1

APHC010026162025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3328]

WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA

PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO: 1484 OF 2025

Between:

1. MUGADA JAYA SRUTHI, S/O LATE M. RAMA KRISHNA, AGED 28

YEARS. R/O 45 -46-13/B, SRINIVASA NAGAR, AKKAYYAPALAM,

VISAKHA PATNAM-530016.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,

HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,

SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPURDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. N T R UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, REP. BY ITS

REGISTRAR. VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT - AP

3. N T R UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, REP. BY VICE -

CHANCELLOR. VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT - AP

4. AP STATE DENTAL COUNCIL APSDC, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

GOVT. DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, MACHAVARAM,

VIJAYAWADA,520004. ANDHRA PRADESH.

5. AP STATE DENTAL COUNCIL APSDC, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

GOVT. DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, MACHAVARAM,

VIJAYAWADA,520004. ANDHRA PRADESH.

6. ANIL NEERUKONDA INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SCIENCES, REP. BY

ITS PRINCIPAL, SANGIVALASA, BHEEMUNIPATNAM,

2

VISAKHAPATNAM -531162, A.P.

7. DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY

NATIONAL DENTAL COMMISSIONBUILDING, PLOT NO. 14,

SECTOR-14 R.K PURAM- NEW DELHI - 110 022

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. TAGORE YADAV YARAGORLA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW

2. BOMMANABOYENA SRINIVASA RAO

3. SURYA TEJA ANUMOLU

4. Tata Venkata Sridevi,Standing Counsel For Dr.NTR University of Health

Sciences

The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri Tagore Yadav Yaragorla, Learned Counsel for the Writ

Petitioner, Smt. T.V. Sri Devi, learned Standing Counsel for Dr. NTR

University of Health Sciences, Sri P. Soma Raju, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Medical & Health, Sri Surya Teja Anumolu, learned

Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.7 and Sri B. Srinivasa Rao, learned

Standing Counsel for Respondent No.5.

2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:

“It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be

pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ or direction declaring the actions of

the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to

complete her graduation and declare that said

regulation are not applicable to petitioner since the

Petitioner had not exhausted the minimum 16

3

attempts in 9 years on account of health conditions

as the same is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of

Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India

and consequently direct the respondents to read out

the rules for the purpose of attempting the exams

and exempting from the health grounds and allow the

petitioner to attend the classes and examination of

remaining academic years and to pass such other

order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit

and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. An Interim prayer was also sought, which is as under:

“It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider

and permit the petitioner to pay the fee and appear

for the examinations, pending disposal of the writ

petition and to pass such other order or orders as

this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.”

4. Vide Order dated 11.02.2025, my predecessor has passed the following

impugned Order:

“Subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition, the

respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to pay fee, to

appear for the 2

nd

year examination, to be received from the

month of March, 2025.”

5. Smt. T. V. Sridevi, Ld. Standing Counsel for Dr. NTR University of

Health Sciences (Respondent No.2) submits that the University of Health

Sciences had preferred a Writ Appeal against the said Interim Order dated:

11.02.2025; and that the Division Bench of this Hon‟ble Court, having

examined the Writ Appeal No.235 of 2025, was pleased to set aside the

interim Order dated 11.02.2025. The relevant portion of the Order passed by

the Division Bench dated 20.03.2025 is usefully extracted hereunder:

4

“ 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was unable to do so.

Subsequently, the aforementioned Regulation was amended in

the year 2015, which required a candidate to clear the entire

course within a period of nine (9) years. Since the petitioner had

been admitted in the B.D.S. Course in the year 2015, she was

required to complete the course by 2023. However, it appears

that there was a clarification issued by the Dental Council of

India that insofar as the students who had been admitted to

B.D.S. Course prior to 2015, they shall continue to be governed

by the Regulations of 2007.

7. Be that as it may, it is the admitted case of the parties

before us that the petitioner does not qualify as per the said

regulations. Although learned counsel for the petitioner/

respondent No.1 herein would urge that the petitioner was

unable to clear her 1

st

year examination on account of some

accident, on account of which the petitioner had remained bed

ridden from 2015 to 2019, yet, in our opinion, that may not, in

itself, be a justification to not apply the Regulations with its full

rigor.

8. Be that as it may, the learned single Judge, by virtue of

the impugned order, which is a non-speaking order, does not

deal with the statutory procedure, much less the Regulations of

2007, and had directed the acceptance of fees from the

petitioner with a view to enable her to appear in the 2

nd

year

examination.

9. In our opinion, the direction runs contrary to the express

mandate of the Regulation and therefore, unless and until a

challenge is made to the Regulation in vogue, in our opinion,

the order cannot be sustained.

10. Be that as it may, we set aside the order impugned and

direct the Registry to post W.P.No.1484 of 2025 before the

learned single Judge having the Roster on 27.03.2025. We

5

make it clear that it shall be open to the parties to raise all

contentions before the learned single Judge, who will deal with

the matter un-influenced by the observations made by us. In the

meantime, pleadings be completed.

11. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No order as to

costs.”

6. The facts in this case fall in a narrow compass that the Writ Petitioner

herein is one of the Applicant for the EAMCET Examination-2015. Vide

Notification dated 03.03.2015, the Writ Petitioner has submitted the

Application for writing the Entrance Examination for Engineering, Agricultural

and Medical Common Entrance Test (EAMCET) on 12.03.2015. The

examination was conducted on 08.05.2015. It is stated in the Affidavit filed in

support of the Writ Petition that the Dental Council of India (Respondent No.7)

has issued 7

th

Amendment revising the B.D.S. Course Regulations, 2007 to

the effect that; “Any student who does not clear his or her BDS Course in all

the subjects within a period of 9 years, including one year Compulsory

Rotatory paid Internship from the date of his or her admission shall be

discharged from the course.” It is submitted that this amendment was brought

about on 23.05.2015.

7. The Writ Petitioner has secured admission into B.D.S. Course under the

„Management Quota‟ in the Anil Neerukonda Institute of Dental Sciences

(Respondent No.6-Dental College) in September-2015. Admittedly, the 7

th

6

amendment, B.D.S. Course Regulations, 2007 is prior to the date of the

admission of the Writ Petitioner.

8. It is stated in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that in the

month of June-2016, the Writ Petitioner met with an accident and took

complete treatment in the Hospital and due to her prolong stay in the Hospital,

the Writ Petitioner could not take professional examinations. In the year 2017,

the Writ Petitioner could not write her professional examinations because of

her financial issues. It is stated that in the month of January-2018, the Writ

Petitioner has attended her first year professional exams upon being

discharged from the Hospital. It is also stated that the Writ Petitioner could

not clear her first year professional exams for the reasons which are solely

attribuable to her medical conditions. In the month of June-2018, the Writ

Petitioner has made a second attempt in the first year professional

examinations. In the month of October-2018, the Writ Petitioner lost her father

and in the year 2019, the Writ Petitioner has suffered depression with suicidal

tendencies, which is the reason for the Writ Petitioner not being able to cope-

up with the rigor of the B.D.S. Course. It is stated that the Writ Petitioner has

attended the professional exams in April-2021 and successfully cleared the

first year professional examinations, in the results published in December-

2021. The Writ Petitioner was promoted to second professional exams as per

the applicable rules of Dental Council of India.

7

9. The Writ Petitioner, though had taken admission under the

„Management Quota‟, could not pay her fee and therefore, could not attend

the examinations; that in the month of January-2023, the Writ Petitioner

attended the first professional examination and cleared her first year. It is also

stated that in the month of October-2023, the Writ Petitioner has attended the

second year academic classes conducted for the academic year 2022-2023

and had cleared the internal examinations. It is also submitted that the Writ

Petitioner had paid Rs.1,30,000/- in November-2023. It is not clear whether

the amount of Rs.1,30,000/- is the arrears of fee and for which semester and

during which academic year this fee was sought to be remitted. It is also not

stated in the Affidavit whether this Writ Petitioner has made complete payment

or a part payment by remitting Rs.1,30,000/- of fee.

10. It is stated in the Affidavit that the Writ Petitioner was not allowed to pay

the examination fee and consequently the Writ Petitioner was not allowed to

attend the examinations. On the request made by the Writ Petitioner to permit

her to appear in the examinations, the Registrar of the Respondent No.2

University has addressed an email to the Dental Council of India (Respondent

No.7) on 04.11.2023.

11. The Dental Council of India (Respondent No.7) had addressed a Letter

to the Respondent No.2 University to the effect that the Writ Petitioner is not

eligible for the 2

nd

year B.D.S examinations as per the Dental Council of India

Regulations, 2015, which stipulates that the student of B.D.S shall complete

8

the entire course within nine (09) years from the date of admission. The

period of nine (09) years includes eight (08) years of study course and one

year of clinical course. The Writ Petitioner has once again submitted a

request to the 2

nd

respondent on 04.12.2023 through the Respondent No.6-

College to re-consider the decision. The Respondent No.2 has once again

sent an e mail to the Respondent No.7. Another Letter was also submitted on

05.03.2024 to the Dental Council of India and it has been once again

reiterated by the Dental Council of India that the Writ Petitioner cannot be

permitted to pursue her B.D.S. Course.

12. Having been aggrieved by the rejection by the Respondent No.2 as well

as the Respondent No.7 in allowing the Writ Petitioner to continue and

complete her B.D.S. Course, the Present Writ Petition is filed.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONER:

13. Sri Y. Tagore Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has made two

fold submissions. He would submit that as on the date of the EAMCET

Notification i.e., on 03.03.2015, the B.D.S. Regulations, 2007 were in effect

that stipulates that the B.D.S student shall complete the first year B.D.S

course in a period three years so as to be eligible for such student to continue

the course further. He would submit that the 7

th

Amendment to the B.D.S

Course Examination Regulations, 2007 was amended by the Respondent

No.7 on 23.05.2015 i.e., after commencement of the admission process

through the medium of EAMCET and it shall have prospective effect from that

9

date only. He would contend that when once the Writ Petitioner has submitted

the Application on 12.03.2015, in response to the EAMCET examination

Notification 2015-2016, the amendment to the B.D.S Course Regulations-

2007 on 23.05.2015, prescribing a total period of nine (09) years for

completion of B.D.S Course, ought not to have been applied for the B.D.S

Course that commenced in the month of September-2015. He would submit

that it is inappropriate on the part of the Respondent No.7, who have changed

the Rules of the game after the commencement of the examination process

for the academic year 2015-2016.

14. It is a matter of fact that the Writ Petitioner did not complete the first

year B.D.S. Course within a period of three (03) years that was prescribed

under the B.D.S. Course Regulations, 2007. Admittedly, the Writ Petitioner

could neither complete the first year of the B.D.S Course within the first three

years from the date of admission (as per the B.D.S Course Regulations, 2007)

nor has the Writ Petitioner completed the B.D.S Course within a period of nine

(09) years by application of the amendment that was came into effect from

18.05.2015.

SUBMISISONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

15. Smt. T.V. Sri Devi, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and

3 would stoutly contest that the Dental Council of India did not permit the Writ

Petitioner to complete the course beyond nine (09) years since the Writ

10

Petitioner has taken admission during the academic year 2015-2016, and

therefore, she ought to have completed the course within the scheduled time.

16. Sri Surya Teja, Ld. Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Dental

Council of India (Respondent No.7) would vehemently oppose this Writ

Petition. He would submit that, it cannot be said that the Writ Petitioner is

prejudiced by the B.D.S Course Regulations, 2015 inasmuch as the

Regulations were brought into force from 23.05.2015, whereas, the Writ

Petitioner took admission in the month of September-2015. He would submit

that the Writ Petitioner is well aware of the Regulations that came into effect

from 23.05.2015 which is well before the date of the admission of the Writ

Petitioner into B.D.S Course. He would also submit that even assuming for a

moment, without admitting, that the B.D.S Course Regulations, 2007 would

apply, in the case of the Writ Petitioner, then also, the Writ Petitioner has

failed to comply the said Rules inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner ought to have

completed the 1

st

year of the B.D.S Course within three years, from the date

of securing admission.

17. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents would submit that the reasons

indicated by the Writ Petitioner for her inability to appear and pass the first

year examinations within three years are untenable. It is submitted that the

Writ Petitioner, except stating that she has suffered a fracture and has been

hospitalized for three long years, the same has not been justified by any

documentary evidence.

11

18. Having regard to the above facts, the following issues arise for

consideration:

(i) Whether there is any material on

record to justify the inability of the Writ Petitioner

in completing the first year B.D.S. Course within

three years from the date of admission or within

nine (09) years in completing the entire course

from the date of admission?

(ii) Whether the reasons indicated by the

Writ Petitioner for inability to complete the first

year B.D.S. Course within three years or

completion of the entire Course within nine (09)

years is tenable or not?

(iii) To what relief?

19. ISSUE No.1:

Whether there is any material on record to

justify the inability of the Writ Petitioner in

completing the first year B.D.S. Course within

three years from the date of admission or within

nine (09) years in completing the entire course

from the date of admission?

After the Interim Order that was passed by my predecessor was set

aside by the Division Bench on 20.03.2025 in Writ Appeal No.235 of 2025, this

matter was listed before me on 11.03.2025, 25.03.2025, 27.03.2025 and

28.03.2025. The hearing had commenced on 27.03.2025 and was posted to

the next date for further hearing. On 25.03.2025 and 27.03.2025, this Court,

12

after having partly heard the matter, posed pertinent questions to the Ld.

Counsel for the Writ Petitioner as to what material has been placed on record

to factually evidence that the Writ Petitioner was hospitalized for three long

years. It was pointed out by this Court to the Ld. Counsel for the Writ

Petitioner that except stating that the Writ Petitioner had suffered a tibial

fracture, no reasons were given nor has any material been placed on record to

clinchingly prove that the inability of the Writ Petitioner in attending to the

Course was occasioned by reasons that were beyond the control of the Writ

Petitioner. It was also indicated to the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that

a tibial fracture should not take more than three months to heel in the ordinary

course and therefore, the inability to complete the first year B.D.S. Course

within the first three years or the inability to complete the entire B.D.S. Course,

including the internship, within nine (09) years cannot be justified on that

ground.

20. The Writ Petitioner suffered tibial fracture in the month of June-2016

and the Writ Petitioner has lost her father in the month of October-2018. Not a

scrap of paper has been placed on record to indicate the nature of treatment

that the Writ Petitioner has undergone from 2015 to 2018 or even beyond that

period. The Hospital Records have also been not furnished to clinchingly

establish that the Writ Petitioner was hospitalized and has been in an

immovable condition for a very prolonged period.

13

21. Due to the pertinent queries put forth by this Court, Ld. Counsel for the

Writ Petitioner has filed a Memo on 28.03.2025 which is a photograph of X-ray

showing tibial fracture to the Writ Petitioner on 07.05.2016. Except the single

piece of X-ray, nothing else has been placed on record to indicate that the

Writ Petitioner has been hospitalized for prolonged period which is at least for

more than two years.

22. Even before considering the fact that whether the B.D.S. Course

Regulations, 2007 would apply or whether B.D.S. Course Regulations, 2015

would apply, this Court is rather constrained to observe that the Writ Petitioner

is unable to show through the documentary evidence that the Writ Petitioner

was hospitalized or has become immobile for prolonged period i.e., more than

two to three years, which is the sole cause for non-completion of the B.D.S.

course.

23. ISSUE No.2:

(ii) Whether the reasons indicated by the Writ

Petitioner for inability to complete the first year

B.D.S. Course within three years or completion

of the entire Course within nine (09) years is

tenable or not?

The Rules and the Regulations as well as the statute are meant to

operate in the society. There can be extreme and unexpected human

circumstances, which a regulation would not have contemplated. There may

be unusual human circumstances, which cannot be countenanced by the

statute in such a pin- pointed manner. Although, the Writ Courts have got the

14

power to consider such extreme and unexpected human situations and

circumstances that may not have been countenanced by a statute, the first

requirement which the litigant will have to put forth is the documentary proof,

which sufficiently clinches the issues so as to enable the Court to take a

humanitarian view in an extraordinary circumstance. Whereas, in the present

case, as stated earlier, the Writ Petitioner has not filed even a scrap of paper,

even after this Court has raised pertinent questions about the hospital records

and other things during the earlier hearings. The only material that is placed

on record at the time of filing of the Writ Petition is the Certificate issued by Dr.

K. Prasanna Kumar, MBBS, DPM, tutor in psychiatry, Government Medical

College, in the name and style of Bindu Clinic, Visakhapatnam. This

certificate is issued on 12.10.2021 stating that the Writ Petitioner has been

suffering from mood disorder, depression and “she was given treatment as

out-patient from 03.01.2019 to 30.08.2019.” It is also stated that the Writ

Petitioner has developed relapse of the same situation and was again treated

from 05.06.2021 to 12.10.2021. It is also stated that the Writ Petitioner is free

from such symptoms, after 12.10.2023. This Court is constrained to take note

of the fact that Dr. Prasanna Kumar, while working as tutor in psychiatry,

Government Medical College/Government General Hospital, Srikakulam has

issued a Certificate under the name a nd style of Bindu clinic in

Visakhapanam. However, this document alone is insufficient to hold in favour

of the Writ Petitioner, even if the Writ Petitioner had suffered from disorder or

depression.

15

24. In any case, no material has been placed on record from June-2016 up

to 03.01.2019 and 12.10.2021 and thereafter, till the time that the Writ

Petitioner has approached this Court. In this view of the matter, this Court

would not hesitate to hold that the reasons which are projected by the Writ

Petitioner for her inability to either to complete the first year B.D.S. course

within three years from the date of admission or to complete the entire course

within nine years of the admission are untenable. Hence, this Court holds that

the Writ Petitioner has miserably failed to justify with sufficient documentary

material justifying the reasons for her inability to complete her course as

indicated.

25. ISSUE NO.3: -

To what relief

In this view of the matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed as being devoid

of any merit. No order as to costs.

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

______________________________________

GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRA SAD, J

Dt.02.04.2025

Note: LR to be marked.

B/o. Mnr

16

95

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION No.1484 OF 2025

Dt.02.04.2025

Note: LR to be marked.

B/o. Mnr