Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 319 OF 2010

PRIYA DARSHNI DENTAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL   …  Petitioner

                VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                        …  Respondents

WITH

W.P(C) NO. 322 of 2010 W.P(C) NO. 323 of 2010 W.P(C) NO. 324 of 2010 W.P(C) NO. 330 of 2010 W.P(C) NO. 332 of 2010

W.P(C) NO. 333 of 2010 W.P(C) NO. 334 of 2010 W.P(C) NO. 337 of 2010 W.P(C) NO. 339 of 2010 W.P(C) NO. 345 of 2010

O R D E R

R.V. RAVEENDRAN J.

Issue rule nisi. Heard finally by consent. As these cases involve  a  

similar issue, they are disposed of by this common order. For convenience we  

will refer to the facts from the lead matter [W.P.(C)No.319 of 2010].

2.  The  Central  Government,  by  order  dated  12.7.2007,  granted  

permission  to  the petitioner  college,  under  Section 10A(4)  of  the Dentists  

Act,  1948 ('Act'  for  short)  for  establishing  a  new Dental  College  with  an  

intake  of  100  students,  commencing  from  the  academic  year  2007-08.

Thereafter, by orders dated 18.8.2008 and 23.6.2009, the Central Government  

granted renewal of permission for the academic years 2008-09 and 2009-10.

3. For the academic year 2010-2011, the petitioner made an application  

for fourth year renewal permission, to the Dental Council of India (‘DCI’ for  

short) on 24.2.2010 enclosing therewith a form containing the particulars of  

teaching staff, infrastructure etc. as also a demand draft for Rupees one lakh  

towards the inspection fees.  In pursuance of it, the DCI Inspectors carried  

out an inspection on 26.4.2010 and submitted a Joint Inspection Report  to  

DCI. Based on the said report, the DCI by communication dated 17.5.2010  

informed  the  petitioner  college  about  the  deficiencies  in  faculty,  

equipments/instruments  and library, with reference to the DCI Norms, and  

called upon the college to rectify the deficiencies and furnish a compliance  

report within five days.  

4. The petitioner  college sent  a Compliance Report  dated 19.5.2010 to  

DCI informing them about  the action taken to rectify the deficiencies and  

also  giving  certain  clarifications  to  show  that  some  of  the  deficiencies  

pointed out were not deficiencies at all. DCI considered the said reply of the  

petitioner  College  and  made  a  recommendation  dated  12.6.2010  to  the  

Central Government not to renew the permission for the fourth year of the  

BDS Course for the academic year 2010-2011, in view of the deficiencies  

noted therein.

2

5. The central government, sent a general circular dated 21.6.2010 to all  

Dental Colleges in whose cases the DCI had recommended that permission  

should  not  be  renewed,  including  the  petitioner  college,  informing  that  a  

three-member Committee under the Chairmanship of the Director General of  

Health Services will give a personal hearing to them, as required under the  

first  proviso  to  Section  10A  (4)  of  the  Act  to  consider  the  proposal  for  

renewal of permission for the BDS Course for the academic year 2010-2011,  

on 23rd, 24th and 25th June, 2010. The said letter was dispatched on 22.6.2010  

and reached the petitioner college on 25.6.2010, making it impossible for the  

petitioner  college  situated  at  Chennai  (Tamil  Nadu)  to  send  its  

Principal/Representative for the personal hearing. In the circumstances, the  

petitioner  college  by  letter  dated  25.6.2010,  requested  for  such  hearing.  

However, such hearing was not granted. By communication dated 15.7.2010,  

the  Central  Government  communicated  its  decision  not  to  grant  renewal  

permission  to  the  Dental  College  for  the  academic  year  2010-11.  A  

consequential direction was issued to the college not to admit students for the  

academic year 2010-11.  

6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Madras High Court by  

filing a writ petition on 19.7.2010 praying that the order of rejection dated  

15.7.2010 be quashed and seeking a direction to the Central Government to  

permit the College to admit fresh students for BDS course for the academic  

3

year 2010-11 and also seeking a direction to the Central Government to grant  

renewal permission to conduct the fourth year of the BDS course during the  

academic year 2010-11. The said writ  petition was allowed by the Madras  

High Court by order dated 29.7.2010. The High court held that dispatch of  

the letter dated 21.6.2010 on 22.6.2010 fixing the personal hearing on 23rd,  

24th and 25th June, 2010, did not amount to grant of a hearing at all, if the  

letter reached the College on 25.6.2010, after the time fixed for hearing. It,  

therefore, held that the mandatory requirement of reasonable opportunity of  

being heard, required under the proviso to Section 10A (4) of the Act was not  

complied with. As a consequence, the High Court remitted the petitioner’s  

application for renewal of permission for 2010-2011, for re-consideration by  

the Central Government, by giving a due hearing to the petitioner. The High  

Court also directed the three-member Committee constituted by the Central  

Government  to  hear  the  petitioner  on  6.8.2010,  consider  the  documents  

furnished  by  it  and  pass  final  orders.  It  also  reserved  liberty  to  DCI,  if  

necessary,  to  make  further  inspection  to  verify  the  correctness  of  the  

compliance  report  submitted  by  the  petitioner  college  and  send  a  further  

report so as to reach the three-member Committee of the Central Government  

before 6.8.2010.  

7. In pursuance of the said order,  the three-member Committee gave a  

hearing  to  the  petitioner  college  on  6.8.2010.  Thereafter,  the  Committee  

4

recommended the renewal of permission for the fourth year of BDS Course  

for the academic year 2010-11. Accepting the recommendation, the Central  

Government sent a communication dated 17.8.2010 to the petitioner college  

granting renewal of permission subject to a condition. We extract below the  

relevant portion of the said order:

“The Central Government has accepted the above recommendation of the  Committee and the permission of the Central Government is granted to  Priyadarshini  Dental  College  and  Hospital,  Thiruvallur  Taluk  &  Dist.  Tamil Nadu, for admission of 100 students in the 4th year of BDS  course  for the academic year 2010-11.  However, since the last date of grant of  such  permission  has  already expired  on  15.7.2010,  the  above  Central   Government permission to the institute is subject to the condition that the  institute  obtains  the  orders  of  Supreme  Court  to  the  effect  that  such  permission would not violate the earlier order of  the Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  to  the  effect  that  15th July  would  be  last  date  for  grant  such  permission in the relevant academic year.”

(emphasis supplied)

The  DCI  also  sent  a  communication  dated  23.8.2010  to  the  petitioner  

requiring compliance with the communication dated 17.8.2010 sent  by the  

Central Government.

8. In  compliance  with  the  direction  of  the  Central  Government,  the  

petitioner  college  has  approached  this  Court  by  filing  this  writ  petition,  

seeking  a  direction  that  the  conditional  permission  granted  to  it  by  the  

Central Government on 17.8.2010 under Section 10A(4) of the  Act for the  

academic  year  2010-11,  be  made  “absolute”  by  declaring  that  such  

permission granted by the Central Government, did not violate the order of  

this  court  in  Mridul  Dhar vs.  Union  of  India --  2005(2)  SCC 65  (which  

5

according to the Central Government, directed that 15th July should be the  

last  date  for  grant  of  such  permission).  While  issuing  notice  on  the  writ  

petition, this Court granted interim stay of the said condition requiring the  

‘approval’ of this Court.  

9. Learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  appearing  for  the  Central  

Government and the learned counsel  appearing for DCI submitted that the  

High Court, in  a writ petition filed by the petitioner, had held that there was  

a violation of the first proviso to Section 10A(4) of the Act by the Central  

Government failing to provide a hearing to the petitioner before refusing to  

renew the permission;  that  as  a consequence,  the High Court  directed the  

Central Government to give a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner  

college; that such a direction was issued on 29.7.2010, after the last date (15th  

July) for grant of permissions had expired; that the Central Government gave  

a hearing as directed by the High Court and being satisfied that the petitioner  

had complied with the requirements, promptly took a decision reversing the  

earlier decision and granted the renewal of permission; and that as the Central  

Government felt that its order granting permission in August may violate the  

requirement in Mridul Dhar that the last date for issue of permission should  

be  15th July,  the  Central  Government  imposed  the  condition  that  its  

permission was subject to the Dental  College obtaining an order from this  

Court, approving the grant of permission beyond 15th July.  It was submitted  

6

by the Central Government in its counter affidavit dated 10.12.2010 filed in  

this writ petition that as the Ministry did not want to violate the order of this  

Court  in  Mridul  Dhar,  by  granting  any  permission  after  15th July,  it  had  

“incorporated  the  condition  in  the  letters  of  permissions  issued  after  

15.7.2010 but  before  30.9.2010”.  It  was submitted  that  the delay was not  

attributable either to the petitioner college or DCI or the Central Government;  

and that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Central Government  

and the DCI have no objection for grant of the relief prayed by the petitioner.  

Issue of Propriety  

10. But  the  question  that  arises  for  consideration  is,  whether  on  such  

concession, or by mutual consent, the relief sought in the petition should be  

granted.  The  matter  involves  issues  of  propriety  and  violation  of  the  

constitutional scheme relating to separation of powers and independence of  

judiciary. First  is  whether it  was proper for the Ministry to issue an order  

granting renewal of permission with a condition that petitioner should seek  

approval of its order from this Court, so as to ‘regularize’ its order. Second is  

whether  it  would  be  proper  for  this  court  to  ‘approve’  the  Central  

Government’s order granting renewal of permission, as a part of the ‘decision  

making process’ so as to ‘regularize’ the delay in making the order.   The  

executive power of the Central Government to grant permission or renewal of  

permission  under  section  10A of  the  Act,  is  not  subject  to  the  control  or  

7

supervision  of  this  Court,  nor  subject  to  confirmation  or  approval  by this  

Court. The Central Government is bound to consider and pass orders granting  

or refusing permission in terms of section 10A of the Act, taking note of the  

recommendations of DCI, by following the procedure prescribed by the Act  

and DCI regulations.  Neither this court, nor any other court, has any role to  

play in the decision making process relating to grant or refusal of permission  

under the Act, by the Central Government.    

11. A stipulation by an authority entrusted with the power to consider and  

grant permissions/recognitions,  while granting such permission/recognition,  

that the applicant should seek and obtain an order from a court, approving the  

grant of such permission/recognition, as a condition precedent to give effect  

to such grant, would be improper and irregular. It amounts to failure to take  

responsibility  or  shirking  the  responsibility  in  exercising  the  power  in  

accordance with the Act and the Regulations. Further, such a requirement by  

the  executive,  amounts  to  attempting  to  make  the  judiciary  a  part  of  the  

decision making process by the executive. Judiciary has no role to play under  

the Act or Rules in granting permission or renewal of permission. The power  

of judicial review is not intended to be exercised to grant ‘advance rulings of  

administrative  approvals’  to  validate  executive  orders.  Neither  Central  

Government, nor the DCI, can shift the onus of decision making to the courts,  

blurring and obliterating the line of separation between the executive and the  

8

judiciary. Any attempt by the executive authority to provide itself a protective  

cover against challenges or criticism to its action, by ‘passing the buck’ to the  

Judiciary in regard to final decisions,  should be resisted and avoided. The  

orders of the Central Government granting or refusing permission are subject  

to judicial review at the instance of any affected party, and the same cannot  

be pre-empted by making the Supreme Court a party to the decision making  

process of the executive. We are therefore of the view that it was not proper  

for the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Dental Education Section),  

Government of India, (for short ‘the Ministry’) to stipulate a condition while  

granting renewal of permission for the BDS Course, that the “order is subject   

to the condition that the institute obtains the orders of Supreme Court to the   

effect that such permission would not violate the earlier order of the Hon’ble   

Supreme Court to the effect that 15th July would be last date for grant of such  

permission  in  the  relevant  academic  year.”  Such  a  condition  requiring  

approval of this Court is liable to be quashed.

On merits

12. It  is  necessary to  refer  to  certain  aspects  of  grant  of  permissions  to  

avoid  confusion,  unnecessary  delays  and  litigation.  In  Mridul  Dhar, this  

Court  primarily  dealt  with  the  time schedule  for  completion  of  admission  

process for medical and dental colleges.  Mridul Dhar did not provide any  

9

time schedule,  much less  15th July  as  the  last  date,  for  issue  of  letters  of  

permissions  or  renewal  of  permissions  by  Central  Government  to  Dental  

Colleges. Para 28 of the decision in Mridul Dhar referring to a time schedule  

stipulating  15th July  as  the  last  date  for  issue  of  letters  of  permission  by  

Central  Government  does  not  relate  to  dental  colleges  nor  to  

permissions/renewal  of  permissions  to  dental  colleges.  The  said  time  

schedule is not even a direction of this Court, but is only an extract from the  

Medical  Council  of  India  Establishment  of  Medical  College  Regulations,  

1999  applicable  only  to  medical  colleges.   This  Court  in  Mridul  Dhar  

however clearly directed that the Central Government should strictly adhere  

to the time schedule wherever provided for. This Court stated :  

“Having regard to the professional courses, it deserves to be emphasized  that  all  concerned  including  Governments,  State  and  Central  both,  MCI/DCI, colleges – new or old, students, Boards, universities, examining  authorities,  etc.,  are  required  to  strictly  adhere  to  the  time  schedule  wherever  provided  for;  there  should  not  be  midstream  admissions;  admissions  should not be in excess of sanctioned intake capacity or in  excess of quota of anyone, whether State or management. The carrying  forward of any unfilled seats of one academic year to next academic year  is also no permissible.”  

[emphasis supplied]

13. In view of the directions in Mridul Dhar, DCI in consultation with the  

Central  Government,  provided  a  time  schedule,  while  making  the  Dental   

Colleges of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or   

Higher Course of Study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in   

Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006 (for short ‘DCI Regulations’). As per the  

10

DCI  Regulations,  the  last  date  for  grant  of  permissions  and  renewal  of  

permissions by Central Government is  15th July. We may refer to relevant  

provisions of the DCI Regulations.  

13.1) Regulation  4  of  DCI  Regulations  relates  to  submission  of  

proposals/schemes  for  establishing  new dental  colleges  and it  is  extracted  

below:  

“4.   Proposals  or schemes for establishing  a new dental  college,  or  opening a new or higher course of study or training or increasing the  admission capacity, in the dental college:-

(1) The proposals  or schemes for establishing a new dental  college, or  opening a new or higher course of study or training or increasing the ad- mission capacity, in the dental college, as the case may be, shall be made  or submitted to the Central Government for obtaining its permission under  the Act in the Form. I, Form 2 and Form 3, respectively, annexed to these  regulations.

(2) The scheme or the proposal under sub-regulation (1) and, processing  thereof shall  be submitted within the time- schedule as provided in the  Schedule annexed to these regulations.”

The schedule annexed to the regulations, referred to in Regulation 4(2) pre-

scribing the time schedule for grant of permissions, is extracted below:

SCHEDULE [(see regulation 4(2)]

Schedule for Receipt of Applications for Establishment of New Dental Colleges,  Opening of Higher Courses of Study & Increase of admission capacity in the rec- ognized Dental Colleges and processing of the applications by the Central Govern- ment and the Dental Council of India.  

11

S.No. Stage of Process- ing

Time Schedule  for BDS

Time Schedule  for MDS

1 Receipt  of  applications  by the Central Govt

From 1st  Aug.  to 30th  September  (both  days  inclusive) of any year

From 1st  May  to  30th  June (both days  inclu- sive) of any year

2 Forwarding  of  applica- tions   by  the  Central  Government to the Den- tal  Council  of  India  for  technical scrutiny

Upto 31st December Upto 31st July

3 Recommendation of DCI to the Central Govern- ment

Upto 15th  June Upto 28th February

4 Issue of Letter of Permission by Central  Government

Upto 15th July Upto 31st March

Note: (1) : If any clarification is sought by the Central Government on the recom- mendation of the Council, the same will be furnished by the Council forthwith, if  necessary, after conducting inspection.

(2) The time–schedule indicated above may be modified by the Central Govern- ment, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in respect of any class or category of  applications.”

13.2) Rule 10 relating to grant of permission to establish a dental college  

and Rule 11 relating to renewal of permission to a dental college, are extract-

ed below :

“10. Grant of Permission to establish a dental college:

(1) The Central Government may, after considering the scheme submitted  under regulation 7 in terms of Section 10A of the Act and the recommen- dations of the Council thereon, issue a Letter of Intent to grant permission  to establish a dental college subject to such conditions or modifications in  the original proposal as it may consider necessary. The formal permission  will be granted by the Central Government after the conditions stipulated  and the modifications suggested are accepted by the applicant and a per- formance bank guarantee from a Scheduled Commercial bank valid for the  entire duration of the course in favour of the Council is furnished as fol- lows  x x x x x  

12

(3)  The formal permission will include conditions for fulfillment of a time  bound programme and achieving of annual targets commensurate with the  initial intake of students for the establishment of a dental college.  

(4)  The permission under sub-regulation (1) to establish a new dental col- lege will be granted for a period of one year and will be renewed on yearly  basis  subject  to  verification  of  the  achievement  of  annual  targets and  revalidation, if necessary, of the performance bank guarantee.”

11. Renewal of Permission

(1) Admissions  of  the  next  batches  shall  not  be  made  by  the  dental  college unless the permission granted under regulation 10 has been  renewed by the Central Government.

(2)The application for renewal of permission shall be submitted to the  Council, with a copy to the Central Government, six months prior to  the expiry of the current academic session. The recommendation of  the Council in all cases of renewal shall be made by 15th June and the  Central  Government  shall  issue  final  orders  regarding renewal  of   permission by 15th July of each year.     

Provided that the process of renewal of permission will not be applicable  after the completion of phased expansion of the infrastructure facilities  and teaching faculty as per norms laid down by the Council and the first  batch of students take the final year examinations.”   

(emphasis supplied)

14. Regulation 11(2) clearly lays down a time schedule for the submission  

of applications for renewal of permission (six months prior to the expiry of  

the current academic session), for recommendation by DCI (15th June) and for  

issue of final orders by Central Government regarding renewal of permission  

(15th July). Though, the DCI Regulations provide that the last date for issue of  

letter of permission or renewal of permission by the Central Government is  

15th July, having regard to the scheme relating to grant of renewal of permis-

sion and note (2) to the schedule, the Central Government has the discretion  

13

to modify the time schedule in appropriate cases, for reasons to be recorded,  

in respect of any class or category of applications.  

15. If the Central Government was of the view that a dental college deserved  

renewal of permission in accordance with the Act and Regulations, it should  

grant  such permission.  If  it  was of the  view that  the dental  college did not  

deserve renewal of permission, it should refuse the permission. If the Central  

Government felt that the last date for granting renewal of permission was over  

and there was no justification for extending the time schedule, it could refuse  

the renewal of permission on that ground. On the other hand, if the Central  

Government was of the view that the applicant college had complied with the  

requirements and was not at fault, and it was not responsible in any manner for  

the delay in  considering  the application,  and there  were other  applicants  of  

similar nature, it could have recorded those reasons in writing and extended the  

time schedule for that category of applicants and then granted the renewal of  

permission, provided the last date for admissions had not expired. Note (2) to  

the schedule to the DCI Regulations enables the Central Government to modify  

the time schedule, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in respect of any class  

or category of applications. Applicants for renewal of permission for the fourth  

or  fifth  year,  where  there  is  compliance  with  the  requirements  relating  to  

infrastructure,  equipment  and  faculty,  could  be  such  a  class  or  category  of  

applications.  Similarly,  applications  where  High  Courts  have  directed  

14

consideration  beyond  15th July  in  view  of  special  circumstances,  can  also  

constitute a class or category of applicants.  

16. Though we have rejected the prayer for ‘approval’ of the order of the  

Central Government, sought in the writ petition, we are of the view that the  

petitioner is entitled to a suitably moulded relief. As noticed above, the delay  

was beyond the control of DCI and the Central Government. The petitioner  

college  was also  not  responsible  for  the  delay in  applying  for  renewal  of  

permission. The last date for admissions had not yet expired. The order was  

passed  on the direction of the High Court  to reconsider  the matter.  There  

were several other similar cases pending before the Central Government. All  

those  applications  for  renewal  of  permission,  which  were  directed  to  be  

reconsidered by the High Court could be considered to be a special category  

of  applications  where  the  Central  Government  had  modified  the  time  

schedule for grant of renewal of permissions under Note (2) to the schedule  

to the DCI Regulations. By so deeming, the order of the Central Government  

dated  17.8.2010  granting  renewal  of  permissions  in  this  case  and  other  

similar cases can be considered as having been validly made.

The connected cases

17. In  the  connected  cases,  the  Central  Government  has  passed  similar  

conditional  orders  granting  renewal  of  permission  to  other  petitioner  dental  

15

colleges, in regard to either fourth or fifth year of BDS course. The conditional  

renewals  of  permission  were  granted  in  September  2010,  except  in  WP(C)  

No.334 of 2010 where it was passed on 23.7.2010.  The petitioners therein are  

entitled to similar relief as in the first matter.  

A suggestion for modification of time schedule  

18. In all these cases, the petitioners, who were  applicants for renewal were  

existing  dental  colleges,  were  functioning  for  three  or  four  years  and  each  

college  had  admitted  hundreds  of  students  either  directly  or  through  State  

Government allotment. The colleges had the benefit of initial permission and  

several renewals of permission. Refusal of renewal of permission in such cases  

should not be abrupt nor for insignificant or technical violations. Nor should  

such applications be dealt in a casual manner, by either granting less than a  

week for setting right  the ‘deficiencies’ or not granting an effective hearing  

before  refusal.  The  entire  process  of  verification  and  inspection  relating  to  

renewal  of  permission,  should  be  done  well  in  time  so  that  such  existing  

colleges have adequate and reasonable time to set right the deficiencies or offer  

explanations to the deficiencies. The object of providing for annual renewal of  

permissions  for  four  years,  is  to  ensure  that  the  infrastructural  and  faculty  

requirements are fulfilled in a gradual manner, and not to cause disruption.  

16

19. In the context of what has happened in these cases, it  is necessary to  

emphasize the distinction between the applications for fresh permissions and  

applications for renewal of permissions. They require distinct time schedules.  

The process of decision making under the Regulations, for grant of fresh or  

initial permission for establishment of new dental colleges is exhaustive and  

elaborate, when compared to the process of decision making in regard to grant  

of renewal of permission for the four subsequent years.  Before grant of initial  

grant of permission, the DCI and Central Government are required to consider  

the following aspects : whether the institution would be in a position to offer  

the minimum standards of dental education in conformity with the Act and the  

Regulations;  whether  the  institution  has  adequate  resources;  whether  the  

institution has provided or will provide within the time-limit specified in the  

scheme,  necessary  staff,  equipment,  accommodation,  training  and  other  

facilities to ensure proper functioning of the institution; whether the institution  

has provided or would provide within the time-limit specified  in the scheme,  

adequate  hospital  facilities;  whether  faculty  having  recognized  dental  

qualifications  and  personnel  in  the  field  of  practice  of  dentistry  will  be  

available to impart proper training for the students; and whether other factors  

prescribed by the Regulations have been complied. On the other hand, for the  

purpose of grant of renewal of permission, DCI has to make recommendations  

by  considering  only  whether  the  prescribed  faculty  and  infrastructure  are  

available.  

17

20. The need for renewal of permission emanates from the fact that a newly  

established college is  not  required to have in place,  full  complement  of the  

teaching  faculty  and  complete  infrastructure  in  the  first  year  itself.  This  is  

because, during the first  year, the college will  be catering only to a limited  

number  of first  year students.  During the  second,  third  and fourth  and fifth  

years, the student strength will increase. If the permitted intake is 100, usually  

there will be 100 students in the first year, 200 students in the second year, 300  

students in the third year, 400 students in the fourth year and 500 students in  

the fifth year. Thereafter,  the strength may remain constant.  As the strength  

increases gradually every year, correspondingly the infrastructure and faculty  

will  have  to  be  increased.  The  DCI  Regulations  contemplate  new  dental  

colleges being established and started with limited infrastructure and faculty,  

and  making  “provision  for  expansion  of  teaching  staff  and  infrastructure  

facilities in a phased manner as per Annexures III and IV to the regulations”  

[vide Regulation 6(j)]. For example, the dental chairs required in a college will  

be as under [vide Regulation 6(k)] :   

Year Intake (50)

Intake (100)

First Year 20 25

Second  Year 50 100

Third Year 100 200

Fourth Year & Internship 125 250

18

Similarly, the college is required to increase the faculty strength gradually over  

the second and third years so as to achieve the required dental faculty strength  

by the third year as under [vide Annexure-III to the DCI Regulations] :  

Year Total posts required Professors Readers Lecturers

100 intake 50 intake 100 intake 50 intake 100 intake 50 intake

First year 2 2 3 2 16 10

Second year 4 3 5 4 30 20

Third year 6 6 13 11 40 30

21. In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  inspection  and  verification  in  regard  to  

renewal  of  permission  for  the  second,  third,  fourth  and  fifth  years  will  be  

restricted  only  to  the  consideration  of  the  additional  faculty  and  additional  

infrastructure,  it  may  not  be  necessary  to  apply  the  lengthy  time  schedule  

prescribed for  initial  permission,  to  renewal  of  permissions  during  the next  

four  years.  The DCI Regulations  presently  contemplate  almost  similar  time  

schedules in regard to applications for establishment of new dental colleges,  

for opening of higher courses of study, for increase of admission capacity, and  

for renewal of permissions, with 15th July being the last date both for grant of  

permission  or  renewal  of  permission.  DCI  and  Central  Government  may  

consider amendment to the DCI Regulations suitably to provide for a shorter  

and  distinct  time  schedule  for  renewal  of  permissions,  so  that  the  dental  

19

colleges could file applications till end of February and the process of grant or  

refusal of renewal is completed by 15th of June.  

Conclusion  

22. In view of the above, these writ petitions are allowed as follows :

(a) The condition imposed by the Central Government (requiring the dental  

colleges  to  secure  appropriate  orders  from  this  court  approving  the  

renewals of permission) in the letters of renewal of permission issued to  

the petitioners in July/August/September, 2010, is quashed;

(b) It is however declared that the renewal of permissions issued by Central  

Government  to  the  petitioners  for  the  academic  year  2010-2011,  are  

valid.

.......................................J. [ R.V. RAVEENDRAN ]

NEW DELHI          ................. .....................J. FEBRUARY 15, 2011         [ A.K. PATNAIK ]

20