RAVINDRA v. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE
Legal Reasoning
5 940.WP.7421.25.odtsingle individual may be treated as a class by himself;(b) that there is always a presumption in favour of theconstitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon himwho attacks it to show that there has been a cleartransgression of the constitutional principles;(c) that it must be presumed that the Legislature understandsand correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that itslaws are directed to problems made manifest by experienceand that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds;(d) that the legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm andmay confine its restrictions to those cases where the need isdeemed to be the clearest ;(e) that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionalitythe Court may take into consideration matters of commonknowledge, matters of common report, the history of the timesand may assume every state of facts which can be conceivedexisting at the time of legislation; and(f) that while good faith and knowledge of the existingconditions on the part of a Legislature are to be presumed, ifthere is nothing on the face of the law or the surroundingcircumstances brought to the notice of the Court on which theclassification may reasonably be regarded as based, thepresumption of constitutionality cannot be carried to theextent of always holding that there must be some undisclosedand unknown reasons for subjecting certain individuals orcorporations to hostile or discriminating legislation.The above principles will have to be constantly borne in mindby the court when it is called upon, to adjudge theconstitutionality of any particular law attacked asdiscriminatory and violative of the equal protection of thelaws.”8.We find that there is hardly any justification in support of theaverment or contention of the Petitioners that the regulation. It is verymuch obvious that there is no material which could satisfy the test ofarbitrariness. Nodal bodies consist of wise members have trained mindsand expertise in their subjects. They are competent to take policy 6 940.WP.7421.25.odtdecisions. The various time limits/durations prescribed for coursesranging from 1 year to 3-4 years, etc. are designed by experts. If theNodal bodies have decided that Nine years period would be sufficient forpassing the Four years BDS course with one year of Rotatory InternshipTraining Program, we do not find that the said provision could be arbitraryby comparing it with other Medical Courses, for example the MBBScourse wherein one year comprises of one and half years (3 semesters) anda total of four years of such Courses (9 semesters), to be followed by acompulsory one year internship period.9.We have also perused an order passed by this Court at Nagpurdated 21.06.2024, in Writ Petition No.3703/2024 (Ku. Aayesh D/o NaimJamai Vs. The Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik andOrs.). The Court did not find fault with the Circular No.90/2018 and theRules applicable and the Petition was dismissed.10.Having considered the principles enunciated in Shri RamKrishna Dalmia Vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and others, (supra), we donot find that the Petitioners have made out any case of arbitrariness whichwould violate Article 14, 21 or 300A (as contended by the Petitioners).11.Since we do not find the element of arbitrariness in Nodalbodies prescribing different time schedules for different courses in
Arguments
1 940.WP.7421.25.odt[REPORTABLE]IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 7421 OF 20251. NEHA CHANDRAKISHOR KAMBLE2. ROHINI SHIVRAJ PATILVERSUSUNION OF INDIA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS...Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Amit S. Savale Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1/UOI : Ms. Nikita N. GoreAdvocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. A.S. Bayas…CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE: 24.06.2025FINAL ORDER: (Per Ravindra V Ghuge, J) 1.Both these Petitioners were admitted to the Bachelor ofDental Surgery Professional Course in 2016-2017. Both could notcomplete their 4 years BDS course in 8 years and the CompulsoryRotatory paid Internship of 1 year, in 9 years. The Circular No.90/2018issued by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik is basedon an order of the High Court dated 06.03.2018, delivered in Writ Petition 2 940.WP.7421.25.odtNos.13510, 13559, 13607, 11740 and 13509/2017.2.The Dental Council of India Regulations, 2007 dated27.04.2015, mandate that “Any student, who does not clear the BDScourse in all subjects within a period of Nine years, including one-yearcompulsory Rotatory paid internship from the date of admission shall bedischarged from the Course”.3.The Circular no. 90/2018 prescribes, by way of an exception,that students admitted in the BDS Course for the Academic year 2008-2009 to 2014-2015, having not cleared their first year within three yearsfrom the date of admission and the students who have been admitted fromthe Academic year 2015-2016 and onwards, should pass the BDS CourseUniversity examination as per the details set out in the said notification.The Petitioners fall in Serial No.9. They were admitted in 2016-2017.They ought to have completed their four years course by Winter-2024 andthe one year Rotatory Internship Training Program by Winter-2025, afterpassing the final year in Winter-2024.4.Subsequent to the above, in the same notification, it isrecorded by the University that it noticed that some students were filingexam forms who had already completed their duration of Nine years and 3 940.WP.7421.25.odttheir exam forms were processed, albeit, inadvertently, beforecommencement of Winter-2018 University Exam. Hence, these studentswere allowed to appear for the said exam as a last opportunity and as a onetime measure only. Apparently this was done since a mistake wascommitted by the University of accepting and processing theirexamination forms.5.The learned advocate for the Petitioner draws our attention toprayer Clause ‘B’ which reads as under :“B]The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order ordirection in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any otherappropriate order in the nature of writ and quash and setaside Regulations restricting the duration of the BDS Courseto 9 years on the ground of illegality, arbitrariness andviolation of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution ofIndia and consequently direct the respondents to read downthe rules for the purpose of grant of exemptions from itsapplicability on health grounds and on other sufficientgrounds and to allow the petitioners to complete the BDSCourse and issue appropriate orders for the said purpose.”6.In so far as the pleadings in support of the prayer Clause ‘B’,we find that the Petitioners have averred that they will suffer mentaltrauma and they discussed the issue with their parents and advocates withregard to filing of this Writ Petition. It is further contended that theCentral Council for Indian Medicine for BAMS Course, the CentralCouncil for Homeopathy for BHMS Courses, BUMS and other authorities 4 940.WP.7421.25.odtgoverned and supervised by the Ministry of AYUSH, recommenddifferent periods for different Courses. The twin test of intelligibledifferentia and rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved,required that the notification of the Dental Council of India Regulations,to the extent of limiting the number of years for attempting to pass theBDS exam, deserves to be quashed.7.The Apex Court in the matter of Shri Ram Krishna DalmiaVs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and others, AIR 1958 Supreme Court 538,in Paragraph No.11, has held as under :11. …………………………..It is now well established thatwhile article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbidreasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. Inorder, however, to pass the test of permissible classificationtwo conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that theclassification must be funded on an intelligible differentiawhich distinguishes persons or things that are groupedtogether from others left out of the group and (ii) thatdifferentia must have a rational relation to the object sought tobe achieved by the statute in question. The classification maybe founded on different bases, namely, geographical, oraccording to objects or occupations or the like. What isnecessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis ofclassification and the object of the Act under consideration. Itis also well established by the decisions of this Court thatArticle 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantivelaw but by a law of procedure.The principle enunciated above has been consistently adoptedand applied in subsequent cases. The decisions of this Courtfurther establish-(a) that a law may be constitutional even though it relates to asingle individuals if, on account of some special circumstancesor reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others, that
Decision
7 940.WP.7421.25.odtMedical and Engineering or other professional courses, we do not find thatthe Petitioners have made out a case for entertaining this Petition.12.This Petition is, therefore, dismissed.13.No order as to costs. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)habeeb/