Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Illegal PG Dental Admissions: Dental Council of India vs. Sailendra Sharma (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 21 October 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 535

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.

Can private dental colleges bypass the official counselling process and admit students to postgraduate courses after the deadline? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, concerning admissions to postgraduate dental courses in Chhattisgarh. The court examined whether private dental colleges could unilaterally admit students after the stipulated deadline, without informing the Directorate of Medical Education, thereby undermining the merit-based admission process. This judgment, delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, has significant implications for the regulation of admissions in professional courses.

Case Background

The dispute arose from the admissions to postgraduate dental courses in Chhattisgarh for the academic year 2018. The National Board of Examination conducted the NEET MDS 2018, and the results were published on January 31, 2018. A merit list was prepared for the State of Chhattisgarh, and admissions were to be conducted through counselling by the State Government. The admission process had to be completed by May 31, 2018, at 4:30 p.m.

Several private dental colleges, including New Horizon Dental College Research Institute, Maitri College of Dentistry and Research, and Rungta College of Dental Sciences and Research, participated in the counselling process. After the initial rounds of counselling, some seats remained vacant. These colleges were required to inform the Directorate of Medical Education about the vacant seats, which would then be filled through a mop-up round of counselling. However, after the mop-up round, some seats remained vacant, and these colleges, without informing the Directorate, unilaterally admitted students after the deadline of May 31, 2018, at 4:30 p.m.

Specifically, the Directorate of Medical Education notified the vacant seats on May 29, 2018, based on information provided by the private colleges. A mop-up round of counselling was held on May 30, 2018, where 43 candidates were allotted seats. However, some allotted candidates did not join, leaving a few seats vacant. Instead of informing the Directorate, the three colleges directly admitted students, including the respondents, on May 31, 2018, after 4:30 p.m. Upon discovering this, the State Government cancelled these admissions on June 6, 2018, leading to the writ petitions in the High Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Chhattisgarh initially granted an interim order staying the cancellation of admissions and allowed the students to continue their courses. Subsequently, the High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the State Government’s communication dated June 6, 2018, and directed that the students be allowed to complete their courses. The High Court observed that there might have been a lack of proper communication or a vacuum in the rules, which the colleges exploited. However, since the admissions had been granted and the courses had begun, the High Court ruled in favor of the students.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the Dental Council of India appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had perpetuated an illegality by protecting admissions that were granted in violation of the established procedure. The Dental Council contended that the admissions were made without following the proper counselling process and after the stipulated deadline.

Legal Framework

The admissions to postgraduate dental courses in Chhattisgarh are governed by the following:

• The Dentists Act, 1948
• MDS Course Regulations, 2017
• Chhattisgarh Dental Medicine Postgraduate Admission Rules, 2017

These regulations mandate that admissions to postgraduate courses must be conducted through a centralized counselling process by the State Government, based on merit. The private colleges are required to intimate the Directorate of Medical Education about the number of vacant seats. These seats are then to be filled through counselling. The regulations also specify a deadline for admissions, which in this case was May 31, 2018, at 4:30 p.m.

Arguments

Arguments by the Dental Council of India:

• The Dental Council of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the State Government’s communication dated June 6, 2018, which had cancelled the illegal admissions.
• They contended that the High Court’s decision perpetuated the illegality committed by the private institutions by admitting students without following the prescribed procedure.
• The admissions were made without intimating the State Government/Directorate about the vacant seats.
• The private colleges unilaterally granted admissions to the original writ petitioners through a backdoor process, violating the established rules and regulations.
• The Dental Council emphasized that admissions should only be granted through the counselling process conducted by the Directorate.
• They argued that the students’ continuation in the course due to the High Court’s interim order should not be a ground for allowing them to complete their course.
• The Dental Council relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Abdul Ahad and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 627 and Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India v. Dr. Priyambada Sharma & Others to support their case.

Arguments by the State Government:

• The State Government adopted the submissions made by the Dental Council of India.
• They argued that the High Court’s order should be quashed, and the admissions granted illegally by the private institutions should not be allowed.

Arguments by the Private Institutions/Colleges:

• The private institutions argued that the admissions were granted to prevent seats from being wasted, as the seats remained vacant by 4:30 p.m. on May 31, 2018.
• They claimed that all admitted students were meritorious and that merit was not overlooked.
• They asserted that the particulars of the vacant seats were displayed before granting admissions.
• They requested that the students be allowed to complete their courses and have their results declared, as they had already completed their studies.

Arguments by the Students:

• The students also requested to be permitted to complete their courses and have their results declared, as they had already completed their studies.

Innovativeness of the argument: The private institutions’ argument that admissions were given to prevent wastage of seats was a novel attempt to justify their actions, but was ultimately rejected by the court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was right in quashing the communication dated 6.6.2018 issued by the Directorate/State Government annulling/cancelling the admission of the original writ petitioners.
2. Whether the private institutions/colleges were justified in granting admissions to the original writ petitioners after the cut-off date and time i.e. 4:30 p.m. on 31.05.2018.
3. Whether the original writ petitioners should be allowed to complete their course, given that their admissions were illegal.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• Supreet Batra and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 370 – The Court cited this case to emphasize that even if some seats remain vacant, students cannot be admitted mid-term, and there is no scope for extending the admission process.
• Education Promotion Society for India v. Union of India, (2019) 7 SCC 38 – This case was used to reiterate that the schedule for admissions must be followed, and the fact that seats are lying vacant is not a ground to grant an extension of time.
• Abdul Ahad and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 627 – The Court cited this case to support the denial of relief to students who were admitted illegally.
• Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India v. Dr. Priyambada Sharma & Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 7533-7534/2011 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.3507-3508/2020, decided on 17.10.2022) – This recent decision was used to support the position that illegal admissions cannot be validated.
• Dr. Astha Goel and Others v. The Medical Counselling Committee & Others (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 409 of 2022 and other connected petitions, decided on 10.06.2022) – The Court relied on this case to reiterate that even if seats remain vacant, the deadline for admissions cannot be extended.
• Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, (1993) 4 SCC 401 – This case was cited to emphasize that courts should not show misplaced sympathy and should not interfere with academic authorities.
• K.S. Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 10 SCC 264 – This case was cited to support the position that interim orders should not be used to perpetuate illegalities.
• Mahatma Gandhi University v. GIS Jose, (2008) 17 SCC 611 – This case was cited to reiterate that misplaced sympathies should not be shown in total breach of the rules.
• CBSE v. Sheena Peethambaran, (2003) 7 SCC 719 – This case was cited to emphasize that students should not be permitted to pursue their studies under interim orders.

Legal Provisions:

• The Dentists Act, 1948 – The Court considered the provisions of this Act to ensure that the admissions were in accordance with the law.
• MDS Course Regulations, 2017 – The Court examined these regulations to ensure that the admission process was followed correctly.
• Chhattisgarh Dental Medicine Postgraduate Admission Rules, 2017 – The Court considered these rules to ensure that the State’s admission process was followed.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Supreet Batra and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 370* to emphasize that even if some seats remain vacant, students cannot be admitted mid-term.
• The Supreme Court followed Education Promotion Society for India v. Union of India, (2019) 7 SCC 38* to reiterate that the schedule for admissions must be followed.
• The Supreme Court cited Abdul Ahad and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 627* to support the denial of relief to students who were admitted illegally.
• The Supreme Court followed Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India v. Dr. Priyambada Sharma & Others* to support the position that illegal admissions cannot be validated.
• The Supreme Court relied on Dr. Astha Goel and Others v. The Medical Counselling Committee & Others* to reiterate that even if seats remain vacant, the deadline for admissions cannot be extended.
• The Supreme Court followed Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, (1993) 4 SCC 401* to emphasize that courts should not show misplaced sympathy and should not interfere with academic authorities.
• The Supreme Court followed K.S. Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 10 SCC 264* to support the position that interim orders should not be used to perpetuate illegalities.
• The Supreme Court cited Mahatma Gandhi University v. GIS Jose, (2008) 17 SCC 611* to reiterate that misplaced sympathies should not be shown in total breach of the rules.
• The Supreme Court followed CBSE v. Sheena Peethambaran, (2003) 7 SCC 719* to emphasize that students should not be permitted to pursue their studies under interim orders.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the integrity of the admission process and prevent the perpetuation of illegalities. The Court emphasized that admissions to postgraduate courses must be based on merit and must follow the prescribed procedure. The Court was critical of the private institutions for unilaterally granting admissions after the deadline and without informing the Directorate. The Court also noted that the students were aware of the illegality and were therefore not entitled to any relief.

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced more by legal principles (60%) than the specific facts of the case (40%). While the factual circumstances of the illegal admissions were important, the Court’s reasoning was primarily based on established legal precedents and the need to uphold the rule of law.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the seats would be wasted if admissions were not granted, but rejected it, citing previous judgments that emphasized that the admission schedule must be strictly followed. The Court also considered the fact that the students had continued their studies based on an interim order from the High Court, but held that this could not be a ground to validate illegal admissions. The Court emphasized that sympathy should not be a basis for circumventing legal procedures and that interim orders should not be used to perpetuate illegalities.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The admissions in the postgraduate course were required to be made only through counselling by the Directorate and the counselling was to be done with respect to number of seats intimated by the concerned institutions/colleges.”
• “In the present case, though required, the private institutions/colleges did not intimate to the Directorate/State Government with respect to seats remained vacant. Without any intimation to the Directorate/State Government, the private institutions/colleges unilaterally granted admission to the original writ petitioners on 31.05.2018 after 4:30 p.m., which was not permissible at all.”
• “Even otherwise, once it is found that the respective original writ petitioners were granted admissions illegally and their admissions are backdoor, thereafter to allow them to continue their course shall be perpetuating the illegality.”

Key Takeaways

• Private educational institutions must strictly adhere to the prescribed admission procedures and deadlines.
• Admissions made without following due process, even if seats remain vacant, are illegal and will not be validated.
• Interim orders from courts cannot be used to perpetuate illegalities or circumvent established rules.
• Merit-based admissions through a centralized counselling process are essential to maintain the integrity of the education system.
• Students who gain admissions through illegal means cannot expect to have their admissions validated, even if they have completed part of their course.

The judgment reinforces the importance of following established procedures for admissions to professional courses. It serves as a warning to private institutions that they cannot circumvent the rules for their convenience. The judgment also clarifies that interim orders from courts cannot be used to validate illegal admissions, and that the courts will not show misplaced sympathy in such cases. This decision is likely to have a significant impact on how admissions to professional courses are conducted in the future, ensuring that merit and transparency are given priority.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the communication dated 6.6.2018 issued by the Directorate/State Government, which had cancelled the admissions of the original writ petitioners, be restored. The writ petitions filed by the students were dismissed, and their admissions were cancelled.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that admissions to postgraduate professional courses must be conducted strictly according to the prescribed procedure and within the stipulated deadlines. Private institutions cannot unilaterally grant admissions after the deadline, even if seats remain vacant. This judgment reinforces the principle that merit-based admissions through a centralized counselling process are essential for maintaining the integrity of the education system. The Supreme Court’s decision does not introduce a new legal principle but rather reinforces existing principles and clarifies their application in the context of postgraduate dental admissions. It reiterates the position of law that illegal admissions cannot be validated, even if the students have completed a portion of their course.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in Dental Council of India vs. Sailendra Sharma and Others, upheld the cancellation of postgraduate dental admissions that were illegally granted by private colleges in Chhattisgarh after the stipulated deadline. The Court emphasized the importance of following due procedure, merit-based admissions, and the need to maintain the integrity of the education system. The judgment serves as a reminder that private institutions cannot circumvent established rules, and that interim orders from courts cannot be used to validate illegal admissions. This decision reinforces existing legal principles and has significant implications for the regulation of admissions in professional courses.

Category

Parent Category: Education Law

Child Categories:

• Postgraduate Admissions
• Dental Education
• Supreme Court Judgments
• Medical Education Regulations
• Admission Process
• NEET MDS

Keywords: Supreme Court, Dental Council of India, Sailendra Sharma, Postgraduate Dental Admissions, NEET MDS, Education Law, Illegal Admissions, Admission Process, Merit-Based Admissions, Medical Education, Deadline, Counselling, Private Dental Colleges, Chhattisgarh, Directorate of Medical Education, Admissions Regulations, Dentists Act, MDS Course Regulations, Chhattisgarh Dental Medicine Postgraduate Admission Rules, Abdul Ahad and Others v. Union of India, Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India, Dr. Astha Goel and Others v. The Medical Counselling Committee, Supreet Batra and Others v. Union of India, Education Promotion Society for India v. Union of India, Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, K.S. Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra, Mahatma Gandhi University v. GIS Jose, CBSE v. Sheena Peethambaran, ratio decidendi, legal precedent, academic integrity, rule of law.