EDUCARE CHARITABLE TRUSTversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

                                                _,.,_...




                    [2013] 10 S.C.R. 167


             EDUCARE CHARITABLE TRUST                             A
                            v.
                UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
    (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22910 of 2013)
                   SEPTEMBER 17, 2013
                                                                  B
     [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

      Educational Institutions - Dental College - Increase of
admission capacity for academic year, 2013-14 - Applicant
did not fulfill the mandatory criteria of its being recognized for C
its existing admission capacity - After the cut-off date for
sending the application to Dental Council of India (DC/),
Central Government rejected the application on the ground
of non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria - Writ petition
challenging the rejection - On the ground that delay in D
sending the order recognizing the college for its existing
capacity was on the part of DC/, and hence, Central
Government in exercise of its discretionary powers provided
under the Regulations, should have extended the cut-off date
and forwarded the application to DC/ for increase of its E
admission capacity -. Petition dismissed - On appeal, held:
There was no delay in sending the recognition order (as
regards existing capacity of the college), by DC/ to Central
Government - The cut-off date for sending the· application to
DC/ could not have been extended by Central Government F
- It is not possible to change the time schedule - Sanctity to
time schedule has to be attached - Cut-off date for starting
professional courses, particularly medical courses should not
be tinkered with - Dental Council of India (Establishment of
New Dental Colleges, Opening of New Higher Course of
Study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in G
Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006 - Regulations 4, 18, 19
and 20.


                             167                                  H
    168      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A      Petitioner-Trust submitted a scheme to the
  Government of India for increasing the admission capacity
  of dental college run by it, from 50 to 100, for the
  academic year 2013-14. Central Government could not
  process the same as the petitioner had yet to get the
B recognition of the BOS course with its existing capacity,
  which was a pre-condition for forwarding the application,
  and asked the petitioner to fulfill the condition. Since the
  petitioner failed to fulfill the condition upto the last date,
  Central Government dismissed the scheme.
c      Petitioner filed writ petition challenging the rejection
  of the scheme. The plea of the petitioner was that there
  was delay on the part of DCI in forwarding the order of
  recognition (regarding the existing capacity) as the
  recognition was accorded much prior to the last- date;
D that right of petitioner to seek enhancement, could not be
  defeated due to delay on the part of DCI; and that as per
  Note (2) to the schedule appended to DCI ((Establishment
  of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New Higher Course
  of Study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity
E in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006, last date for .
  forwarding the application, in view of the facts of this
  case, should have been relaxed. High Court dismissed
  the writ petition. Hence the present Special Leave Petition.

F         Dismissing the petition, the Court

       HELD: 1. Regulation 18 of the DCI (Establishment of
  New Dental Colleges, Opening of New Higher Course of
  Study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in
  Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006 is made subject to
G Regulation 19. Regulation 19 states that a dental college
  "shall qualify to apply under regulation 18" if the
  conditions stipulated in Regulation 19 are fulfilled. It
  clearly follows that a dental college which does not
  satisfy the conditions laid down in Regulation 19 is not
H
EDUCARE CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 169


qualified to make an application under Regulatio_n ,18;      A
Clause (a) of Regulation 19 lays down a _specific
condition, namely existing admission capacity.should be
recognized. On the date of application, the petitioner did
not have this recognition and thus, it did not fulfill the
stipulations contained in Clause (a) o~ Regulation 19. In    B
the absence thereof, it was not qualified to make the
application. It, thus, follow that 'the application was
incomplete. As per regulation 20(2), incomplete
application or scheme can be returned by the Central
Government to the applicant. [Paras 10 and 11) [176-F-H;     c
177-A-B]
     2. There is no delay in sending its approval to the
Central Government. It has been duly explained by the
DCI that there are abo·1t 40 Members of the Governing
Council spre'ad throughout the country. The Governing        D
Council meets twice a year and in every meeting the
business transacted by the Governing Council is huge.
After the meeting, minutes are to be prepared in respect
of all the items in the agenda. By the time minutes are
prepared, the Members go back to their respective places     E
of residence. Getting signatures of the Members of the
Council is, therefore, a time consuming process. 40 days
time is earmarked for sending the recommendation to the
Central Government, after it is approved by the Governing
Council. In the instant case, the Governing Council did      F
its job within the stipulated time. [Para 12) [177-D-G]

     3. The High Court did not commit any error in
holding that in the given circumstances mandamus could
not be issued to the Central Government to exercise its      G
discretionary powers in a particular manner to modify the
time-schedule. After an application is forwarded to the
DCI, DCI is supposed to evaluate the scheme for
increasing admission capacity as per the procedure laid
                                                             H
    170     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A down in Regulation 21 which lays down that the DCI is
   required to ascertain the desirability and prima facie
  ·feasibility for increasing the admission capacity at the
   Dental College. It is also required to satisfy itself about
   the capability of the Dental College to provide necessary
B resources and infrastructure for the scheme. DCI is even
   required to conduct physical inspection of the college
   before forming an opinion as to whether the applicant
   satisfies the condition of -feasibility of increasing the
   admission capacity. This process, naturally, is time
c consuming. As per the time-schedule time upto 15th June
   is given for the DCI to make recommendation to the
   Central Government. Thereafter, Central Government is
   required to go into the said recommendation and if it is
   found that applicant-college deserves the permission to
   increase the admission capacity, Letter of Permission is
0
   to be issued by 15th July. This time frame is to ensure
   timely admissions of students. In view of this position, it
   is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioner
   to change the time-schedule when the last date for
E admitting the students, which was July 15, 2013, expired
   long ago. If the Central Government forwards the
   application to the DCI at this juncture, DCI shall hardly
   have any time to look into the feasibility of the scheme
   as per the requirements contained in Regulation 21. In the
   schedule annexed to the Regulations 2006, six to eight
F months time is given to the DCI for this purpose. Sanctity
   to the time-schedule has to be attached. The cut off date
   for starting the professional courses, particularly medical
   courses, is important and such deadline should not be
   tinkered with. [Paras 14 and 15) [179-E-H; 180-A-F]
G
         Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433:
    2012 (5) SCR 768; Maa Vaishno Devi Mahi/a Mahavidya/aya
    VS. State of U.P. (2013) 2 sec 617: 2012 (13) SCR 810 -
    relied on.
H
EDUCARE CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 171


                       Case Law Reference:                               A

       2012 (5) SCR 768          relied on--              Para 15
       2012 (13) SCR 810         relied on                Para 15

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.                       B
22910 of 2013.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 02.07.2013 of the High
Court of Kera la at Ernakulam in W.P. (Civil) No. 13586 of 2013
(W).
                                                                         c
    P.S. Patwalia, Geeta Luthra, E.M.S. Anam, Naina Dubey,
Gaurav Sharma, Sumeet Bhatia for the appearing parties.

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. In this petition, invoking the provisions         D
of Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks
leave to appeal against the judgment dated 2nd July 2013
passed by the High Court of Kerala. Writ Petition of the
petitioner has been dismissed by the aforesaid judgment.
                                                                         E
      2. The petitioner, which is a Charitable Trust working in the
field of education, has established a Dental College which was
established few years ago. During the Academic Year 2007-
08, course in Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BOS) was started
by it with an annual intake of 50 students. This was done after          F
taking due -permission from the Central Government under
Section 10-A of the Dentists Act, 1948 on the recommendation
of Dental Council of India (DCI). The Government of Kerala has
issued requisite Essentiality Certificate. The college run by the
petitioner is affiliated with University of Calicut as that University   G
had granted necessary Consent of Affiliation. The Dental
College also stands affiliated to the Kerala University of Health
Sciences, established by the Kerala University of Health
Science Act, 2010.

       3. In the year 2012, the petitioner wanted to expand the          H
       /
    172      ·suPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A size of BOS, being desirous of increasing the capacity from
  50 to 100 seats. Intention was to do so with effect from current
  Academic Year i.e. 2013-14. The scheme was rejected by the
  Government vide order dated 31.12.2012 on the ground that it
  did not fulfil the eligibility criteria for such an increase. Against
B this order of refusal of the Central Government, the petitioner
  had approached the High Court of Kerala seeking quashing of
  the said order and for issuance of Writ of Mandamus
  commanding the Central Government to forward the application
  of the petitioner for intake of students, to the DCI for technical
c scrutiny and further to direct the DCI to make appropriate
  recommendation to the Central Government for issuance of
  letter of permission during the Academic Year 2013-14 itself.
  As pointed out in the beginning .of this order, the said Writ
  Petition has been dismissed by the High Court.
D
         4. In order to appreciate the controversy and the grievance
    of the petitioner, it would be necessary to traverse few f~cts.

       5. On 8th August 2012, the petitioner had submitted the
  scheme to the Government of India for increasing the admission
E capacity. This request of the petitioner was considered but the
  Central Government could not process the same as at the time
  of submission of the application, the petitioner had yet to get
  the recognition of the BOS course with 50 seats i.e. the existing
  capacity, which is a pre-condition for forwarding the application.
F The Central Government had issued various letters, last of which
  was dated 19th December 2012, asking the petitioner to obtain
  the recognition. Last date for forwarding the application by the
  Central Government to DCI for approval of such scheme was
  31.12.2012. Since the petitioner could not bring the said
G "Essential Documents" even upto the last date i.e. 31-12-2012,
  the Central Government returned the application with liberty to
  the petitioner to apply afresh in the next Academic Year i.e.
  2014-15.

          6. As per the petitioner, its college fulfilled all the norms
H
  EDUCARE CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 173
                [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
  required for increase of intake of students from 50 to 100 seats.   A
  In so far as matter of recognition is concerned, the petitioner
  squarely blames the DCI for dragging its feet and, therefore, it
  is pleaded that the petitioner could not be made to suffer for
  no fault on its part. In this behalf, it was pointed out that the
  Executive Committee of the DCI in its meeting held on 26.11.12      B
  had duly recommended to accord recognition. --
  Recommendation of the Executive Committee was considered
  by the General Council of the DCI which met on 27/28.11.2012.
  This Governing Council also approved the proposal. Nothing
  further was to be done by the DCI but to send letter of             c
  recommendation to the Central Government. Had it been done
  immediately or within few days thereafter, the petitioner could
_ have got the recognition of the BOS course much before 31st
  December 2012, which was the last date. The grudge of the
  petitioner is tht the DCI slept over the matter and sent the        0
  communication regarding recognition of the petitioner-college
  to the Central Government only on 7th January 2013 thereby
  causing the last date to expire. The Central Government had
  notified the recognition on 23rd January 2013 but with effect
  from July 2012. In this conspectus, it was the submission of the
  petitioner that the right of the petitioner to seek enhancement     E
  of seats from 50 to 100 could not be defeated by the
  respondents when the delay was at their end. It was pleaded
  that though as per the time frame set out in the Schedule, last
  date for forwarding the application was 31st December, 2012,
   Note (2) appended beneath the said Schedule enables the            F
  Central Government to modify the same in respect of any class
  or category of applicants. In the present case, there was valid
  reason to exercise such discretion but it was not done. For this·
  reason, another prayer was made in the Writ Petition to the
  effect that the Central Government be directed to -modify the       G
  time schedule for the petitioner by invoking the power under
  Note (2) to the Regulations.

       7. The aforesaid plea of the petitioner did not cut any ice
  with the High Court. It held that as per Regulation 18 of the DCI   H
    174      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New Higher
  Course of Study or Training and Increase of Admission
  Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006, the applicant
  has to submit application in Form 3 when it wants to increase
  of seats. Qualifying criteria is laid down in Regulation 19 and
B as per Clause (a) thereof, it is mandatory that the college is
  recognized with the existing admission capacity. This condition
  was not fulfilled by the petitioner and it was not possible for the
  Central Government to forward the application to the DCI for
  technical scrutiny. In these circumstances, if the Central
c Government did not exercise its discretion to modify the time
  schedule, in terms of Note (2) of the Regulations, direction could
  not be issued to the Central Government to exercise that power
  in a particular manner as it was purely within the discretion of
  the Central Government and Central Government refused to
D exercise the discretion for valid reason.

        8. Before us as well, the case was argued on the same
  lines which was taken before the High Court. It was submitted
  by Mr. Patwalia, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
  petitioner that in the absence of any fault of the petitioner and
E when the petitioner has taken all steps well within time, it was
  a fit case for -exercising discretion by the Central Government
  and non-exercise of such a discretion was clearly arbitrary. Mr.
  Patwalia emphasized and reemphasized, with lots of
  vehemence that when the Governing Council had approved the
F case of recognition of the petitioner-college in respect of
  existing seats on 27/28 November 2012, there was no reason
  for it to delay forwarding of this proposal to the Central
  Government. Had it been done immediately thereafter, the
  Central Government would have granted the recognition much
G before 31st December, 2012 thereby removing the only
  handicap which was coming in the way of the petitioner and
  its scheme containing proposal of increase of seats from 5o
  to 100 could have been forwarded to the DCI well in time. He,
  thus, made a passionate plea that it was a fit case for exercise
H
EDUCARE CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 175
              [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
of power to extend the time Schedule under Note (2) of the            A
Regulations, 2006.

      9. We are not persuaded by these submissions of the
petitioner. Regulations, 2006 are framed by the DCI, with the
previous approval of the Central Government, in exercise of           8
powers conferred by Section 1OA read with Section 20 of the
Dentists Act, 1948. These Regulations, thus, have statutory
force. These Regulations deal with the procedure for obtaining
permission of the Central Government to establish new Dental
College, for starting new or higher courses or training in a Dental   C
College as well as for increase in admission capacity in a
Dental College. Regulation 18 deals with "Permission of the
Central Government -to increase admission capacity in the
dental college" which is the subject matter of the present
proceedings. Under Regulation 18, the applicant, a Dental
College desirous to increase the admission capacity has to            D
make requisite application in Form 3. Regulation 19 lays down
the qualifying criteria and the conditions which are to be
necessarily fulfilled to enable that college to apply under
Regulation 18. As per Regulation 20, application is to be
submitted in Form 3 and the.application fee with the particulars      E
mentioned in the said Regulation. Relevant portions of
Regulations 18, 19 and 20, with which we are concerned, are
reproduced herein below:

     "18. Application for increasing the admission capacity:-         F

           For increasing the admission capacity (number of
     seats) at. the under-graduate or post-graduate level
     (degree or diploma), a dental college shall, subject to
     regulation 19, submit to the Central Government the
     scheme in this regard in Form 3, as annexed, for obtaining       G
     its permission.

      19. Qualifying Criteria:-

                                                                      H
    176       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A         A dental college shall qualify to apply under regulation 18,
          if the following conditions are fulfilled:

                (a) the dental qualification granted to the students of
          the college and in respect of which the capacity is sought
B         to be increased is recognized with the existing admission
          capacity;

          (b) XXXXXXXlOOOOOOO

          (c) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c         (d)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          (e)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

           20. Submission of the application in Form 3 and the
D               application fee:-

          (1) XXXXXXXlOOOOOOO

          (2) Incomplete application or scheme will not be accepted
          and will be returned by the Central Government to the
E         applicant along with enclosures and processing fee.

          (3)XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

         10. It is clear from the above that Regulation 18 is made
F subject to Regulation 19. Regulation 19 states, in no uncertain
  terms, that a dental college "shall qualify to apply under
  regulation 18" if the conditions stipulated in Regulation 19 are
  fulfilled. It clearly follows that a dental college which does not
  satisfy the conditions laid down in Regulation 19 is not qualified
  to make an application under Regulation 18. Clause (a) of
G Regulation 19 lays down a specific condition, namely existing
  admission capacity should be recognized

       11. Admittedly, as on the date of application, the petitioner
  did not have this recognition and thus, it did not fulfill the
H stipulations contained in Clause (a) of Regulation 19. In the
EDUCARE CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 177
              [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
absence thereof, it was not qualified to make the -application.     A
It, thus, clearly follow that on the date of application i.e. 8th
August 2012, the application was incomplete. As per regulation
20(2) incomplete application or scheme can be returned by the
Central Government to the applicant,
                                                                  B
     12. No doubt, instead of returning the application, the
Central Government gave chances to the petitioner to obtain
the recognition from DCI and furnish the same to it. Mr. Patwalia
may be correct, to some extent, that had such a
recommendation been forwarded by the DCI before December C
2012, probably Central Government would have acted
thereupon. It is also correct that the Governing Council in its·
meeting held on 27/28 November 2012 approved the case of
the petitioner and sent the same to the Central Government only
on 7.1.2013. However, merely from these facts, the blame
cannot be foisted upon the DCI. It has been duly explained by D
the DCI that there are about 40 Members of the Governing
Council spread throughout the country. The Governing Council
meets twice a year and in every meeting the business
transacted by the Governing Council is huge. After the meeting,
minutes are to be prepared in respect of all the items in the E
agenda. By the time minutes are prepared, the Members go
back to their respective places of residence. Getting signatures
of the Members .of the Council is, therefore, a time consuming
process. It was pointed out also by the learned counsel for the
DCI, which could not be disputed by the petitioner, that 40 days F
time is earmarked for sending the recommendation to the
Central -Government, after it is approved by the Governing
Council. In the instant case, the Governing Council did its job
within the stipulated time. Therefore, there is no delay in
sending its approval to the Central Government on 7th January G
2013.

    13. As per Regulation 4 of Regulations, 2006, the scheme
or proposal has to be submitted within the time frame as
appended in the Schedule annexed to the said Regulations.           H
The Schedule gives the following time frame:
    178       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 10 S.C.R.


A                            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 recognized Dental
B         Colleges and processing of the applications by the Central
          Government and the Dental Council of India.
    S.No. Stage of               Time Schedule for    Time
          Processing             BDS                  Schedule
                                                      for MDS
c
    1         2                  3                    4
    1.        Receipt of        From 1st August to From
              applications by   30th Sep.(both days 1st May
              the Central Govt. inclusive) of any   to 30th
D                               year.               June (both
                                                    days
                                                    inclusive)of
                                                    any year
    2.        Forwarding of      Upto 31st October    Upto 31st
E
              applications by                         July
              the Central
              Government to
              the Dental
              Council of India
F
              for technical
              scrutiny.
    3.       Recommenda-         Upto 15th June       Upto 28th
             tions of DCI                             February
G             to the Central
              Govt.
    4.        Issue of Letter of Upto 15th July        Upto 31st
              Permission                               March
              by Central
H             Government
 EDUCARE CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 179
               [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
     Note (1)1f any clarification is sought by the Central             A
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
                                                                       B
by the Central Government, for reason to be recorded in writing,
in respect of any class or category of applications."

       14. As per the aforesaid time-schedule, the applicant-
 college desirous of increasing the admission capacity is to
 submit the application from 1st August to 30th September. This        C
 was done by the petitioner. However, what was found that the
 petitioner was not meeting the qualifying criteria as on that date
 because with respect to existing admission capacity, it had not
 been recognized so far. The applications are to be forwarded
 by the Central Government, once they are found to be in order         D
 and meeting the qualifyin,q,criteria laid down in Regulation 19,
 by 31st October in respect 'li>f .SDS course. This time was
 extended upto 31st December in this year. After an application
 is, forwarded to the DCI, DCI is supposed to evaluate the
 scheme for increasing admission capacity as per the                   E
·procedure laid down in Regulation 21 which lays down that.the
 DCI is required to ascertain the desirability and prima facie
 feasibility for increasing the admission capacity at the Dental
 College. It is also required to satisfy itself about the capability
 of the Dental College to provide necessary resources and              F
 infrastructure for the scheme. DCI is even required to conduct
 physical inspection of the college before forming an opinion as
 to whether the applicant satisfies the condition of -feasibility of
 increasing the admission capacity. This process, naturally, is
 time consuming. As per the time-schedule referred to above,           G
 time upto 15th June is given for the DCI to make
 recommendation to the Central Government. Such a report
 containing its recommendation is to be given in terms of
 Regulation 22. Thereafter, Central Government is required to
 go into the said recommendation and if it is found that               H
     180     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A    applicant-college deserves the permission to increase the
     admission capacity, Letter of Permission is to be issued by
     15th July. This time frame is to ensure timely admissions of
     students.

          15. Having regard to the above, it is not possible to accede
8
     to the 'request of the petitioner to change the time-schedule
     when the last date for admitting the students, which was July
     15, 2013, expired long ago. If the Central Government forwards
     the application to the DCI at this juncture, DCI shall hardly have
     any time to look into the feasibility of the scheme as per the
C    requirements contained in Regulation 21. We have to keep in ·
     mind that in the schedule annexed to the Regulations 2006, six
     to eight months time is given to the DCI for this purpose. We
     are, thus, of the view that the High Court did not commit any
     error in holding that in the given circumstances mandamus could
 D   not be issued to the Central Government to exercise its
     discretionary powers in a particular manner to modify the time-
     schedule. Sanctity to the time-schedule has to be attached. It
     is too late in the day, in so far as present academic session is
     concerned, to give any direction.- This Court has highlighted
-E   the importance of cut off date for starting the professional
     courses~ particularly medical courses, and repeatedly
     impressed upon that such deadline should be tinkered with.
      (See: Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433
     and M9a Vaishno Devi Mahi/a Mahavidyalaya vs. State of
 F    u.P. (2013) 2 sec 617.

         16. We, thus, do not find any error in the impugned
     judgment of the High Court. This petition is bereft of any merit
     and is accordingly dismissed.

 G K.K.T.                                           SLP dismissed.