JUDGMENT By the Court.—Dr. Indu Sharma-the petitioner has appeared in person. Shri Subodh Kumar appears for Dental Council of India (DCI)-respondent No. 4. Shri Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Mohit Singh appears for Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust and its Secretary Dr. Keshav Kumar Agrawal-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The pleadings have been exchanged. With the consent of parties the writ petition was finally heard. 2. The petitioner was working as Dean, Baba Jaswant Singh Institute of Dental Sciences, Ludhiyana. She applied and was selected for appointment as Principal of Rohil Khand Educational and Charitable Trust, Keshlata Hospital, Delabeer, Stadium Road, Bareilly in the Department of Dentistry of the Dental College. The letter of her appointment dated 25.4.2001 provided in paragraph 5 that the appointment was on regular permanent basis, for a contract period of minimum of five years. In case she desires to leave the institution before completing the period of two years, she had to serve a notice to that effect, on the management, two months in advance. The appointment letter further provided that her basic scale was Rs. 22,000/- per month+NPA, DA, TA Teaching, administrative, HRA, GPF and OSD allowance. She was to be provided free furnished accommodation by the trust and was required to perform all the duties assigned by the management relating to the post from time to time. She was required to strictly follow the rules, regulations and discipline of the college, and was entitled to avail leave, vacations as per the rules and regulations of the University. 3. On 30.4.2001 the petitioner wrote a letter to the trust accepting the post of Principal offered by the Management on a total consolidated monthly emoluments of Rs. 50,000/- per month, with annual increment of 8% every year. She also accepted the appointment on the offer of free furnished accommodation along with local conveyance provided by the trust and to bear to and fro transport expenses, provided prior information is conveyed in time. In para 4 of her acceptance the petitioner stated : “I shall visit college only those days, as and when the management needs my duty on institutional ground.” 4. It is stated by the petitioner in para 4 of the writ petition that she joined on the terms and conditions given in the agreement and that her services were regularised as per DCI norms. Dr. It is stated by the petitioner in para 4 of the writ petition that she joined on the terms and conditions given in the agreement and that her services were regularised as per DCI norms. Dr. Keshav Kumr Agrawal, Secretary of the trust and Shri Amar Jeet Singh, Advocate started creating new ways and means to spoil her career. Her salary was stopped due to malafide, powerful collaboration of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. She sent a legal notice through her counsel Shri Abhishek Arora of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh on 8.9.2009 but no reply was given to the notice. She informed the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to enter into any correspondence with her parents and made representation to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court, New Delhi on 17.11.2004 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition), stating that third year BDS, DCI inspection of the Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly was fixed on 19th and 20th January, 2004. Dr. Keshav Trust Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly called her through e-mail two days before the scheduled inspection. The trust handed over relevant documents to her for signature and verification. When she checked, she found that there were very few staff members and inadequate instruments available in the college. Even the documents of the admitted students were not available with the list. She refused to sign the same as it contained fake entries. Dr. Keshav, Dr. Ashok along with 10 persons entered the room and threatened her with collaboration of Dr. R.K. Bali and Shri Amar Jeet Singh, Solicitor General of India that they will spoil her career and shut her out of the college. They seized the document without her signatures. She alleged that she informed her parents through registered letter that the behaviour of the Trust during DCI inspection of third year BDS students became very violent and that they may not receive any letter without her consent. She then stated in her representation as follows : “From last one year, submitted report is still laying file in the DCI office and no action is taken on the said report. Neither I have received no information from DCI secretary/DCI president/DCI Office nor any information on e-mail from Trust Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly. She then stated in her representation as follows : “From last one year, submitted report is still laying file in the DCI office and no action is taken on the said report. Neither I have received no information from DCI secretary/DCI president/DCI Office nor any information on e-mail from Trust Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly. On contrary to it, my life to the out side world is made so terrific that I cannot come outside and cannot present my identification Trust Institute of Dental sciences, Bareilly had not paid my salary for the last one year. I am suffering from acute financial deficiency. My life is made so hell that I cannot appear outside to fight my case in the Court. I, therefore, very humbly and honorably request you to kindly take appropriate action in the matter and relief me of their self made Jungle-Law. Kindly communicate to me on my e-mail address Indusharma20002001@yahoo.com Hoping for sympathetic action and immediate reply. Yours faithfully Dated:17.11.2004 (Dr. Indu Sharma) Principal, Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly (U.P.)” 5. The petitioner sent reminder letter on 18.6.20909 to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. 6. In the correspondence annexed by her along with the writ petition with the Trust, there is a letter dated 17.11.2001 sent by the Trust to the petitioner informing her that in terms of requirement of the Trust, and instructions of DCI the contract is modified with the terms namely that there will be contract of minimum three years; she will be a permanent faculty member and will abide by the terms and conditions. There will be annual increment of salary by 20%. On 5.10.2003 the Institute of Dental Sciences informed her through its Secretary that the Trust is ready to enter into agreement to give notice of one year on either side after the inspection of third year, which is expected in January, 2004. Her services are continued on regular permanent basis even after the inspection of third year. She will not be allowed to join anywhere in India during the period of job in the institute. 7. The petitioner states in the writ petition that the management stopped paying her salary after the inspections in a wrongful manner. Her career has been spoiled and she has failed to provide higher studies, as well as daily necessities of life to her daughter as she has no income. 7. The petitioner states in the writ petition that the management stopped paying her salary after the inspections in a wrongful manner. Her career has been spoiled and she has failed to provide higher studies, as well as daily necessities of life to her daughter as she has no income. In para 10 of the writ petition she states that the inspection for the previous two years i.e. 2001 and 2003 was cleared by the petitioner and was approved by the DCI. She has prayed for release of her salary with effect from January, 2004 with 24% interest till its realisation along with compensation of Rs. 10 lacs. 8. Shri Pankaj Kumar has filed short counter affidavit as pairokar of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 taking preliminary objections in para 4 that the Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly is an unaided institution. It does not receive any grant in aid from the State Government. It is not the State within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution of India, as such the writ petition is not maintainable. The institute is run by private administration. 9. In the detailed counter affidavit filed on 12.2.2010 Shri Pankaj Kumar as pairokar of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has reiterated the objections, further stating that the Institute of Dental Sciences has not been arrayed as party to the writ petition. The Rohildkhand Educational and Charitable Trust is made up of private persons. There is no representative of the State in the management of the Trust. The Trust has its own objects. The management works to fulfill the defined objective of the trust. The institution does not receive any grant in aid nor any approval form the Government is required for expenditure to meet out the objects of the Trust. It has its own rules and regulations and the Chairman of the management is the final authority. It is not the instrumentality of the State as the State does not have any control on its functions. 10. It is stated in para 8 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner joined the Institute of Dental Sciences, run and established by the trust on 26.6.2001. A contract was executed on 28.6.2001. In the year 2003, the petitioner started making demand of huge hike in salary and stopped attending the college after second year inspection. She failed to perform her duties as Principal. A contract was executed on 28.6.2001. In the year 2003, the petitioner started making demand of huge hike in salary and stopped attending the college after second year inspection. She failed to perform her duties as Principal. At the time of third year inspections on 19.1.2004 and 20.1.2004 she again demanded huge hike in salary and started threatening the college to refuse to participate in the inspections and started creating unhealthy atmosphere in the college at the time of inspection. She came to Bareilly and stayed in a hotel only to harass and humiliate the respondents/trust and to extract money, failing which she refused to participate in the inspections. The Trust issued warning to her on 22.1.2004 and made it clear that if she is not willing to continue, she may resign from the job. The petitioner did not report back to the college even for a single day. In para 13 it is stated that on 30.3.2004 on the end of financial year it was found that a loan of Rs. 1,89,400/- was due to be paid by the petitioner. Due to her sudden disappearance the trust had to appoint another person as Principal by promoting the Vice Principal Dr. P.C. Chaturvedi w.e.f. 10.3.2004 upto 15.4.2005. Thereafter Dr. B.K. Tandon was appointed as Principal till 15.9.2008 and after that Dr. S.R. Panat is continuing as Principal. In para 16 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner joined on 29.6.2001 but suddenly left the college. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 do not know Shri Amar Jeet Singh. The legal notice was received after five years of her disappearance through Shri Abhishek Arora on 8.9.2009. It is stated in para 18 that the petitioner does not even correctly remember the name of the college as she writing it as CODS, which is not in existence. She was Principal of the Institute of Dental Science from 29.6.2001 to 22.1.2004. 11. It is stated in para 18 that the petitioner does not even correctly remember the name of the college as she writing it as CODS, which is not in existence. She was Principal of the Institute of Dental Science from 29.6.2001 to 22.1.2004. 11. The trust deed and the correction deed, letter of appointment dated 28.6.2001, letter of the trust to the petitioner dated 5.8.2003 informing her that she has not attended the college inspite of various telephonic request on her mobile and letter; the hotel bill of Hotel Uberai Anand for stay from 15.1.2004 to 18.1.2004, bill of Hotel Sita Kiran for her stay from 19.1.2004 to 21.1.2004, letter of the trust dated 22.12004 informing her that she had not cooperated during inspection of the third year and letter demanding payment of loan of Rs. 1,89,400/- as well as letter dated 9.3.2004 by which Dr. P.C. Chaturvedi was promoted as Principal w.e.f. 10.3.2004, are annexed to the counter affidavit. 12. In the counter affidavit of Major General Rtd. P.N. Awasthi, Secretary, Dental Council of India, Aiwan-E-Ghalib Marg, Temple Lane, Kotla Road, New Delhi, it is stated that Dental Council of India was constituted under the Dentist Act, 1948 to take such steps, which are required to be taken for maintaining the highest standard of dental education in all the dental colleges of the country including that of petitioner dental college. With a view to detect unwarranted and uncontrolled mushrooming growth of dental colleges/institutions, the legislature made amendments in the Act called Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993, and incorporated new provisions of Section 10A, 10B and 10C thereby making it absolutely mandatory and obligatory for any person desirous of establishing a dental college to obtain prior permission from the Central Government. In para 6 it is stated that the Dental College in which the petitioner was working, was established during the academic session 2002-03, with prior permission of the Central Government under Section 10-A (4) of the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993, and the reply made thereunder, Central Government vide its letter dated 17.10.2002 conveyed its formal permission to Rohilkhand Education Charitable Trust, Bareilly, U.P. to establish a new dental college namely Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly (UP) with an annual admission capacity of 60 seats in BDS course for the academic session 2002-03. The permission was valid for one year for admitting only one batch of students to be renewed after verification of annual targets and revalidation of the Performance Bank Guarantee with the condition that the next batch of students will be admitted only after renewal of Central Government permission, for second year BDS course. The college has since been recognised by the Central Government vide its notification dated 3.4.2007. As per records, it is stated in para 8, that the petitioner was Principal of the college, when inspection of renewal of Central Government permission for second year BDS course for the academic session 2003-04 was conducted on 12th-13th March, 2003. The petitioner vide her letter dated 19.1.2004 sent a complaint to DCI, alleging that she was not allowed to enter the college, as she had refused to sign the papers without reading them. The matter raised in the writ petition relates to non payment of salary by the college. It is the concern of the Trust and respondent No. 2, and it is for them to place the correct position before the Court. 13. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner states that there are four agreements in continuance with each other. The agreement marked as Annexure C-5 in the writ petition dated 5.10.2003 is not in relation to hike in salary. The consent agreement applicable only to the notice of one year on either side. There was no demand of raise in salary, prior to the inspection of third year. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondents have relied upon fake and incorrect documents. She had done her duties as Principal honestly and punctually. She had given correct information in relation to shortcomings during the inspection in academic matters to the concerned authorities i.e. DCI. 14. In reply to the counter affidavit of DCI it is stated by the petitioner that her complaint dated 19.1.2004 is still lying inactive and is further stated by her that due to uncooperative attitude of the management and in greedy biased collaboration with rich and powerful and with malafide motives the law and order in the college had become very poor. The management had compelled the petitioner to sign the fake documents for inspection. 15. The management had compelled the petitioner to sign the fake documents for inspection. 15. From the pleadings and oral argument of the parties, we find that the petitioner was appointed as Principal of Institute of Dental Science run and managed by Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust, a Trust made up of private persons on contract initially for a period of minimum of five years by appointment letter dated 28.6.2001. The contract provided free furnished accommodation; performance all the duties assigned by the management, to follow the rules, regulations and discipline, and made her entitled to avail leave, vacations as per the rules and regulations of the University. The petitioner, however, by her letter dated 30.4.2001 prior to execution of the agreement had insisted on a consolidated monthly emoluments of Rs. 50,000/-, free furnished accommodation and conveyance and visits to the college only on those days as and when management needs her duties on institutional ground. There is nothing to show that the modification in the terms of contract reducing her contract from 5 years to 3 years by letter dated 17.11.2001 was accepted by the petitioner. 16. We do not find anything in the pleading or in the oral argument to confirm whether the petitioner was allotted a residential accommodation and had actually stayed in the campus performing her duties as Principal after the date of her appointment. She appears to be shown as Principal and was required to be present, when the inspections were made by the DCI. She was shown by the Trust to be the Principal and was present in the college, when the inspections were conducted on 12th -13th March, 2003 for the second year BDS course for academic session 2003-04. She was thereafter called by the trust to visit Bareilly for inspections for third year in January, 2004. At that time it appears from the allegations made by the trust that the petitioner started demanding hike in salary for which she did not cooperate in the inspections. She refused to sign the document and made a complaint to DCI on 19.1.2004. She thereafter absented on which the then Vice Principal Dr. P.C. Chaturvedi was promoted and took over the charge as Principal on 10.3.2004. 17. She refused to sign the document and made a complaint to DCI on 19.1.2004. She thereafter absented on which the then Vice Principal Dr. P.C. Chaturvedi was promoted and took over the charge as Principal on 10.3.2004. 17. The petitioner instead of approaching the Court, appears to have made representation to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India on 17.11.2004 after a period of 10 months followed with reminder after about five years on 18.6.2009, and sent a notice through Shri Abhishek Arora, Advocate of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh on 8.9.2009. In the notice Shri Arora has tried to set up a case that her contract was valid for a period of five years, to be terminated with a minimum of two years legal notice and that inspite of offers made to her to be appointed on regular basis after the inspection of third year she was not paid salary. In para 7 of his notice Shri Abhishek Arora describes Mr. Amarjeet Singh as Solicitor General of India and alleges that he had interfered in the matter on which her salary was stopped. 18. The petitioner was apparently appointed as Principal by the Trust only for the purposes of inspections. There is nothing to show that she had worked to her duties as Principal of the college. She was visiting the college only at the time of inspections, to fulfill the requirements of recognition. She appears to have raised a dispute with regard to her salary at the time of inspection for third year in January, 2004, and having failed to succeed, she refused to sign the papers and made a complaint to DCI on 19.1.2004. There is absolutely nothing to show that she made any effort thereafter to either join or sent any letter or notice to the Trust. She has woken up after five years demanding her entire salary and compensation. 19. The DCI appears to have failed in performance of its duties to check unwarranted uncontrolled mushrooming growth of dental colleges/institutions. It did not ensure whether the Principal of the College was working and performing her duties regularly. It was satisfied with the papers signed by her on the inspections on 12th-13th March, 2003. 19. The DCI appears to have failed in performance of its duties to check unwarranted uncontrolled mushrooming growth of dental colleges/institutions. It did not ensure whether the Principal of the College was working and performing her duties regularly. It was satisfied with the papers signed by her on the inspections on 12th-13th March, 2003. The DCI should have been vigilant and should have responded to the complaint made by the petitioner on 19.1.2004, in which she had as Principal of the College alleged that the standard of education in the college is very poor. There are only 14 teaching and 16 non teaching faculty members on regular basis. There are no sisters/nurses nor any clerical staff in the college and that the management had threatened her to enter the college premises before the team of inspectors of DCI on 19th and 20th January, 2004. There was no follow up action taken by DCI to the complaint. 20. Be that as it may. It is established on record that the petitioner was appointed by the management as Principal of the college only for the purposes of satisfying DCI at the time of inspections. The petitioner is also equally responsible for misrepresentation along with the Trustees to the DCI and the Central Government. The petitioner had accepted the appointment on the condition, to be present only at the time of inspection and thereafter, tried arm twisting methods for hike in her salary at the time of the inspections for the third year BDS course in January, 2004. She was aware of the shortcomings in the college and her contract but did not take any legal action against the college for five years. She has acquiesced to her rights under the contract and is not entitled to any relief from a private Trust having no state control over its functions and finances. Her claim is also grossly barred by unexplained laches. 21. We, consequently, dismiss the writ petition, deprecating the conduct of the petitioner, the Trust as well as the Dental Council of India. As a statutory body the DCI is required to carry out its inspections truthfully and to be vigilant to respond to any complaints, made by the faculty members against the management of the Dental Colleges. 22. There shall be no order as to costs. ————