3-year cap to clear BDS 1st yr exam stays
In a significant verdict, the Hyderabad High Court has upheld a rule which says that a candidate who has not cleared the first year Bachelor of Dental Sciences (BDS) in all the three subjects within three years can be discharged from the course.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice V. Ramasubramanian was dismissing petitions filed by BDS students who had joined the course during the academic years from 2008-09 to 2011-12 against the clause in the Revised BDS Regulations, 2007.
“We see no reason to declare the same as illegal or ultra vires,” the bench said.
The bench directed that all candidates who had joined the course in 201213 and thereafter, who had the benefit of interim orders, be allowed to avail the Revised BDS Course (7th Amendment) Regulations, 2015.
In a significant verdict, the Hyderabad High Court has upheld a rule which says that a candidate who has not cleared the first year Bachelor of Dental Sciences (BDS) in all the three subjects within three years can be discharged from the course.
This was subject to the condition that they had passed the exams after availing the benefit of interim orders and if there was a possibility to complete the course within nine years from the date of their admission,
The bench said that the bid made by the Executive Committee of the DCI to give retrospective effect to the 2015 Regulations was an attempt at dilution of standards.
as prescribed in the 2015 Regulations.
The bench directed that the NTR University of Health Sciences may pass orders in respect of each individual falling under this category, either allowing them to complete the course or to disallow them depending upon the two conditions.
The bench said that the bid made by the Executive Committee of the Dental Council of India (DCI) to give retrospective effect to the 2015 Regulations was an attempt at dilution of standards.
The bench said, “Expert bodies like DCI, Medical Council of India etc., are governed and administered by an elected body of representatives. Since failed candidates have the potential to form a vote bank in future, the attempts by elected representatives to dilute standards has become a routine affair. But, fortunately, the Central government turned down the proposal for giving retrospective effect.”
The bench said, “Even in these cases, we are bound to exercise care and caution. The reason is that it is only in the province of the expert bodies to regulate the affairs of the profession and to determine and maintain the standards in institutions of higher education. As a corollary, it lies only in the province of such expert bodies like DCI to dilute standards. Courts dare not dilute standards.”