Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4941/2011 21/ 21 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4941 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
=================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=================================================
KARNAVATI
SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY THROUGH DEEPAK SHISHOO - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & 1 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR DC DAVE for Petitioner(s) :
1,
MR ANSHIN H. DESAI for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE UNSERVED
for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR MITUL K SHELAT for Respondent(s) :
2,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
:30/08/2011
CAV
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
This
writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for direction on
respondents to annul the decision communicated by letter dated 31st
March 2011 issued by the 1st
respondent to the petitioner. Further prayer has been made to direct
the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner for commencing
Post Graduate Course in the discipline of Dentistry in the speciality
of Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry from the
academic year 2011-12.
2. By
the impugned letter dated 31st March 2011, the 1st
respondent – Government of India informed the Principal,
Karnavati School of Dentistry, its disapproval of the proposal/scheme
with regard to starting of M.D.S. Course in the speciality of
Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry at Karnavati School of
Dentistry, Gandhinagar. However, the College authorities have been
allowed to submit their M.D.S. application/proposal complete in all
respects for the academic year 2012-13 between 1st May
2011 and 31st June 2011.
3. The
petitioner is a self-financing institution imparting education in the
discipline of Dentistry at the level of graduation and post
graduation since the academic year 2005-06. It has been granted
approval for commencement of post graduate course in the discipline
of Dentistry in the specialities of (i) Periodontology, (ii) Oral
Medicine & Radiology, and (iii) Prosthodontics and Crown &
Bridge.
4. The
petitioner-institution intended to have its set up for the post
graduate course in the discipline of Dentistry and other specialities
in (i) Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, (ii) Oral
Pathology & Microbiology, (iii) Conservative Dentistry and
Endodontics, (iv) Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, and (v)
Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry from the academic year 2011-12.
Therefore, it has filed an application in June 2010 before the 1st
respondent – Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, Dental Education Section, which came to be forwarded by the
1st respondent to the 2nd respondent –
Dental Council of India. On 20th August 2010, the 2nd
respondent – Dental Council of India addressed a communication
seeking clarification from the petitioner in respect of publications,
which the Head of the Department of the petitioner-institution in the
speciality of Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry was having to his
credit. As per the Revised Regulations of 2007, one of the
requirements for commencing a post graduate course in the discipline
of Dentistry in any speciality is to the effect that the Head of the
Department of the concerned speciality in the set up of the concerned
College proposing to commence such a course shall have, in all, three
publications in the specified journals, being either Indexed Journal
of National/International level or Journal of National Dental
Speciality Association, as first author thereof.
5. The
2nd respondent – Dental Council of India by its
letter dated 24th September 2010 intimated all the Dental
Colleges of the country apprising about the aforesaid requirement and
pointed out that for the purpose of substantiating the said
requirement, the concerned College proposing to commence a post
graduate course in a particular speciality would be required to
submit printed copy of each of the publications in the specified
Journals claimed to the credit of the concerned Head of the
Department as first author thereof.
6. According
to the petitioner, by letter dated 10th September 2010 it
has forwarded the requisite details to the 2nd respondent
– Dental Council of India followed by communications dated 14th
September 2010 and 26th October 2010 furnishing the
requisite details. The 2nd respondent – Dental
Council of India by letter dated 7th October 2010 sought
clarification from the petitioner in respect of the concerned
specialities referred therein, including the speciality of
Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, on the aspect of publications
to the credit of the concerned Heads of Departments of the concerned
Specialities in the set up of the petitioner as per the Revised
Regulations, 2007.
7. The
petitioner by letter dated 19th October 2010 forwarded the
details to the 2nd respondent. According to the
petitioner, at that time one Dr. Mahadevia was holding the position
of Professor and Head of the Department of the speciality of
Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry in the set up of the
petitioner-institution. As a result thereof, the concerned
publications to the credit of the said Dr. Mahadevia were mentioned
in the said communication. The 2nd respondent –
Dental Council of India by letter dated 9th September 2010
sought further clarification on the aforesaid aspect of publications
in respect of various specialities specified therein, including the
speciality of Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. By
communication dated 3rd January 2011, the petitioner
furnished to the 2nd respondent – Dental Council of
India requisite details with regard to the publications in the
specified Journals by the Faculty of the petitioner Dental College in
the speciality of Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, including
the details of the concerned publications by the Head of Department
of the petitioner-institution in the said speciality. The 2nd
respondent by its letter dated 12th January 2011 asked the
petitioner to forward the original of the concerned publication as
claimed to the credit of Dr. Mahadevia, Head of the Department of
Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. By another communication
dated 3rd February 2011, the 2nd respondent –
Dental Council of India called upon the petitioner to comply with the
requirement of the Revised Regulations, 2007, particularly with
regard to Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry.
8. According
to the petitioner, it has submitted the original publication to the
2nd respondent on 3rd February 2011 with regard
to Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. By that time, one Dr.
Bimal Deep Singh was holding the position of Head of the Department
and in the said speciality of Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry,
he had to his credit as on 1st February 2011, in all,
eight publications, out of which, two publications as first author
thereof were already published in the concerned specified Journals,
and the third publication was accepted by the concerned specified
Journal for publication in its forthcoming edition. The said third
publication was made in the website of the specified Journal. The
2nd respondent in its turn by letter dated 15th
February 2011 informed that its Inspectors would visit the
petitioner’s premises for inspecting and verifying the
infrastructural and other facilities in their set up for commencing a
post graduate course. Accordingly, the inspection was made by the
Inspectors of the 2nd respondent.
9. The
further case of the petitioner was that it was justifiably
anticipating a favourable response from the 2nd respondent
– Dental Council of India in the form of recommendation to the
1st respondent u/Sec.10-A of the Dentists Act, 1948, for
permission to commence a post graduate course in the Paedodontics and
Preventive Dentistry for the academic year 2011-12. However, to
their shock, they received the impugned communication dated 14th
March 2011, whereby the 2nd respondent declined to give
such permission for the academic year 2011-12, but allowed them to
apply for the academic year 2012-13.
10. It
is stated that a hearing was given by the 1st respondent
on 17th March 2011 when the petitioner brought to their
notice that the Head of the Department in the speciality of
Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry fulfills all the requirements,
including three publications as first author as per the Revised
Regulations, 2007. But, that was not accepted and the impugned
letter was issued on 31st March 2011 refusing to grant
permission to start post graduate course in Paedodontics and
Preventive Dentistry for the academic year 2011-12.
11. At
this stage, it is stated that by interim order dated 12th
May 2011 a Bench of this Court allowed the petitioner to make a
representation before the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the
respondents taking into consideration the representation preferred by
the petitioner, on 14/16th May 2011, issued the
communication dated 13th June 2011 and rejected the
representation.
From
the communication made by the respondents, it will be evident that
the respondents refused to grant permission mainly on the ground that
the Head of the Department, Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry do
not fulfill the requisite condition of three publications as the
first author in Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry subject, as one
of those three publications was shown in the website of a Journal,
but not published.
12. Learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that acceptance of concerned
paper by concerned Journal for publication thereof in its forthcoming
issue, and in the meantime publication thereof in the website of the
concerned Journal would fall within the ambit of expression ‘shall
have published at least three papers as first author’, as
appearing in the Revised Regulations, 2007. Besides this, the
provision of such nature in the Regulation is to ensure that the
concerned Head of the Department is having the requisite academic
excellence and the requirement stands fulfilled if the publication of
paper on the website is accepted, and therefore, there is no reason
for not construing the Regulations accordingly.
13. He
would further contend that the word `publisher’ appearing in
Regulations would mean, `as per P. Ramanatha Iyer’s Law
Lexicon,`to make generally accessible or available, to place before
or offer to public, to bring before the public for sale or
distribution’. As per the Oxford Advanced Learner’s
Dictionary, the expression `published something’ would embrace
within its sweep `to make something available to the public on
internet’. Therefore, the publication of concerned paper on
the website of the concerned journal would, undoubtedly, qualify as
having been published within the meaning of the Regulations.
14. Next
it was contended that the concept of publication of the paper by the
concerned Journal on the website is not unknown to the 2nd
respondent – Dental Council of India. It will be evident from
the communication dated 14th December 2010 of the 2nd
respondent wherein a clarification has been sought as to which of the
Journal of the National and International level would qualify as the
specified Journal within the meaning of the Regulations. As per the
same, all Indexed National and International Journals would qualify
as specified Journals for the purpose of Regulations and Indexed
National and International Journals would mean Journals indexed by
either Medline or PubMed or approved by the National Medical Library.
The list of Journal indexed by Medline refers to Journal of
Dentistry for Children. A copy of the list showing the Journal
indexed by Medline has been appended, wherein Journal of Dentistry
for Children has been highlighted. The said Journal of Dentistry for
Children is having exclusively on-line publication with effect from
1st January 2007 and information is available on the
website of American Academy of Paediatric Dentistry along with the
subscription for the said Journal shows that it has no publication in
physical form. If the concerned paper was to be accepted for
publication in the said Journal named `Journal of Dentistry for
Children’, the publication thereof would have been only in the
electronic form, and the 2nd respondent could not have
discarded the same, as the same would qualify as publication in the
Indexed Journal. It is stated that along with representation of the
petitioner, the material placed with the concerned paper was shown to
be publication by the concerned Journal in the name of `Journal of
Advanced Dental Research’ published in the website named
www.ispcd.org . The expression `ispcd’ appearing in the
address of the said website refers `International Study of Preventive
and Community Dentistry’. The said International Society is a
publisher of the said Journal in the name of `Journal of Advanced
Dental Research’ approved by the National Medical Library.
15. He
would further submit that if it is viewed in the light of the
provisions embodied in the Information Technology Act, 2000, the said
publication on the website would fulfill the requirement of the
publication under the Regulations as electronic form as defined
u/Sec.2(r) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
16. Learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent while
disputed the aforesaid submissions, contended that there was no third
publication produced by the petitioner in respect to Paedodontics and
Preventive Dentistry subject. According to 2nd
respondent, to maintain higher standards in imparting Dental
education by Dental Colleges/Institutions in the country, the Dental
Council of India constituted under the Dentist Act, 1948, takes all
the steps to maintain higher standards in all the Dental Colleges in
the country, including the petitioner’s Dental College. Before
1993, it was possible for any person to establish a dental college
without seeking permission from any State or Central authority. Over
a period of time, it was consistently observed that most of the
dental colleges and institutions were not able to provide all the
necessary infrastructure and facilities for imparting dental
education of the requisite standards. With a view to checking the
unregulated and uncontrolled and mushrooming growth of the dental
colleges/institutions or starting of higher courses or increase of
admission capacity in under graduate and post graduate courses in
Dentistry, the legislature made amendments in the Act called Dentists
(Amendment) Act, 1993. By this amendment Sec.10-A, 10-B and 10-C
were inserted making it absolutely mandatory and obligatory for any
person desirous of establishing a dental college or starting of
higher courses or increase of admission capacity in under graduate or
post graduate courses in Dentistry to obtain a prior permission from
the Central Government.
17. According
to the 2nd respondent, the Faculty position do not permit
the petitioner’s institution to start post graduate course in
Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry subject. The Central
Government by letter dated 26th July 2010 forwarded the scheme of the
petitioner’s Dental College for the purpose of starting MDS course in
different specialities, namely, (i) Oral Pathology, (ii)
Orthodontics, (iii) Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, (iv)
Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics and (v) Oral and
Maxillofacial Surgery to the 2nd respondent – Dental Council of
India for its technical evaluation and recommendation for the
academic year 2011-12. The Dental Council of India by its letter
dated 20th August 2010 asked the petitioner’s Dental College to
forward the following documents:-
(i) Self
Assessment Report including consolidated list of teaching staff int
he prescribed format,
(ii) Proforma
for details of publications/papers published by teaching staff in the
prescribed format.
18. The
2nd respondent deputed statutory Inspectors, namely (1) Dr. G.
Venkateswara Rao, Khammam and Dr. R.S. Puranik, Bagalkot, (ii) Dr.
Hari Prasad Rao, Hyderabad and Dr. Anju Loomba, Lucknow, (iii) Dr.
Hind Pal Bhatia, Ghaziabad and Dr. Ramakrishna Yeluri, Mathura and
(iv) Dr. K. Harish Shetty, Mangalore and Dr. B.S. Keshav Prasad,
Bangalore to inspect and ascertain the physical facilities such as
building, space, teaching staff, their qualifications and other
infrastructural facilities available as per the Dental Council of
India Regulations, 2006 for starting M.D.S. Course in aforesaid
faculties and specialities for the academic session 2011-12. The
inspections were made in between 7th February and 23rd February 2011.
19. The
Executive Committee of the Dental Council of India in its meeting
held on 26th and 27th February 2011 considered the Inspection Report
with regard to the speciality `Oral Pathology & Microbiology’
with three seats at petitioner’s Dental College for the academic
session 2011-12. A positive recommendation was communicated to the
Union of India by letter dated 9th March 2011.
20. With
regard to specialities `Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics’,
the Committee of Dental Council of India in its meeting held on 15th
February 2011 considered the Inspection report, and after discussion
and deliberation, recommended Government of India to grant permission
to start such M.D.S. course with three seats at petitioner’s Dental
College for the academic session 2011-12 by letter dated 22nd
February 2011.
21. A
positive recommendation was also made by the Dental Council of India
with regard to the speciality `Conservative Dentistry &
Endodontics’, having considered the Inspection Report in Executive
Committee meeting held on 22nd February 2011. It was recommended to
allow such M.D.S. courses in the concerned faculty with three seats
for the academic session 2011-12 by letter dated 4th March 2011.
22. The
Executive Committee in its meeting held on 29th September 2011
considered in all five letters dated 10th September 2010 received
from the petitioners Dental College with regard to `Oral and
Maxillofacial Surgery’. By those letters information/documents for
starting M.D.S. course in the said speciality were submitted. After
discussion and deliberation, the Executive Committee decided as
under:-
” Oral
& Maxillofacial Surgery
Since the
college authorities does not have the (i) requisite attachment of
medical hospital for starting / increase of seats in Oral &
Maxillofacial Surgery and (ii) teaching staff as per MDS Course
Regulations, 2007, the Executive Committee recommends to the Central
Government to disapprove the scheme / application of Karnavati School
of Dentistry, Gandhinagar, Gujarat for starting of MDS Course in the
speciality of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery for the academic year
2011-12:
1. The
college does not have attachment with the Medical College for
starting / Increase of seats int he speciality of Oral &
Maxillofacial Surgery, attachment with medical college is essential
within 10 kms. as per DCI circular letter No.DE-14-2010/A-3481 dated
13.7.2010.
2. The
teaching faculty in the department of Oral & Maxillofacial
Surgery do not have the following requisite number of publications,
in an indexed Journal National/International OR in any of the
National Dental Speciality Association Journals, as a first author as
per MDS Course Regulations, 2007 and the same was also informed /
requested vide DCI Circulars (i) No.DE-14-2010/A-3481 dated 13.7.2010
& (ii) No.DE-14-2010/A-6348 dated 24.9.2010:-
Professor
& HOD -3
Professor
-2
Reader -1″
23. The
aforesaid recommendations were communicated to the Union of India by
letter dated 8th October 2010.
24. So
far as the speciality `Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry’ is
concerned, the Executive Committee of Dental Council of India in its
meeting held on 26th and 27th February 2011 having considered the
Inspection Report and after discussion and deliberation recommended
to the Government of India
to disapprove the application of the petitioner’s Institution as
under:
“The
Executive Committee recommends to the Central Government to
disapprove the application of Karnavati School of Dentistry,
Gandhinagar, Gujarat for starting of MDS Course in the speciality of
Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry for the academic session
2011-12, due to the following reason:-
1. There is
a deficiency of Professor and HOD since Dr. Bimal Deep Singh shown as
HOD is not accepted as he does not have requisite publications, as
per the Revised MDS Course Regulations, 2007.”
The
aforesaid decision was communicated by letter dated 9th March 2011.
25. So
far as the claim of the petitioner with regard to Dr. Bimal Deep
Singh is concerned, the 2nd respondent disputed the stand that the
said Head of the Department has three publications as first author.
It is contended that the petitioner itself has accepted that it is
awaiting the publication of the third publication in the forthcoming
issue of the concerned Journal in the month of of May 2011, and
requested to take the same into consideration. From such stand taken
by the petitioner, it is clear that the third publication was not
made prior to May 2011, more particularly in February 2011 when the
matter was considered.
26. Referring
to page 67 of the writ petition, learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent would contend that the petitioner cannot say that the Head
of the Department has three publications to his credit. He has only
one publication as first author as evident from page 67. So far as
the second publication as shown at page 68 of the writ petition is
concerned, though therein the name of Dr. Bimal Deep Singh is shown,
but he has not been shown as the first author. Therefore, the second
publication as claimed on behalf of Dr. Bimal Deep Singh has not been
accepted by the Executive Committee of the Dental Council of India.
With regard to the third publication, as the Journal was to be
published in May 2011, in anticipation of such publication, the
matter could not have been taken up, therefore, no recommendation was
made in its favour.
27. It
was further contended on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the
Revised M.D.S. Course Regulation No.7 framed by the Dental Council of
India in exercise of power conferred by Sec.20 of the Dentists Act,
1948, was published in Gazette on 21st November 2007. The said
Regulation, inter alia, envisage that in addition to possessing of
prescribed qualification and teaching experience, Head of the the
Department shall have published `at least three papers as first
author in his speciality in National and International Journal’.
These Regulations being statutory and binding in nature are to be
strictly followed by all the concerned, including the petitioner’s
college, for maintaining the standards of dental education in the
country at par with the International standards.
28. It
is submitted that on receipt of the negative recommendations from the
Dental Council of India in a number of cases, including the
petitioner dental college, the Central Government constituted a three
Member Committee under the Chairmanship of Special Director General
of Health Sciences with members from All India Institute of Medical
Sciences, New Delhi, and Lady Harding Medical College/Hospital, New
Delhi, which are institutions of national repute. The Committee was
constituted to consider the cases where negative recommendations have
been forwarded by the Dental Council of India. The Central
Government for the purpose of affording an opportunity of being
heard, u/Sec.10-A(4) of the Dentists Act, 1948, gave opportunity to
all the Dental Colleges, including the petitioner Dental College.
The Committee had given personal hearing to 37 Dental Colleges in 102
specialities on 17th, 18th and 21st March 2011. Thereafter, it has
recommended 13 proposals/cases and the Central Government by its
letter dated 28th March 2011 requested the Dental Council of India to
send its revised recommendation in respect thereof to the Government
of India by 29th March 2011. But, the petitioner’s case do not find
place amongst the 13 cases referred to the Dental Council of India
for reconsideration, thereby, even the Committee constituted by the
Central Government under the Chairmanship of Special Director General
of Health Sciences has also rejected the claim as made by the
petitioner.
29. Learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent would further submit that the Central
Government has afforded an opportunity to the petitioner Dental
College for personal hearing and keeping in view the recommendation
of the Dental Council of India and type and nature of deficiencies as
opined by the Dental Council of India, vide its letter dated 31st
March 2011, declined its permission to the petitioner Dental College
for starting M.D.S. Course in Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry
for the academic year 2011-12. The petitioner has been given an
opportunity to submit such application in complete form for the
academic year 2012-13 at an appropriate time, i.e. between 1st May to
30th June 2011.
30. Thus,
according to the respondents, no indulgence is required to be shown
in the case of the petitioner Dental College, which do not fulfill
the requisite conditions.
31. It
appears that a time schedule was given under the Dental Council of
India Regulations 2006, as per which recommendations for the academic
year 2011-12 were required to be sent by 28th February 2011, which
was extended by the Central Government by 30th March 2011. The
Supreme Court by its decision rendered in the case of Mridul
Dhar v. Union of India reported in 2005(2) SCC 65
also directed to strictly adhere to the time schedule provide in the
Regulations.
32. Counsel
for the 2nd respondent relied on Supreme Court decision in Krishna
Priya Ganguli v. University of Lucknow reported in 1984
(1) SCC 307, A.P. Christian Medical College vs. State of A.P.
reported in 1986(2) SCC 667.
In
the case of Krishna Priya Ganguli (supra), the Supreme
Court held that in the matter of admission to Medical Courses
interest of the students should not be sacrificed because of the
conduct or folly of the management. The Apex Court further held that
the Court cannot direct the University to disobey the statute to
which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the
University itself.
33. In
the present case, the matter relates to Standards of Institution,
which intend to impart teaching of higher courses, namely Post
Graduate level M.D.S. Course in the speciality of Paedodontics and
Preventive Dentistry. To maintain the status of the Institution,
standard of education and in the interest of students and public in
general, who will be treated by the Doctors who come out successfully
after passing such Course, none of the provisions made under the
Regulations can be compromised.
34. As
per the Revised Regulations, 2007, one of the requirement for
commencing a post graduate course in the discipline of Dentistry in
any speciality is that the Head of the Department of the concerned
speciality of the concerned College shall have, in all, three
publications in the specified Journals, being either Indexed Journal
or National/International level or Journal or National Dental
Speciality Association, as first author thereof. As per the New
Oxford Dictionary of English `publication’ means `the preparation and
issuing of a book, journal or piece of music for public’. `Journal’
as per the New Oxford Dictionary of English means `a newspaper or
magazine that deals with a particular subject or professional
activity’; `medical journals’.
35. From
Annexure 2 to the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it will be
evident that Dr. Bimal Deep Singh, Professor and Head of the
Department published two papers in Journals (i) `Effect of three
biocompatible metal salts as mouthrinses on plaque pH following a
cariogenic challenge’ published in the Journal of Indian Society of
Pedodontics & Preventive Dentistry, September 1997, an Official
publication of The Society of Pedodontics & Preventive Dentistry,
and thereby fulfills the criteria no.3 of letter issued by the second
respondent Dental Council of India and (ii) `Aesthetic Space
Maintainer – A Cosmetic Alternative for Pediatric Patients’ published
in a Journal of Indian Dental Association, Vol.4, No.12, December
2010, and thereby, fulfills the criteria no.4 of letter dated
2nd December 2010 written by the Dental Council of India. Both
the aforesaid publications have been made by Dr. Bimal Deep Singh as
first author.
36. The
petitioner claims the third publication to be `Riga-Fede Disease:
Report of a case with Literature Review’. Therein, though Dr.
Bimal Deep Singh has been shown as first author, and it is shown as a
Journal of Advance Dental Research, Vol. II: Issue II, in Annexure 2,
it is stated that the Journal is `Accepted and Published Online’.
37. It
appears that one Santosh Kumar, MDS, Gujarat University, India
intimated Dr. Bimal Deep Singh that his manuscript entitled
“Riga-Fede Disease: Report of a case with Literature Review”
has been accepted for publication in the “Journal of Advanced
Dental Research”. The aforesaid letter shows that as on 1st
February 2011, the manuscript titled “Riga-Fede Disease:
Report of a case with Literature Review” has not been
published. The said letter being relevant is quoted hereunder:-
“JOURNAL
OF ADVANCED DENTAL RESEARCH
Letter of
Acceptance
Date: 1st
Feb, 2011
Dr. Bimal
Deep Singh,
Professor
and Head,
Dept of
Pedodontics,
Karnavati
School of Dentistry,
Gandhinagar,
Gujarat.
Manuscript
Title: “Riga-Fede
Disease: Report of a case with Literature Review”
Dear Dr.
Bimal Deep Singh,
I
am very pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled
“Riga-Fede
Disease: Report of a case with Literature Review”
has been
accepted for publication in the “Journal of Advanced Dental
Research.”
On behalf of
the Editorial Board, I wish to thank you for giving us this
opportunity to review your work.
Yours
sincerely,
Santosh
Kumar, MDS Samir Mulgund, MFDS, RCPSG,
Gujarat
University, Royal College of Physician,
India. Glasgow,
UK”
38. The
respondent Dental Council of India has specifically taken the view
that petitioner Institution do not fulfill the criteria for grant of
approval for Pedodontics &
Preventive Dentistry course for the academic year 2011-12, as Dr.
Bimal Deep Singh, Professor and Head of the Department of petitioner
– Karnavati School of Dentistry, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, do not fulfill
the criteria of three publications in Journals as first author.
39. In
view of the aforesaid specific stand taken by the Dental Council of
India and the documents produced by the petitioner, as noticed above,
we hold that Dr. Bimal Deep Singh, Professor and Head of the
Department as on 31st march 2011 was not fulfilling the criteria of
three publications in Journals as first author, and thereby, the
respondents rightly refused to grant approval for starting M.D.S.
Course in the speciality of Pedodontics & Preventive Dentistry
for the academic year 2011-12. The so called publication in the
website being a manuscript titled as “Riga-Fede Disease: Report
of a case with Literature Review” cannot be held to be a
publication of Journal, till it is actually published officially by
the concerned publisher in the form of a printed Journal or in the
form of a electronic Journal.
40. For the reasons aforesaid, and in absence of any merit, no relief
can be granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but
there shall be no order as to costs.
(S.J.
MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J.)
(J.B.
PARDIWALA, J.)
[sn
devu] pps
Top