EDUCARE CHARITABLE TRUST versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 167 · Decided: 17-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

_,.,_ ... 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 167 
EDUCARE CHARITABLE TRUST 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22910 of 2013) 
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Educational Institutions - Dental College - Increase of 
admission capacity for academic year, 2013-14 - Applicant 
A 
B 
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 ab

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.