JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The dispute in these writ petitions relates to admission of students in Rama Dental College, Kanpur hereinafter referred to as the College in M.D.S. course in 9 specialities. Admittedly first admissions in M.D.S. course were made by the college in the year 2006-07. Prior to that neither it had requisite permission nor it in fact admitted any student for M.D.S. course. 3. Government of India passed an order on 31.10.2005 permitting the College to admit 47 students in 9 specialities for the academic session 2006-07. However, through order dated 25.1.2006, the said order was put in abeyance. Thereafter, Dental Council of India (D.C.I.) made recommendation on 30.4.2006 to the effect that only 18 seats must be allotted to the college in question in 6 specialities for M.D.S. course. Accordingly, Government of India on 20.5.2006 modified its earlier order dated 31.10.2005 and permitted the college in question to admit 18 students for M.D.S. course in 6 specialities. Against the said order W.P. No. 26363 of 2006 was filed, which was finally disposed of on 23.5.2006 with the direction that petitioner’s representation dated 18.5.2006 should be decided. Thereafter Government of India on 30.5.2006 again passed an order maintaining its earlier order dated 20.5.2006 permitting only 18 admissions in 6 specialities. Against the said order, W.P. No. 32058 of 2006 was filed. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed on 15.6.2006 permitting the college in question to admit 47 students and under the said interim order the college admitted 41 students in 9 specialities. Against the interim order dated 15.6.2006, Union of India filed special appeal, which was allowed on 3.11.2006 and interim order dated 15.6.2006 was set aside. Against the order of the Division Bench passed in the Special Appeal, D.C.I. filed S.L.P. Before the Supreme Court, which was converted into appeal and allowed by the Supreme Court on 9.3.2007. Order of the Division Bench dated 2.11.2006 was set aside and matter was remanded to the Division Bench. 4. Learned counsel for Union of India and D.C.I. have not been able to explain as to why the said S.L.P. was filed by D.C.I. as the order of Division Bench dated 3.11.2006 was in favour of Union of India and D.C.I. It is a sort of mystery. 5. 4. Learned counsel for Union of India and D.C.I. have not been able to explain as to why the said S.L.P. was filed by D.C.I. as the order of Division Bench dated 3.11.2006 was in favour of Union of India and D.C.I. It is a sort of mystery. 5. Thereafter, Special Appellate Court summoned the file of the writ petition (No. 32058 of 2006) and decided both special appeal as well as writ petition through judgment and order dated 16.10.2008. It was directed that fresh inspection shall be made by D.C.I. and status quo till decision of the Government in pursuance of fresh inspection should be maintained. Thereafter, D.C.I. on 27.10.2008 constituted 9 teams to inspect the facilities available with the college in question in respect of 9 specialities. Inspection was made on 3.11.2008. However, on the said date, no documents according to the inspection teams were supplied to them. The case of the college in question is that the college authorities afterwards offered some documents running into more than 900 pages to the teams of D.C.I. but they refused to accept the same. Thereafter, college made representation to the Government of India. Government of India passed an order on 3.12.2008 directing that the college should supply the papers to D.C.I. within three days. The D.C.I. had already submitted the report on 17.11.2008. However after taking into consideration the documents submitted by the College fresh report was sent on 16.12.2008. 6. For the session 2007-08, the college had filed another writ petition being W.P. No. 19464 of 2007. The file of the same had also been summoned by the Division Bench and that petition was also disposed of in terms of the same order, which was passed in special appeal and W.P. No. 32058 of 2006 on 16.10.2008. For the session 2007-08 only 17 seats in 6 specialities had been permitted, however for the said year also college had admitted 41 students. In the said writ petition, no interim order was granted. 7. In Paras 9 and 10 of the Division Bench judgment dated 16.10.2008, it was observed as follows : “Mr. For the session 2007-08 only 17 seats in 6 specialities had been permitted, however for the said year also college had admitted 41 students. In the said writ petition, no interim order was granted. 7. In Paras 9 and 10 of the Division Bench judgment dated 16.10.2008, it was observed as follows : “Mr. Shashinandan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will make available in this regard in this behalf which will include (1) Contract of appointment and appointment letters of the teachers concerned (2) Their joining reports (3) Attendance register and the names of students attached to each of the teachers (4) Before salary of register and document showing deduction of tax. (5) Addresses of residence of the teachers concerned. It will also produce other documents, if required.” 8. Para-10 of the judgment is quoted below : “10. Needless to say that it will be of course open to the D.C.I. to seek information that is necessary for the purposes of their enquiry.” 9. At the end of Para-8 of the said judgment, it was observed as follows : “Mr. Upadhaya on the instruction of Mr. Nakvi as stated that the inspection will be carried out at the earliest and an outer side by middle of November, 2008 (Mr. Upadhaya was appearing for D.C.I.).” 10. For the academic session 2008-09, only 14 seats were permitted in 6 disciplines, however college had admitted 31 students in 9 disciplines. The order permitting only 14 seats for the session 2008-09 was challenged in the W.P. No. 26255 of 2008. In the said writ petition, no stay order was granted, however for the session 2008-09, the college admitted 31 students in 9 disciplines. The said writ petition is also being decided through this judgment. 11. On the basis of recommendation of D.C.I. made in pursuance of inspection dated 3.11.2008 and after perusal of documents submitted by the College, Government of India passed two orders, one on 17.3.2009 relating to the session 2006-07 and the other on 24.3.2009 relating to the academic sessions 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. The said orders have been challenged through the first two writ petitions. 12. The position of permitted and actual admissions in different years in the college is given in the following chart annexed along with short counter affidavit in the first writ petition, which has not been denied by the petitioners. The said orders have been challenged through the first two writ petitions. 12. The position of permitted and actual admissions in different years in the college is given in the following chart annexed along with short counter affidavit in the first writ petition, which has not been denied by the petitioners. 2006-2007 Sl.No. Speciality Permitted for Actual Excess 2006-2007 by admission Admission GOI vide letter made by taken during dated 3.5.2006 college during 2006-2007 2006-2007 1. Pedodontics 2 3 1 2. Prosthodontics 3 5 2 3. Oral Surgery 4 6 2 4. Orthodontics 3 6 3 5. Oral Medicine 3 4 1 6. Community 3 4 1 Dentistry 7. Conservative 0 4 4 Dentistry 8. Oral Pathology 0 3 3 9. Periodontics 0 6 6 18 41 23 2007-2008 Sl.No. Speciality Permitted for Actual Excess 2007-2008 by admission Admission GOI vide letter made by taken during dated 30.3.2007 college during 2007-2008 2007-2008 1. Pedodontics 2 3 1 2. Prosthodontics 3 5 2 3. Oral Surgery 3 6 3 4. Orthodontics 3 6 3 5. Oral Medicine 3 6 3 6. Community 3 4 1 Dentistry 7. Conservative 0 3 3 Dentistry 8. Oral Pathology 0 3 3 9. Periodontics 0 5 5 17 41 24 2008-2009 Sl.No. Speciality Permitted for Actual Excess 2008-2009 by admission Admission GOI vide letter made by taken during dated 19.5.2008 college during 2008-2009 2008-2009 1. Pedodontics 2 3 1 2. Prosthodontics 3 5 2 3. Oral Surgery 3 6 3 4. Orthodontics 3 5 2 5. Oral Medicine 3 4 1 6. Community 0 3 3 Dentistry 7. Conservative 0 4 4 Dentistry 8. Oral Pathology 0 1 1 14 31 17 13. Dental Council of India framed M.D.S. Course Regulations, 1983 under Dentist Act, 1948, which had been approved by the Central Government. Said Regulations are Annexure-5 to the first writ petition. Thereafter, Regulations were again framed in the year 2007 which became effective from 21.11.2007. Regulations of 2007 have been supplied by the learned counsel. Initially, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the D.C.I. and the Government of India while considering the sanctioned strength of students wrongly took into consideration Regulations of 2007. In this regard, reference was made to second Para-47 of the counter affidavit filed by D.C.I. and it was argued that the D.C.I. admitted that Regulations of 2007 had been applied. Initially, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the D.C.I. and the Government of India while considering the sanctioned strength of students wrongly took into consideration Regulations of 2007. In this regard, reference was made to second Para-47 of the counter affidavit filed by D.C.I. and it was argued that the D.C.I. admitted that Regulations of 2007 had been applied. The said para is quoted below : “In reply to contents of Paragraph 47 of the writ petition, it is wrong and specifically denied that the order dated 17th March, 2009 is not in accordance with the order dated 16th October, 2008 passed by this Hon’ble Court as alleged. It is further incorrect and vehemently denied that the Dental Council was not required to conduct the inspection in accordance with the Regulations 2007 as alleged. It is also denied that the recommendations of the Dental Council dated 16.12.2008 is a nullity for any reason as alleged.” 14. However, learned counsel for the D.C.I. during arguments categorically stated that it was merely a drafting error in the aforesaid para of the counter affidavit and in fact the claim of the college for admitting students in M.D.S. Course for 2006-2007 had been considered in accordance with the Regulations of 1983. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that in case Regulations of 1983 are applied, then for the academic session 2006-07 more students will have to be permitted than the students actually permitted by the Government of India and D.C.I., i.e. 18. In both the Regulations different teacher-student ratio has been prescribed. In the 1983 Regulations, it is provided as under : “2. General (i) The number of admissions to MDS courses in each speciality shall not be more than 2 students per postgraduate teacher per year. (ii) At any one time there shall be not more than 4 active students under one postgraduate teacher. (iii) Not quoted (iv) When the Department is headed by a recognised postgraduate Professor, the Assistant Professor of the Department, who is in possession of the requisite qualification and teaching experience in the subject of specialty, may be permitted to enroll one student per year under him as a post-graduate teacher and guide. (v) not quoted” 16. Under the said Regulations staffing pattern for post-graduate degree program has also been provided. (v) not quoted” 16. Under the said Regulations staffing pattern for post-graduate degree program has also been provided. Under Clause 1(a), it is provided as under : “Professor, Assistant Professor and Junior Staff as proposed under the BDS Regulations, etc. of 1978. However the council encourages the creation of an additional post of Assistant-Professor in the Post-graduate departments in the interest of better teaching standards.” 17. The last quoted proviso was referred to by the learned counsel for the D.C.I. in rebuttal to the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that as per accepted strength of teachers, more students should have been permitted. The argument of learned counsel for D.C.I. was that for additional teachers, additional seats could not be permitted as additional teachers would be treated to have been appointed under the aforesaid clause as preferential requirement. However I am not impressed by the argument of learned counsel for the D.C.I. The D.C.I. is constantly hammering that the college neither had sufficient teachers nor facilities. In this background, it is not possible to hold that the college engaged more than necessary/ additional teachers. 18. Learned counsel had also argued that the inspection by D.C.I. teams in pursuance of judgment of Division Bench dated 16.10.2008 was wrongly made on 3.11.2008 (Monday) as it was the very next day after Diwali, hence all the staff particularly teachers were not present. In reply to this argument, learned counsel for the D.C.I. has argued that firstly inspection had to be made within the time framed fixed by the Division Bench judgment dated 16.10.2008. Secondly that prior intimation of date of inspection had been given to the college to which college had not raised any objection. Thirdly, Diwali in the year 2008 fell on 28th October and fourthly for the purposes of inspection, presence of teachers and other staff was not necessary only documents were to be seen. The last argument is not acceptable as D.C.I. in its report recorded absence of teachers at the time of its inspection. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners had also argued that the teachers, who had been appointed until 18.5.2006 should also have been taken into consideration as in one of the writ petitions on 23.5.2006, this Court had directed that the representation made by the College on 18.5.2006 should be taken into consideration (supra). 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners had also argued that the teachers, who had been appointed until 18.5.2006 should also have been taken into consideration as in one of the writ petitions on 23.5.2006, this Court had directed that the representation made by the College on 18.5.2006 should be taken into consideration (supra). To this argument, the reply on behalf of D.C.I. was that after the Division Bench judgment of 16.10.2008, all other directions merged in the said order and in any case in the order dated 23.5.2006, there was no such direction that teachers appointed till 18.5.2006 should also be taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioners also cited an authority of the Supreme Court reported in Al-karim Educational Trust v. State of Bihar, 1996 (8) SCC 330 , holding that minor deficiencies should have been ignored by Medical Council of India and the affiliating institution after removal of major deficiencies. 20. The decision taken by high power bodies like D.C.I. cannot lightly be interfered with. The Court where decisions of such bodies are challenged invoking writ jurisdiction cannot dissect the findings like the Court of first appeal. However if there is some major defect in the findings of such bodies, then writ jurisdiction is the only remedy available to the aggrieved party. The finding of D.C.I. regarding number of bona fide teachers subject-wise does not contain any such error which may be interfered with exercise of writ jurisdiction. Requisite number of qualified teachers for the whole session or at least major part thereof (about 90%) can by no stretch of imagination be described as minor requirement. Teacher appointed for a part of the session cannot be taken into consideration. In this regard some deficiencies continuing for a part of a particular session may be ignored but not the deficiency of requisite number of teacher. 21. However, I find lot of substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that teacher-student ratio prescribed under 1983 Regulations does not appear to have been kept in mind while deciding the student strength for the session 2006-07. In the recommendations of D.C.I. after the inspection dated 3.11.2008, it was clearly mentioned that a particular strength of teacher in each set was ‘accepted’. In the recommendations of D.C.I. after the inspection dated 3.11.2008, it was clearly mentioned that a particular strength of teacher in each set was ‘accepted’. The report of the D.C.I. dated 16.12.2008 is an annexure to the order passed by Government of India dated 17.3.2009 copy of which is Annexure-33 to the first writ petition. Similar order dated 24.3.2009 for subsequent sessions is Annexure-35 to the second writ petition. In the recommendation of D.C.I., it is mentioned that D.C.I. had taken into consideration the Regulations of 1983. In the report of D.C.I. annexed along with government order dated 17.3.2009, several such teachers, who were appointed either immediately before or immediately after start of the session 2006-07 have been refused to be taken into consideration on the ground that they were not there at the time of earlier inspection by D.C.I. team on the basis of which its earlier recommendation dated 13.4.2006 was made. Such teachers as mentioned in the subsequent inspection report of D.C.I. are as follows : (i) Dr. Hemlata (Professor & HOD), joined on 17.5.2006 in periodontics. (ii) Dr. Abdul Hackeem (Professor), joined on 9.5.2006 in conservative dentistry. (iii) Dr. Illa Srinivasan (Professor), joined on 17.5.2006 in pedodontics. (iv) Dr. Jayaprakash K (Associate Professor), joined on 20.7.2006 in community dentistry. 22. In my opinion, this approach of D.C.I. is not correct. It frustrated the entire purpose of Division Bench order dated 16.10.2008 directing fresh inspection. If earlier inspection was to be taken as final, then there was absolutely no need to direct fresh inspection. Such teachers ought to have been taken into consideration for determining the strength of seats/number of students intake to be sanctioned in a particular speciality. 23. Accordingly, for the academic session 2006-07, D.C.I. is required to immediately send fresh recommendation on the basis of inspection made on 3.11.2008 keeping in view the above observations/findings. Elaborate reasons must be given for permitting particular number of students in each discipline on the basis of 1983 Regulations. As there is some confusion as to whether 1983 Regulations were applied on 2007 ones hence it must specifically be mentioned that what student intake on the basis of 1983 Regulations is being approved and what would have been the position in case 2007 Regulations had been applied. As there is some confusion as to whether 1983 Regulations were applied on 2007 ones hence it must specifically be mentioned that what student intake on the basis of 1983 Regulations is being approved and what would have been the position in case 2007 Regulations had been applied. The teachers, who were appointed either before even though after the first inspection as well as the teachers who were appointed immediately after the start of the session, should be taken into consideration. The recommendation shall be sent within two weeks and Government of India shall pass consequent order within two weeks from the receipt of the recommendations. The time Schedule must strictly be adhered to. 24. As far as W.P. No. 22887 of 2009 is concerned, it relates to the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. Government of India passed the order on 24.3.2009, which is Annexure-35 to the said writ petition. In the said order, it was mentioned that recommendations of D.C.I. were annexed, however along with the said annexure, recommendations were not annexed. Copies of recommendations were afterwards filed along with supplementary affidavit dated 29.4.2009. One of the said recommendations is dated 4.3.2009 for the session 2007-08. D.C.I. met on 22nd February, 2009 and prepared the recommendation/report after considering the letter of the Principal of the College dated 2.2.2009. Previously a meeting of Executive Committee of the D.C.I. was held on 12th & 13th February, 2009 and after considering the letter of the Principal of the College dated 19.5.2008, recommendation was sent on 28.2.2009 for academic session 2008-09 and earlier sanctioned strength was reiterated. It was also noted that excess admission had been made. There are five more reports/recommendations of D.C.I. dated 28.2.2009 relating to session 2009-2010. In the said reports detailed deficiencies have been pointed out. It was also noted that excess admission had been made. There are five more reports/recommendations of D.C.I. dated 28.2.2009 relating to session 2009-2010. In the said reports detailed deficiencies have been pointed out. In respect of oral surgery in the report dated 28.2.2009, it is mentioned that excess admissions have been made for the academic session 2008-09; that the dental college and Hospital are in the same building and not demarcated properly, Medicine Ward is short by 10 beds, surgery by 14 beds, the Oral Surgery Ward was shown to have 16 beds, this is merely a hall with cramped up beds failing the minimum of 20 square meters per bed, there is no nursing facility in the oral surgery ward, there are no basic life support measures like oxygen line, no suction, no emergency kits, there were no patients admitted in the oral surgery ward at the time of inspection, no records of teaching, clinical work done by Faculty could be verified, seminar room is very small. Similarly in other disciplines also other deficiencies were pointed out. For example in Orthodontics clinical material was found to be grossly inadequate and no patient was observed on the date of inspection. 25. Through final recommendation sent to the Government of India on 4.3.2009 (for 2007-08), the earlier recommendations were reiterated discipline-wise. In the recommendations of D.C.I. for the years 2007-08 the fact that for 2007-08 & 2008-09 excess admissions had been made by the college was specifically taken into consideration. 26. Through the Writ Petition No. 30360 of 2009 order communicated by Registrar, Agra University dated 6.6.2009 (Annexure-27 to the said writ petition) has been challenged. The said order is based upon the Government of India order dated 17.3.2009 and letter of D.C.I. dated 16.5.2009 and order of V.C. dated 29.5.2009 indicating that for the year 2006-07, the college was permitted to admit only 18 students in 6 disciplines, hence examination was to be conducted only for the posts of 18 students. 27. Writ Petition No. 23374 of 2009 has been filed by 41 students who claim to have been admitted for the session 2006-07. 27. Writ Petition No. 23374 of 2009 has been filed by 41 students who claim to have been admitted for the session 2006-07. They have also challenged the order of the Government of India dated 17.3.2009 challenged by the College also in W.P. No. 18548 of 2009 and a further prayer for a direction to the respondents to arrange for their examination and then award of degree has also been made. 28. As far as excess admissions in the academic sessions 2007-08 and 2008-09 are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to justify the said admissions. The only argument is that as College was having interim order for 2006-07 permitting to admit 47 students, hence the said interim order was treated to be operative for the subsequent years. This argument is not at all tenable. 29. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Government of India order dated 24.3.2009 are quoted below : “2. In CWMP No. 19464 of 2007 in WP No. 32058 of 2006 for determination of initial admission capacity in all specialities for academic session 2007-08, the Allahabad High Court vide its judgment dated 16.10.2008 taken a note that “the petitioner seeks to challenge the letter dated 30th March, 2007 with respect to certain compliance including reducing the number of seats from 18 to 17, we are of view that it would be better that the petitioner dental college submits its compliance report to the Central Government as well as the DCI at the earliest. It will be for the DCI and on its report for the Central Government to take necessary action after receiving compliance report from the petitioner dental college. We expect them to take necessary decisions in accordance with law at the earliest. 3. Accordingly, in pursuance of the above order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner dental college vide its letter dated 2.2.2009 submitted its compliance report to the Dental Council of India and after scrutinizing the papers relating to teaching faculty in terms of Court order and in accordance with the MDS Course Regulations applicable to the petitioner dental college for the academic session 2007-08, the Dental Council of India vide its letter dated 4.3.2009 (Copy enclosed), confirming the acceptance or not acceptance of teaching faculty claimed by the petitioner dental college indicating the grounds of non-acceptance thereof, have now re-iterated its earlier recommendations dt. 27th & 28th February, 2007 determining the speciality-wise admission capacity in commensurate with teaching faculty acceptable to them for renewal of permission for 2nd year MDS Courses in the specialities of (1) Oral Medicine & Radiology with 3 seats (2) Pedodontics with two seats (3) Oral and Maxillofacial surgery with 3 seats (4) Community Dentistry with 3 seats (5) Prosthodontics with 3 seats (6) Orthodontics with 3 seats at Rama Dental College, Kanpur for the academic session 2007-08. 4. Further, based on the recommendations of the Dental Council of India, the Central Government vide its letter dated 19.5.2008 renewed its permission for 3rd year MDS Courses in the specialities of (1) Oral Medicine & Radiology with 3 seats (2) Pedodontics with 2 seats (3) Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery with 3 seats instead of four seats (4) Prosthodontics with 3 seats (5) Orthodontics with 3 seats at Rama Dental College, Kanpur for the Academic session 2008-09 but the Council vide its letter dated 28.2.2009 (Copy enclosed) has informed that the petitioner dental college had made 26 MDS admissions against sanctioned admission capacity of 14 seats for the academic session 2008-09. As such the college has admitted 12 excess admissions in violation of the provisions of Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993.” 30. Similar directions for neutralizing were issued in the Para-10 of the letter/ order dated 17.3.2009. In the said order under Para-10, it was further directed as under : “However subject to the existing provisions in Dentists and Regulations made thereunder the petitioner Dental College is free to apply afresh for grant of permission for starting M.D.S. Courses in remaining their specialities at proper time for academic session 2010-11.” 31. Accordingly, D.C.I. is directed to decide the number of students which the college in question could legally admit discipline-wise in the light of teacher-student ratio as prescribed under 1983 Regulations taking those teachers, who were appointed prior to the start of the teaching for the said year or immediately thereafter and the other requisite facilities available with the college. If D.C.I. comes to the conclusion that more than 18 students could be permitted to be admitted by the college, then examination of those students should also be conducted with follow up action. If D.C.I. comes to the conclusion that more than 18 students could be permitted to be admitted by the college, then examination of those students should also be conducted with follow up action. It is further directed that if more than 18 students are held entitled to be admitted by the college for the session 2006-07, then its impact upon the permitted admissions in subsequent years shall also be decided and consequent permission shall be granted and consequent action shall be taken. However, it is clarified that neither fresh inspection shall be made nor any fresh material shall be considered by D.C.I. It is further directed that unless D.C.I. permits the college to make any admission for the current session, i.e. 2009-10, the college shall not admit a single student for the said year in any discipline. 32. With the above observations, all the writ petitions are disposed of. ————