Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 673 (HP)

ANKITA DADWAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2009-07-28

DEEPAK GUPTA, SURINDER SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.-This case is a classic example of how misplaced sympathy can sometimes wreck the careers and put in jeopardy the future of young students. 2. The petitioner and private respondents 5 to 19 and Ms. Parul Tanwar, petitioner in CWP No.2402 of 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the students) are all students of BDS. They were all admitted to the BDS course in the academic session 2007-2008. All the students were admitted to private Colleges in the State. It is a well known fact that the fees in the private Colleges is much higher than the fees being charged in H.P. Dental College and Hospital at Shimla. The difference is manifold. Therefore, we can understand the anxiety of the parents as well as the students to ensure that the students get admission into the Government Dental College. After the combined entrance test is held, admission to the various Colleges is made on the basis of counselling. It is borne out from the record and is a matter of public knowledge that the students who have qualified the entrance test with higher marks opt to join the Government Medical and Dental Colleges. 3. The Principal of the Government Dental College issued an advertisement which appeared in the newspaper on 6th December, 2008 inviting applications for migration to the 2nd Professional BDS Course in Government Dental College, Shimla. The last date for submission of application was 15th December, 2008. The relevant terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement were as follows: “Terms and conditions: 1. Migration to the student to H.P. Govt. Dental College and Hospital Shimla will be considered by the Dental Council of India only in exceptional cases on extreme compassionate grounds i.e. (i) Death of supporting guardian issued by competent authority, (ii)Disturbed conditions declared by the Government in the Dental College area. Migration on other grounds shall not be allowed. 2. He/She must have passed first professional BDS from the Institution recognized by the Dental Council of India/Govt. of India. 3.The applicant/candidate should have passed 1st professional BDS examination. The copy of first year BDS mark sheet is to be attached.” 4. Pursuant to this advertisement a number of students applied for migration. 2. He/She must have passed first professional BDS from the Institution recognized by the Dental Council of India/Govt. of India. 3.The applicant/candidate should have passed 1st professional BDS examination. The copy of first year BDS mark sheet is to be attached.” 4. Pursuant to this advertisement a number of students applied for migration. Their cases were forwarded to the Dental Council of India and consequently an order was issued on 31st January whereby respondents 5 to 19 were permitted to migrate from private Dental Colleges to H.P. Dental College and Hospital, Shimla. From the letter allowing the migration it is apparent that the migration was allowed strictly on the basis of marks obtained in the first year BDS in order of merit. The petitioner had also applied for migration on 29th January, 2009 when she came to know that the migration was being allowed on the basis of merit and not on the basis of the conditions laid down in the advertisement. Her application was not considered and therefore she has filed the writ petition being CWP No.462 of 2009. 5. The main allegation of the petitioner is that the migration of respondents 5 to 19 has been allowed without following the Regulations of the Dental Council of India (DCI). According to the petitioner, in case migration was to be allowed on the basis of merit this should have been specifically stated in the advertisement. The petitioner verily believed that the migration would be allowed only on the compassionate grounds mentioned in the advertisement by following the DCI Regulations and therefore did not apply for the same. If she had known that the respondents were going to permit migration on the basis of the merit in the first year BDS course she would have also applied for migration. Since she had obtained 519 marks in the BDS course she would have ranked 7th in the merit and would have definitely been allowed migration. According to the petitioner in case the DCI decided to relax the conditions and allow migration on merit basis, fresh advertisement should have been made. 6. On these basis a prayer has been made that fresh migration process be started and the petitioner be granted migration. 7. According to the petitioner in case the DCI decided to relax the conditions and allow migration on merit basis, fresh advertisement should have been made. 6. On these basis a prayer has been made that fresh migration process be started and the petitioner be granted migration. 7. The stand of the State is that after applications were received they were all forwarded to the DCI and DCI allowed migration vide letter dated 13.1.2009 and thereafter the migration was allowed in the meeting of the Committee held on 28th January, 2009. 8. The stand of the DCI is that as per the revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007 the migration of the students is allowed only on exceptional grounds and according to the DCI none of the students were eligible for migration. However, since the students belong to the 2007-2008 batch the Executive Committee of the DCI permitted migration on the basis of merit. Even during the course of the present petition it has not been disputed by any of the parties that as far as respondents 5 to 17 and 19 are concerned their case does not fall under compassionate grounds. Even according to the respondents, compassionate ground is attracted only in the case of Respondent No.18 Tejasvita Chandel and Ms.Parul Tanwar petitioner in CWP No.2402 of 2009. 9. It would be apposite to first of all refer to the Dental Council of India Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007 notified vide notification dated 25th July, 2007 and published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary on 10th September, 2007. With regard to migration the Regulations read as follows: “IV. Migration: (1) Migration from one dental college to other is not a right of a student. However, migration of students from one dental college to another dental college in India may be considered by the Dental Council of India. Only in exceptional cases on extreme compassionate ground, provided following criteria are fulfilled. Routine migrations on other ground shall not be allowed. (2) Both the colleges, i.e. one at which the student is studying at present and one to which migration is sought, are recognized by the Dental Council of India. (3) The applicant candidate should have passed first professional BDS examination. Routine migrations on other ground shall not be allowed. (2) Both the colleges, i.e. one at which the student is studying at present and one to which migration is sought, are recognized by the Dental Council of India. (3) The applicant candidate should have passed first professional BDS examination. (4) The applicant candidate submits his application for migration, complete in all respects, to all authorities concerned within a period of one month of passing (declaration of results) the first professional Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) examination. (5) The applicant candidate must submit an affidavit stating that he/she will pursue 240 days of prescribed study before appearing at IInd Professional Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) examination at the transferee dental college, which should be duly certified by the Registrar of the concerned University in which he/she is seeking transfer. The transfer will be applicable only after receipt of the affidavit. Note 1: (i) Migration is permitted only in the beginning of IInd year BDS course in recognized Institution. (ii) All applications for migration shall be referred to Dental Council of India by college authorities. No Institution/University shall allow migrations directly without the prior approval of the Council. (iii) Council reserved the right, not to entertain any application which is not under theprescribed compassionate grounds and also to take independent decisions where applicant has been allowed to migrate without referring the same to the council. Note 2: Compassionate Ground Criteria: (i) Death of supporting guardian. (ii) Disturbed conditions as declared byGovernment in the Dental College area.” 10. A perusal of the aforesaid Regulations and the advertisement clearly show that the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement were drawn from these Regulations only. Under these Regulations the migration of a student from one Dental College to another is not a matter of right and can be considered in exceptional cases on extreme compassionate grounds subject to certain criteria being fulfilled. Clause (3) makes it mandatory that the applicant-candidate should have passed the first professional BDS examination. Clause (4) lays down a mandatory condition that the migration should be applied for within a period of one month of passing, i.e. declaration of result, of the first professional BDS examination. Note (1) (i) lays down that the migration is permitted only in the beginning of 2nd year BDS Course. Clause (4) lays down a mandatory condition that the migration should be applied for within a period of one month of passing, i.e. declaration of result, of the first professional BDS examination. Note (1) (i) lays down that the migration is permitted only in the beginning of 2nd year BDS Course. Note (1)(ii) mandates that all applications for migration must necessarily be referred to the Dental Council of India and that no Institution/University has a right to allow migrations directly without the prior approval of the Council. Note (2) lays down the criteria for compassionate grounds. Only two grounds have been defined. The first is the death of a supporting guardian and the second is disturbed conditions as declared by the Government in the Dental College area. 11. From a reading of the Regulations it is absolutely clear that migration is allowed only on two compassionate grounds, first being the death of a supporting guardian and the second being declaration of disturbed condition in the Dental College area. 12. Sh.Shrawan Dogra, learned counsel for Tejasvita Chandel and Parul Tanwar has urged that the Note (2) cannot be used to restrict the meaning of extreme compassionate ground. He contends that even if any other extreme compassionate ground is made out then the DCI can allow migration and the extreme compassionate grounds cannot be limited to the two grounds mentioned in Note (2) which are only illustrative in nature. 13. We cannot accept such an argument. This is an argument of despair. On going through the original regulations, we find that there is an asterisk at the end of a phrase “extreme compassionate ground”. This asterisk refers to Note (2) which lays down the criteria for compassionate grounds. The DCI in its wisdom has formulated the two criteria. These are valid criteria. One being the death of a supporting guardian. In such an eventuality the student may not have the funds to pursue his/her studies in a far off place and migration is allowed. The second is when there are disturbed conditions in the area where the Dental College is situated. These disturbed conditions must be declared to be so by the Government. Therefore when a state of emergency is declared or some area is so disturbed making it virtually impossible for a student to go there to pursue his/her studies migration is permitted. The second is when there are disturbed conditions in the area where the Dental College is situated. These disturbed conditions must be declared to be so by the Government. Therefore when a state of emergency is declared or some area is so disturbed making it virtually impossible for a student to go there to pursue his/her studies migration is permitted. The Rules admit of no other ground for grant of migration. In our considered view, none of the students including Tejasvita Chandel or Parul Tanwar fulfilled these requirements and therefore could not have been granted migration. 14. We are constrained to observe that the respondents 1 to 4 have had misplaced sympathy with the students which has virtually put their future in jeopardy. As far as respondents 5 to 17 and 19 are concerned it is virtually not disputed that their cases did not fall under the Regulations. In this behalf it would be necessary to refer to the decision taken by the Executive Committee of the Dental Council of India as detailed in its letter dated 13th January, 2009 which reads as follows: “The Executive Committee noted that as per the BDS Course Regulations, 2007, the migration in 2nd year may be allowed only on the companionate ground as mentioned in the BDS Course Regulations, 2007 and no student as mentioned in the above said letter received from the DME, Shimla fulfils the said conditions. However, since the Govt. Dental College & Hospital, Shimla has implemented the BDS Course Regulations, 2007 in their institutions from the session 2008-2009 and all the students under reference belong to 2007-08 batch, the Executive Committee on exceptional case decided that the migration in 2nd year in respect of the students mentioned in the request letter of the DME, Shimla may be allowed according to their merit except the student mentioned at serial no.14 and 18 since both have not cleared their first year till date. 15. So far as the students mentioned at the serial no.14 and 18 are concerned, the Council may consider their cases after passing their first year BDS Course only and there is no provision in the DCI Regulations to temporary allow them to study at H.P.Govt. Dental College and Hospital, Shimla without passing first year. 15. So far as the students mentioned at the serial no.14 and 18 are concerned, the Council may consider their cases after passing their first year BDS Course only and there is no provision in the DCI Regulations to temporary allow them to study at H.P.Govt. Dental College and Hospital, Shimla without passing first year. In case, H.P. University Shimla have such provision to allow them, the DCI may not object for transfer/migrating them also and they may also be allowed migration according to the merit once they passed their first year. 16. The above permission is allowed by the Council only one time measure and should not be quoted as precedent in future. From the next session, the provision of the BDS Course Regulations, 2007 for migration of students from another college to H.P. Govt. Dental College and Hospital, Shimla, will be applicable and council will not give any relaxation. 17. The above permission is subject to the no objection of the concerned colleges and university also.” 18. This letter had been sent by the DCI in response to the communication dated 22nd December, 2008 sent by the Director Medical Education and Research in which cases of 18 students were sent to the DCI. In the grounds column, various grounds were given to justify the migration. To say the least the grounds given in respect of 16 of the students could not even be called compassionate grounds what to say, extreme compassionate grounds. In some cases, no reasons whatsoever were given but the applications were forwarded. The only two cases in which some reasons were given were those of Tejasvita Chandel and Parul Tanwar to which reference will be made later. However, from a perusal of the first paragraph of the letter of the DCI it is apparent that the DCI came to the conclusion that none of the students mentioned in the said letter fulfilled the conditions necessary to permit migration. However, since the Government Dental College and Hospital, Shimla had implemented the BDS Regulations from the Sessions 2008-2009 and all the students belonged to the academic sessions 2007-2008 the Executive Committee as an exceptional case permitted the migration of the students except Tejasvita Chandel and Parul Tanwar. It is apparent that DCI were under the impression that both had not cleared their BDS Examination. It is apparent that DCI were under the impression that both had not cleared their BDS Examination. In fact this was not correct since Tejasvita Chandel had already passed the first year professional examination. Her case was also considered on merit basis and not on compassionate ground by the duly constituted Committee on 28th January, 2009 and since only 15 seats were lying vacant in the Government Dental College, Shimla 15 students were permitted to migrate on merit basis. As far as 14 candidates are concerned there is no ground whatsoever made out for their migration. 19. Now we may consider the individual cases of Tejasvita Chandel and Parul Tanwar. Tejasvita Chandel: 20. As far as this student is concerned, the record reveals that she is the daughter of Sh.R.P. Chandel who was a former member of the H.P. State Legislative Assembly. He had died prior to her admission to the BDS Course. She applied for migration even before the advertisement was issued in terms of DCI Regulations. In her application she stated that she had lost her father who was an MLA a few years ago. According to her there was a property dispute relating to the property of her father and civil and criminal cases are pending in the High Court. She claimed that she had to regularly appear in the High Court to attend these cases. She also apprehend danger to her life at Solan from some persons. It was claimed that since her mother is an employee permanently based at Shimla and she is facing danger to her life she may be allowed migration from MN DAV Dental College, Solan to H.P. Dental College, Shimla. This application was addressed to the Principal Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The Principal Secretary (Health) forwarded this application to the H.P. Government Dental College for consideration on 28.11.2008. In the meantime, an advertisement was issued and her case was also forwarded to the Dental Council of India. As observed by us above, the DCI came to the conclusion that the case of none of the students was covered under the Regulations. We are also of the considered view that the case of Tejasvita Chandel was not covered under the DCI Regulations. Her case did not fall under any of the two criteria laid down. Admittedly her supporting guardian that is her mother is still alive. We are also of the considered view that the case of Tejasvita Chandel was not covered under the DCI Regulations. Her case did not fall under any of the two criteria laid down. Admittedly her supporting guardian that is her mother is still alive. There was virtually no material placed on record in support of her case and even her application is taken to be the gospel truth, then also her case does not fall within the criteria laid down in the Regulations. 21. Parul Tanwar: 22. The case of Parul Tanwar is a clear reflection of the shocking state of affairs where all laws, rules and regulations are thrown to the wind by senior officials of the State just to accommodate one person. On a perusal of the record we find that Parul Tanwar made a request directly to the Minister of Health and Family Welfare Himachal Pradesh. We fail to understand how an application would lie to the Minister. The application could have been filed to the College or Dental Council of India but could not have been addressed to the Minister. The Minister in charge in all fairness should have returned the application for being filed before the proper authority. He instead chose to make a positive recommendation in favour of Ms.Parul Tanwar. It is obvious that this recommendation was made without even caring to see whether Parul Tanwar was even eligible for migration or not. According to Parul Tanwar she could not carry out her students in Paonta Sahib since her room-mate had committed suicide in April, 2008. The room-mate committed suicide when Parul was at Shimla. When she went back to join her college, she was informed that her room-mate had committed suicide. Then the police came to investigate the matter and according to Parul she was forced to make a statement alleging that some College lecturers were harassing and torturing her deceased room-mate. According to Parul due to this the Management and staff of the College were against her and therefore she could not continue her studies at Paonta Sahib. This was not a ground covered under the DCI Regulations. At that stage Parul Tanwar had not even appeared in the BDS first year examination. Migration is permitted only after the declaration of the result of BDS first year examination and only in cases of candidates who have passed the examination. This was not a ground covered under the DCI Regulations. At that stage Parul Tanwar had not even appeared in the BDS first year examination. Migration is permitted only after the declaration of the result of BDS first year examination and only in cases of candidates who have passed the examination. Despite the fact that the case of Parul Tanwar was not covered, the Minister concerned recommended that it is a fit case of migration and deserves sympathetic consideration as a special case and further directed the Principal Secretary (Health) to look into this matter personally and get the needful done at the earliest. The Principal Secretary (Health) thereafter wrote a letter to the Director, Medical Education and Research, Himachal Pradesh forwarding therewith the note of the Minister and the application of Parul Tanwar. The Principal of the Government Dental College sent a communication on 5th July, 2008 to the Director, Medical Education and Research making reference to the earlier migration Rules and the revised DCI Regulations. Thereafter the Director Medical Education and Research wrote a letter on 10th July, 2008 to the Principal Secretary 9Health) informing him that as per the existing Rules and Regulations the Principal, H.P. Dental College, Shimla was unable to consider the migration case. It was clearly stated that the migration cannot be allowed till the first year result is declared. Surprisingly, however, it was recommended that Parul Tanwar be allowed to continue her studies in H.P. Dental College, Shimla. How a student of one College could have been permitted to attend classes in other College without migration is something which has not been explained till now. Thereafter, on 26th July, 2008 the Principal Secretary (Health) sent a communication to the Registrar, H.P. University with copies to the Director, Medical Education, Principal, H.P. Dental College and Principal, Himachal Institution of Dental Sciences, Paonta Sahib stating that the State Government has no objection if Parul Tanwar is allowed to appear in final first profession BDS examination from H.P. Government Dental College, Shimla. Another letter was also sent on the same date that the Government has no objection to the migration of Parul Tanwar but it was made clear that migration should be on fulfillment of conditions of DCI Regulations. When the DCI Regulations did not permit such migration we fail to understand how the Government could have granted its sanction to the same. When the DCI Regulations did not permit such migration we fail to understand how the Government could have granted its sanction to the same. Though Parul Tanwar was never allowed to migrate from the College at Paonta Sahib to the H.P. Dental College, Shimla she was permitted to join her first year classes at the Government Dental College at Shimla. Thereafter, the Assistant Registrar ( Examination), H.P. University sent a letter on 21st August, 2008 to the Principals of Colleges at Shimla and Paonta Sahib stating that Parul Tanwar had been permitted to sit in BDS Examination at H.P. Dental College Shimla as a special case. 23. Thereafter, Parul Tanwar wrote letters to the Principal Secretary (Health) praying that since she had been allowed to migrate she may be permitted to attend her second year classes at Shimla. On 22nd December, 2008 the Director, Medical Education and Research issued an office order which reads as follows: “OFFICE ORDER The following two students facing extreme compassionate circumstances whose requests stand referred to Dental Council of India for consideration, are allowed to study in 2nd year course from H.P. Govt. Dental College, Shimla at their own risk & peril and further subject to approval of Dental Council of India besides the Himachal Pradesh University. 1.Ms.Tejasvita Chandel D/o late P. Chandel 2.Parul Tanwar D/o Sh. L.R. Tanwar” 24. We fail to understand under what authority of law the Director issued the aforesaid order. There was no reply to our repeated queries as to how these orders could have been passed. Till migration is allowed the students must continue the studies in the College which they have been admitted to. Under no circumstances can they be permitted to attend some other College without migration being allowed as per the Rules. 25. As far as Parul Tanwar is concerned, we are clear that in her case every law and rule was broken and thrown to the winds. She was studying in the first year when she applied for migration whereas the Rules specifies that migration can be applied for within one month of the declaration of the result. She at the behest of certain high ups was permitted to attend classes and appear in the examination at Government Dental College, Shimla. Her case was not covered under the DCI Regulations since only a person who had passed first year examination could be considered for migration. She at the behest of certain high ups was permitted to attend classes and appear in the examination at Government Dental College, Shimla. Her case was not covered under the DCI Regulations since only a person who had passed first year examination could be considered for migration. A bare reading of the Regulations show that the applications must be made within one month of the declaration of the result. The result being referred to is the result in respect of all candidates. The result was admittedly declared on 25th November 2008 and applications had to be filed within one month. Since Parul Tanwar had not passed the first year BDS examination, she could not have been permitted to attend classes at Shimla. Despite the fact that the DCI specifically rejected the case of Parul Tanwar she was permitted to attend classes at Shimla. It was only when this Court passed an order on 9th July, 2009 asking how she had been permitted to attend classes, was an order issued, which appears to us to be ante-dated by one day. This order is purported to be of 8th July, 2009 whereby the Principal of the H.P. Dental College, Shimla had directed her to report to her parental College. Thereafter, Parul Tanwar filed the present writ petition before this Court and on 14.7.2009 we passed the following order on her application for grant of interim relief: “CMP No.4737 of 2009: Notice in the aforesaid term. Till the next date, the only order we propose to pass is that the petitioner shall be permitted to appear in the send-up examination only till the next date.” 26. In view of the detailed discussion hereinabove, we are constrained to observe that migration of all the students was allowed in total violation of Rules and Regulations. Even as per the DCI Regulations none of the students fulfilled the criteria for migration yet it purported to relax these conditions. We find no such power of relaxation in the Regulations referred to above. Further more the reasoning given by the DCI that since students were admitted in the session 2007-2008 relaxation was being given, is totally fallacious reasoning. Migration has to be governed by the Rules applicable on the date of migration and not according to the date when the student was admitted. Further more the reasoning given by the DCI that since students were admitted in the session 2007-2008 relaxation was being given, is totally fallacious reasoning. Migration has to be governed by the Rules applicable on the date of migration and not according to the date when the student was admitted. The power of relaxation cannot be used in such a manner so as to totally nullify the Rules or Regulations. 27. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Rules could be relaxed and the DCI could have permitted migration on merit then all the students should have been made aware about such relaxation and fresh criteria. The fees in the Private Dental Colleges is much higher than that in the Government Dental Colleges. Even the standard of education in government Dental Colleges is better. That is why students who are admitted to private Dental Colleges clamour for migration to the Government Dental Colleges. The Government and all authorities must act in a fair manner. They must apply the same yardstick to all students. In the present case, the advertisement issued clearly stated that migration would be allowed only on extreme compassionate grounds as per the terms and conditioned mentioned therein. Thereafter, students who were not covered would not have applied. However, later these terms and conditions were completely ignored and migration allowed on merit basis. The petitioner is absolutely right that in such an eventuality fresh advertisement should have been issued. The manner in which the respondents 1 to 4 have dealt with the migration of the students leaves much to be desired and we earnestly hope that in future such mistakes are not repeated and applications for migration are entertained and considered strictly in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. 28. Lastly coming to the question of relief to be granted in the petition. We have come to the conclusion that none of the students was entitled to migration. Should we now cancel the migration of the students who have been permitted to migrate and send them back to their parental Colleges? This is a vexed question. On the one hand is the established legal position that the migrations are illegal, on the other hand the human angle. Should these young students suffer for the illegalities committed by respondents 1 to 4 who are supposed to be well conversant with the Rules and Regulations? This is a vexed question. On the one hand is the established legal position that the migrations are illegal, on the other hand the human angle. Should these young students suffer for the illegalities committed by respondents 1 to 4 who are supposed to be well conversant with the Rules and Regulations? Sh.Praneet Gupta, learned counsel for respondents 14 to 17 and 19 also points out that these respondents joined College on 20th February, 2009. It appears that though the petition was filed a couple of days earlier, the matter was taken up in the Court only on 26.2.2009. Though copies of the petition had been served on respondents 1, 2 and 4 that is the State of Himachal Pradesh, the Principal, H.P. Dental College and Hospital Shimla and the H.P. University none of these authorities thought it fit to inform the students that a writ petition has been filed challenging their migration. The private respondents came to know about the filing of the petition only in April, 2009. He submits that had his clients known that their migration is under challenge they may or may not have joined at Government Dental College, Shimla. He submits that their clients have paid huge amounts of fees to migrate and they are not at fault and so they should not suffer for the illegalities committed by the authorities. Respondents 14 to 17 and 19 along with their replies have also annexed details of the amounts paid by them to their respective Colleges at the time of obtaining NOCs before migration. Most of the students have paid sums in excess of Rs.1.50 lakhs just to obtain this no objection certificate and have thereafter paid another sum of Rs.19,500/- at the time of admission in Government Dental College, Shimla. Similar amount must have been paid by Ms. Tejasvita Chandel also. The migration of all these students has been allowed, rightly or wrongly, by the Dental Council of India. We also note that even if we cancel their migrations they will have to appear for the second year BDS Professional examination at Shimla and we would virtually be ordering their re-migration to their parental Colleges at the beginning of the 3rd year. This would also be against the Dental Council of India Regulations which provide that migration is permitted only in the beginning of the second year BDS Course. This would also be against the Dental Council of India Regulations which provide that migration is permitted only in the beginning of the second year BDS Course. Keeping all these factors in view, we are of the considered view that the migrations of respondents 5 to 19 in CWP No.462 of 2009 should not be cancelled and they may be permitted to continue in the Government Dental College at Shimla. 29. However, the case of Parul Tanwar stands on a totally different footing. As observed by us above, in her case all Rules and Regulations have been thrown to the wind. She was allowed to attend classes at the behest of the Minister even before her migration had been permitted. In fact she was allowed to appear in the first year examination from Government Dental College, Shimla which was totally illegal. She was not eligible for migration since she did not pass the BDS Course at the first attempt. A bare reading of the Rules makes it apparent that migration can only be granted in favour of a student who passes in the first attempt since the application for migration must be made to the authorities within one month of passing (declaration of results) of the BDS examination and the migration is permitted only in the beginning of the 2nd year BDS Course. Parul Tanwar has passed her BDS Ist year examination in the month of April, 2009 and therefore can under no circumstances be permitted to migrate. We may also note another surprising aspect of her case. Whereas all the other students have paid fees both to their parental Colleges and to the Government Dental College at Shimla, Parul Tanwar who is much lower in merit and had failed in the first professional was permitted to study in the Government Dental College Shimla without payment of fees. She has also not paid fees to her parental College. In view of the above discussion, we cannot grant any relief to her and her petition is rejected. She shall however be permitted to complete her send-up examination from H.P. Government Dental College, Shimla where after she must immediately report to her parental College at Paonta Sahib. She will have to appear for the second professional course as a student of the Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Paonta Sahib. 30. She shall however be permitted to complete her send-up examination from H.P. Government Dental College, Shimla where after she must immediately report to her parental College at Paonta Sahib. She will have to appear for the second professional course as a student of the Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Paonta Sahib. 30. Lastly comes the question as to how do we compensate the petitioner Ankita Dadwal. We cannot grant migration to her at this belated stage. If we do so we ourselves would be violating the law and committing the same mistake for which we have criticized the respondents. But we cannot forget that it is the petitioner who has brought these illegal activities of the respondents to public knowledge. In case, in the advertisement it had been clearly stated, that migration would be allowed on the basis of merit obtained in the first professional examination the petitioner may have applied and would have been successful in getting migration. Keeping in view all these facts, we feel that the interest of justice shall be served if the entire fees of the petitioner Ankita Dadwal at her parental college minus the fees payable by the students at the H.P. Government Dental College, Shimla from the next academic session till she passes her BDS are paid by respondent No.1, the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Government shall be at liberty to recover this fees from the erring officials. We also award costs of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the petitioner to be borne by the respondents 1 to 4 in equal shares. 31. Both the writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.