Shri. Sumeet Sanjay Jadhav v. The Rregistrar, Maharashtra University Of Health Sciences And ORS.

Sherla V.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8051 OF 2014 Shri Sumeet Sanjay Jadhav ... Petitioner Vs.

The Registrar Maharashtra University of Health Sciences & Ors.

... Respondents Ms.Pinaz Contractor for the Petitioner Mr.S.B. Shetye for Respondent No.1 Ms.Anamika Malhotra for Resp. No.2 Ms.Smita Gaidhani for Resp. No.3 CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & SHRI C.V. BHADANG, JJ.

DATE: 16th FEBRUARY, 2015 P.C.:

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the direction of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik dated 15.6.2013 that any student who does not clear the first year BDS university examination in all subjects within a period of 3 years from the date of his admission shall be discharged from the course. By the said direction, the students, who had not passed the first year BDS examination, were granted a last chance to clear the examination before Summer 2014. By the said resolution, the University permitted the students securing admission in the academic 1 / 4

sessions 2008 - 2009, 2009 - 2010 and 2010 - 2011, to clear the first year BDS examination by Summer 2014.

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that by the impugned resolution, the University has illegally declined permission to the petitioner and the like students who were not able to clear the first year BDS examination till summer 2014 to have any more attempts. It is stated that when the petitioner was admitted in the first year BDS course in 2011 - 2012, there was no rule necessitating the petitioner and the students of the first year BDS course to clear the first year within a period of 3 years and the students who had passed in two subjects in the first year BDS examination were entitled to be admitted to the second year. It is submitted by placing reliance on the judgments reported in A.A. Calton vs. Director of Education & anr. reported in (1983) 3 SCC 33 and Vice - Chancellor, M.D. University, Rohtak vs.

Jahan Singh reported in (2007) 5 SCC 77 that the impugned resolution cannot have a retrospective effect. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the University and the respondent No.3 - College that a similar challenge to the resolution of the University of Health Sciences has failed as this Court has dismissed writ petition No.9775 of 2014 and others by the order dated 13.11.2014.

stated that the resolution of the University is based on the revised regulations of the Dental Council of India, 2007 and the petitioner cannot seek unlimited attempts for passing the first year BDS examination after the BDS course regulations were revised in the year 2007. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief, as sought in the instant writ petition. In writ petition No.9775 of 2014 and others decided on 13.11.2014, the same exemption notification No.18/13 was challenged. This Court had, by an order dated 13.11.2014, dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner therein had exhausted the attempts and was not able to succeed in the first year BDS examination. This Court found that notification No.

18 / 13 was issued as per the revised BDS course regulations of 2007, framed by the Dental Council of India. The regulations were brought into force in the year 2007 and it appears that after the notification dated 15.5.2013 was issued, the petitioner gave an undertaking to the Respondent No.3 college that the petitioner would not claim any more attempts as the petitioner is aware of the notification issued by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences.

time of securing admission, the prospectus did not mention that the first year BDS examination was required to be cleared in six attempts. If the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is to be accepted, a candidate may even claim 60 attempts for passing at the first year BDS examination. In any case, after the Dental Council of India revised the regulations in the year 2007, it was not permissible for the University to grant more attempts to the students to clear the first year BDS examination, than six. In the facts of the case, the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

(C.V. BHADANG, J.) (VASANTI A. NAIK, J.) 4 / 4