HC allows PU to admit students to dental courses

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 30

In a major relief to students seeking admission to dental courses, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court today permitted Panjab University and Dr Harvansh Singh Judge Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital to make admissions.

Taking up an appeal filed by Panjab University and another petitioner through advocate Abhilaksh Grover against a Single Judge’s orders, the Division Bench of Justice SS Saron and Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu asserted that the directions were being passed keeping in view the deadline of May 31 for making admissions.

In its detailed order, the Bench asserted that the appellant university and the institute of dental sciences and hospital would make admissions to five specialties/courses in which renewal had been sought and two specialties in which fresh permission was sought for the academic session 2016-17.

The Bench added that the admissions would be carried out in accordance with law and rules and on the basis of merit after holding counselling. The Bench also set aside the Single Judge’s orders of May 24.

In his orders, the Single Judge had dismissed the university’s petition against disaffiliation of five specialised master’s courses in dental surgery at the institute. The university was also seeking a nod for two fresh courses.   

The Union Ministry of Health and Family Affairs had earlier taken note of an inspection team report for annual renewal of courses at the PU. The team had pointed out the absence of a regular Principal in contravention of the norms of the Dental Council of India (DCI). The ministry, on April 12, had communicated to the university that the courses stood disaffiliated from the next session. 

There are 14 seats in the five specialised courses at the dental college. The university had applied to the DCI for the addition of three more seats for a new specialised course from the next academic session for which the inspection was conducted by a team of the DCI.

The Single Judge, in his order, had observed the respondents — the Union of India and others — had been repeatedly asking the institute to remove the deficiency regarding the appointment of a permanent/regular Principal.

Rather, whenever there was an inspection, “the same objection was taken till February 20”.  The DCI then asked the institute to submit a proof regarding removing the deficiency within three days. 

Subsequent developments saw the petitioner-university making a representation to the DCI with the letter of the Principal’s appointment dated March 8. The DCI, too, made a request to the Central Government to review its decision. “However, ultimately, it is the prerogative of the Central Government to accept or not to accept the recommendations of the DCI...,” the Judge had observed.