JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Sri Manish Goyal for the petitioner. No one appears, to represent Union of India - respondent No. 1. Sri Sudeep Harkauli appears for Dental Council of India - respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner- DJ College of Dental Sciences And Research, run and managed by Jassar Dental Medical Education Health Foundation is an institution, recognized and affiliated by the Dental Council of India. 3. In writ petition No. 34926 of 2013, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.3.2013, passed by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare by which on the recommendation of the Dental Council of India (DCI), the Central Government has decided not to grant its permission for 2nd year MDS Course, and not to allow admissions in the speciality of Public Health Dentistry with 3 seats and also not to allow admissions for increase of seats in the specialities of (i) Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics from 3 to 6 seats; (ii) Oral Pathology & Microbiology from 3 to 6 seats and (iii) Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics from 2 to 6 seats at petitioner’s college, for the academic session 2013-14. 4. In writ petition No. 34927 of 2013, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 30.4.2013, passed by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare by which on the recommendation of the Dental Council of India (DCI), the Central Government has decided not to the renew permission for 3rd year MDS course, and not to allow admissions for increase of seats in the speciality of ‘Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge’ from 3 to 5 seats in the petitioner’s college for the academic session 2013-14. 5. Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that so far as increase of seats in speciality of ‘Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics’, the scheme has been approved. For the remaining two specialities, namely, ‘Oral Pathology & Microbiology’ the scheme for increase of seats from 3 to 6 seats and ‘Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge’ from 3 to 5 seats, was rejected on the ground that as per time-schedule appended in DCI Regulation 2006, the Dental Council of India sends its recommendations for MDS course by 28th February and Central Government grants permission by 31st March every year; the last date for granting permission in MDS courses for the academic session 2013-14 was extended upto 30.4.2013, which was already over. 6. 6. In writ petition No. 34926 of 2013, in respect of scheme in the speciality ‘Oral Pathology & Microbiology’, for increase of seats in MDS Course from 3 to 6, it is submitted that after the first inspection, in which deficiency was found in respect of clinical material, the petitioner filed a writ petition No. (C) 3528 of 2013, in Delhi High Court, in which it was submitted that on the date of inspection, the Inspectors were in a rush. They did not go through the records of the petitioner college, and consequently the same was sent to them via e-mail. The detail of the clinical material was also supplied to the Inspectors, which had not been examined while rejecting the scheme. The Delhi High Court vide order dated 24.5.2013, disposed of the writ petition, inspite of objections of the respondents that the cut off date fixed for recommendation to the Central Government was 30.4.2013, and directed the Dental Council of India to re-look into the matter, with further directions that if the petitioner makes a representation to the Union of India with supporting documents, the Union of India will consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with law and preferably before 31.5.2013. 7. In writ petition No. 34927 of 2013, the scheme of the petitioner for increase of seats from 3 to 5 in speciality ‘Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge’ in MDS Course, for the academic session 2013-14, was not accepted on the report submitted by the DCI on the basis of inspection. The DCI, in its order dated 28.2.2013, found that there was no University affiliation for the year 2012-13 and that there were lack of equipments, detailed in the order dated 29.2.2013. The petitioner filed a writ petition No. 28208 of 2013 (D.J. College of Dental sciences & Research v. Union of India and others), in this Court challenging disapproval of the scheme. The writ petition was disposed of by the Court on 28.5.2013, following the directions given by the Delhi High Court in respect of the same college, that if the petitioner makes a request to the Union of India with supporting documents, the Union of India may consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with law preferably before 31.5.2013 8. The writ petition was disposed of by the Court on 28.5.2013, following the directions given by the Delhi High Court in respect of the same college, that if the petitioner makes a request to the Union of India with supporting documents, the Union of India may consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with law preferably before 31.5.2013 8. It is submitted by Sri Manish Goyal that the Central Government has failed to carry out the directions of the Delhi High Court and the Allahabad High Court dated 24.5.2013 and 28.5.2013, respectively inasmuch as DCI and the Central Government have not considered the petitioner’s representation, and the materials provided in support of removing deficiencies, for increase of seats in MDS Course in both the specialities. Instead of considering the materials supplied by the petitioner, which would clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was affiliated for such courses with the University and had sufficient clinical material and purchased the required equipments, the Central Government has chosen, to reject the scheme on the ground of time-schedule. The orders have been passed in violation of Section 10 A (4) of the Dentists Act 1948, which provides for giving a reasonable opportunity to the person, authority or institution concerned granting recognized dental qualification. 9. Sri Manish Goyal has relied on an order passed by the Supreme Court by which the dates for admissions to the Medical Colleges was extended upto 31.7.2013, and the note appended to Schedule with reference to Regulation 4 (2) of DCI Regulations 2006, which provides for modification of time-schedule by Central Government, for reasons to be recorded in writing in respect of any class or category of applications. The Schedule with reference to Regulation 4 (2) and note appended to the Schedule is quoted as below : SCHEDULE [See Regulation 4(2)] Schedule for receipt of Applications for Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of Higher Course of Study & Increase of admission capacity in the recognised Dental Colleges and processing of the applications by the Central Government and the Dental Council of India. NOTE : 1.If any clarification is sought by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Council, the same will be furnished by the Council forthwith, if necessary, after conducting inspection. NOTE : 1.If any clarification is sought by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Council, the same will be furnished by the Council forthwith, if necessary, after conducting inspection. 2.The time-schedule indicated above may be modified by the Central Government, for reason to be recorded in writing, in respect of any class or category of applications. Sd/- (S.S. Arora) Secretary I/C Dental Council of India New Delhi Amended vide Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) (Amendment) Regulations, 2006, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part III, Section 4, dated 16.1.2006 10. Sri Manish Goyal relied on a judgement of the Supreme Court in Priyadarshni Dental College and Hospital v. Union of India and others, 2011 (4) SCC 623 and the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Integrated Education Development Organisation v. Union of India, Laws (DLH)-19999-11-16, decided on 24.1.1999, in submitting that time-schedule is directory and in exceptional cases where mandatory provisions of 10 A(2) of the Act have not been complied with, the DCI has powers to extend the time, and further that the scheme should not be disapproved on technicalities, causing serious prejudice to the petitioner and the students seeking admission to these courses. 11. Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel appealing for the Dental Council of India submits that even in the second inspection, deficiencies in respect of both the specialities were not removed. He submits that in the first inspection there was shortage of clinical material in biopsy, cytology and haematology and that in the second second inspection carried out on the request of the petitioner, it was also found that the clinical material was insufficient as not even a single case of Haematology was found. On the opinion of experts, the DCI took a decision on the scheme of the petitioner, not to approve for increase of seats from 3 to 6 in ‘Oral Pathology & Microbiology’, as there was deficiency of clinical material in Haematology-12 in the department of ‘Oral Pathology & Microbiology’ for 2nd year renewal of increase of seats for 2 units. On the opinion of experts, the DCI took a decision on the scheme of the petitioner, not to approve for increase of seats from 3 to 6 in ‘Oral Pathology & Microbiology’, as there was deficiency of clinical material in Haematology-12 in the department of ‘Oral Pathology & Microbiology’ for 2nd year renewal of increase of seats for 2 units. So far as increase of seats in speciality ‘Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge’ in the second inspection, the DCI found that there is no University Affiliation for the year 2012-13, and that there is still deficiency of equipments in the department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge viz., high speed lathe-2, dewaxing furnace-1, electric wax carver-2, stereo micro scope-1, heavy duty lathe with suction-1, pre heating furnace-1, dry model trimmer-1, strengthen unit-1, short cycle autoclave-1, sinus life instruments-1 and educating models. He submits that submitting details of patients and production of invoices, for purchase of equipments, subsequent to the inspection would not cover the deficiencies, and in any case the experts and the DCI has reconsidered the availability of equipments and found them to be deficient, for granting approval to the scheme. 12. Sri Sudeep Harkauli further submits that no relaxation can be given by DCI in the time-schedule fixed in the Regulations, as time-schedule is an important factor, for admission in the colleges. The Central Government may, modify the time-schedule in respect of any class or category of applications, after recording reasons. The words ‘class or category of applications’ do not include any individual scheme, submitted by any college, for the purpose of increasing the seats. He relies on a judgement of a learned Single Judge of the Court in Kalka Educational Society and another v. Union of India and another, 2013 (3) ADJ 59 (DB), in which this Court was of the opinion that modification in the time-schedule, can be carried out with reference to a particular class or category of applications, and not with reference to any particular case or particular institution. Moreover such modification in the time-schedule has to be made much prior in point of time so that all such category or class of institutions may take benefit thereof. The purpose of the note is not for relaxation of time-schedule in an individual case. 13. Moreover such modification in the time-schedule has to be made much prior in point of time so that all such category or class of institutions may take benefit thereof. The purpose of the note is not for relaxation of time-schedule in an individual case. 13. We have carefully considered the submissions and do not find that the petitioner has made out any case for interference with the orders passed by the Central Government. The deficiencies pointed out by the expert were not removed even on second inspection. So far as the speciality ‘Oral Pathology & Microbiology’ is concerned there was deficiency of clinical material even on second inspection. As regards the speciality ‘Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge’, deficiencies were found in the availability of equipments. The petitioner admits that their representative was present at the time of inspection. The averments that the experts were in rush and the materials were sent to them through e-mail subsequently is not verified from the records. The entire object of inspection will be defeated, if such request is accepted. Even on second inspection, the experts found that there was still deficiency of clinical material and equipments. The furnishing of details of patients and forwarding of details of invoices, regarding proof of purchase of equipments, subsequent to the date of inspection, will be of no help of the petitioner, as the object of inspection by experts is to find out that there are no deficiencies in teaching of such courses in the scheme for which college has applied for approval. The opportunity to satisfy the experts, serves both the principles of natural justice and saves time for objections, and consideration of any objections or settlement of any disputes. 14. So far as time-schedule is concerned, we are not impressed by the argument that the time-schedule can be extended for any particular scheme for increasing the seats. The time-schedule under note (2) of the Schedule can be extended, in exceptional cases after recording reasons in respect of any case or category of applications and not in respect of any individual scheme. The interim orders of the Supreme Court in extending the period upto 31.7.2013, concerned the admission and counselling, to graduate and post graduate courses in Medical College in general, and not for any individual scheme by any college for increasing the seats in any course. 15. The interim orders of the Supreme Court in extending the period upto 31.7.2013, concerned the admission and counselling, to graduate and post graduate courses in Medical College in general, and not for any individual scheme by any college for increasing the seats in any course. 15. The judgements cited by Sri Manish Goyal are not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in Priyardarshni Dental College & Hospital v. Union of India and others (supra), the Supreme Court was concerned with the orders of the Central Government to be offensive in nature inasmuch as any executive body in their decision making process cannot impose a condition that their decision will avail confirmation by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Court should not be made party to the decision making process of the executive. In Integrated Education Development Organisation v. Union of India (Supra), the objection was that two lecturer halls cannot accommodate sixty students, and not that the time-schedule for admission to the courses has expired. So far as judgement of Delhi High Court and this Court in the writ petitions filed by the petitioner, giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation and the respondents to take decision by 31.5.2013 are concerned, these orders did not made after deciding the objections regarding time-schedule fixed in regulations framed by DCI. The attention of the Courts was not drawn to the last dates in time-schedule fixed by the DCI. The Delhi High Court or this Court did not extend the dates by which the permission could be granted by the Central Government. 16. We may also observe that apart from the fact that the Central Government has disapproved the scheme on the ground of time-schedule, fixed in the DCI Regulations, we are satisfied that even on second inspection, the deficiencies pointed out by the experts of DCI were not removed, and thus even on merits, the petitioner does not have any case for giving any directions to the respondents. 17. Both the writ petitions are dismissed. —————