STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus PRAVEEN KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 346 · Decided: 09-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P; AND ANR. 
v. 
PRA VEEN KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 9, 1994 
B 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CT., AND S. MOHAN, J.J 
U.P. Universities Act, 1973-S. 28 (5}-Dentist Act, 1948-Dentist 
Amendment Ordinance 1993-Section 10 (A}-Rules contained in the Or-
dinance promulgated on 13.4.93-Rejection of Transfer applications-
C Directed to be considered in the light of the statutory provision read with the 
Notification dated 13.4.93. 
·a» 
The Respondents were students of B.D.S. Course pursuing their 
study outside the State of U.P. They filed writ petitions in the High Court 
seeking-transfer to the Dental College at Lucknow. The Single Judge by 
his order dt. 1.3.93 allowed these writ petitions and directed the transfer 
of the respondents and for considering the applications for transfer which 
were pending at that time. 
Though his application for fourth year of B.D.S. was not pending, 
E yet one of the respondents applied for transfer for the fourth year of the 
study. Therefore his request for transfer to fourth year B.D.S. at Lucknow 
was rejected by the State Government. 
Aggrieved by the same, he filed writ petition and an interim order 
was passed by the High Court permitting him to pursue his study in 
. · F 
Lucknow. The State preferred a writ appeal against the order of Single 
Judge. Meanwhile writ petitions were dismissed. Against this order ap-
peals were filed by the students and the Division Bench directed that the 
student who was permitted to pursue his studies at Lucknow could con-
tinue as a bonafide student. As far as other students were concerned, it 
G was held that they will be given admission after their cases were considered 
by the State Government. Against this order S.L.P. has been filed by the 
State. The other appeal is against order of Single Judge directing the State 
to admit the appellant to the Third year course of BDS at Lucknow. 
The State contended that the judgment of Single Judge was a judg-
H ment in rem and writ petitions were not filed in representative capacity; 
346 
STATE v. P.K. SHARMA 
347 
that there was no right to seek transfer from one Medical College to A 
another. The finding of High Court that the Rules promulgated on 13.4.93 
were prospective in nature was also challenged. The Respondents con-
tended that the order of the High Court directing consideration of the 
claims for transfer, that order having.become final, the transfer ought to 
have been considered, a,nd that right cannot be defeated. 
B 
Disposing of the Appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1 It s totally unnecessary to go into the question whether 
the Notification dated 13.4.93 is retrospective in its operation. Regulations 
made in this regard have effect more so in the absence of any Regulation C 
made by the Dental Council. The State Government has the power under 
Section 28 (5) of the U.P. Universities Act to regulate admission in 
medical institutions by issue of orders. The judgment dated 1.3.93 directed 
consideration of applications for transfer in not only the cases of writ 
petitioners before the Court but also other pending applications. Undoub- D 
tedly, this was not a judgment in rem. The writ petitions were not filed in 
any representative capacity. There were also orders by the High Court 
directing consideration of applications for transfer in the light of . the 
statutory provisions, especially Section lO(A) which came to be introduced 
in the Dentist Act, 1948 under Dentist Amendment Ordinance 1993. That 
section imposes a complete embargo that no institution could increase itS E 
capacity in any course of study and training except with the previous 
permission of the Central Government. [352-E-G] 
1.2 The representation of candidates seeking transfer came to be 
rejected on 15.4.93. By that time, the Notification dated 13.4.93 had come F 
into force. Another representation came to be decided on 3.5.93. By then 
the Dentist (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993 had come into force introduc-
ing Section lO(A). Therefore, the application for transfer will have to be 
considered in the light of the Statutory provisions read with the Notifica-
tion dt. 13.4.93. [352-H, 353-A] 
CIVIL APPELLA,TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6078 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.4.94 of the Allahabad High 
G 
Court in W.P. No. 780(M/S)/94. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
With 
Civil Appeal Nos. 6079-80 of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.94 of the Allah

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