members is only 59.
11. After examining the material on record and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the Appellant-College is entitled to make admission of students in the first year BDS courses for the academic year 2020-2021 by being allotted students from the NEET qualified candidates. The Appellant-College shall file an undertaking in this Court, within a period of one week that the admission of students in BDS course for the academic year 2020-2021 shall be subject to the Appellant’s satisfying the first Respondent-University that it has the requisite faculty as per the Dental Council of India Regulations. It is open to the first Respondent-University to conduct an inspection.
12. The second Respondent is directed to allot students from the NEET qualified candidates for admission to first BDS course 2020-2021 to the Appellant-College. The students admitted to the Appellant-College shall be informed about the conditions in the preceding paragraph.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Appeals are allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13923-13924/2020
The Medical Director, Kannur Dental College _____________ Petitioner
v.
The Kerala University of Health and Sciences & Anr ______________________________________________ Respondent(s)
(With applns for exemption from filing original vakalatnama, appropriate orders, exemption from filing affidavit, exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment, permission to file additional documents/facts/annexures)
Date : 27-01-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before L. Nageswara Rao, Indu Malhotra and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.)
For the parties(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv
Mr. Mushtaq Salim, Adv
Mr. Usman Khan, Adv
Mr. Azhar Aziz, Adv
Ms. Pallavi Pratap, AOR
Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv
Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.R, AOR
Mr. P. Sreekumar, Adv.
Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
14. Leave granted.
15. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
