In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has warned private dental colleges against granting irregular admissions, calling out their non-compliance with statutory norms. The court also imposed a hefty fine of ₹7.5 lakh per student on three private institutions—Vyas Dental College, Eklavya Dental College, and Maharaja Ganga Singh Dental College—for irregular admissions during the academic years 2018–19 and 2019–20.
Background of the Case
The court was dealing with multiple petitions filed by medical students seeking regularization of their admissions. These students had been granted admission into dental courses in violation of procedural requirements, which led to a legal challenge.
Two primary sets of disputes came before the bench:
- Students from Vyas Dental College
These students had taken admission through the college, but their names were not uploaded on the official website of the Dental Council of India (DCI). Even after DCI directed the college to discharge these students, no communication was made to the students. “The petitioners cannot be held accountable for the college’s failure to follow procedural steps, especially when their qualifications and eligibility are not under question.” - Students Without Counseling Board Registration
Another set of students were admitted directly by the colleges without being registered with the Counseling Board, which is a necessary procedure. “Many of these students, due to youth or lack of legal understanding, might have taken admission without realizing the consequences. There was no fraudulent intention as their eligibility remained intact.”
Meanwhile, both the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS) and the DCI argued that the colleges had consistently violated the law by admitting students against the established norms. They maintained that while students could be given relief on humanitarian grounds, the colleges deserved strict penalties.
After evaluating all arguments, Justice Dinesh Mehta of the Rajasthan High Court ruled in favor of the students but held the colleges accountable.
“The petitioners are young people of 20-22 years of age and are yet to begin their life. If at this stage, the order passed by the DCI of discharging their admissions is allowed to be given effect to, the result would be irreconcilable – these young students will be back to square one.”
The court further noted:
“Not only 5-6 years of their prime youth would go in vain, but also their fee and money would be shredded into the drains. By now, they must have become age barred to get admissions in any other courses. Their 5 years of education and experience which they have obtained will be rendered nugatory.”
Citing the principle of equity and the passage of time, the court ordered the regularization of the students’ admissions with a token penalty of ₹1 lakh per student.
However, a stricter stance was taken against the respondent colleges.
“It is high time when the Court should warn the private colleges to desist from giving irregular admissions. The order instant has been passed being guided by the equity in light of peculiar facts and considering that the contentious admissions were given 5-6 years back.”
Justice Mehta emphasized the importance of vigilance and accountability on the part of educational institutions:
“In future, if any such irregular admission is given by the colleges involved in the present writ petitions or by any other college, the DCI and RUHS shall take stern action. They should not consider end of their duties by imposition of fine – they should withdraw or revoke the recognition granted to such colleges in accordance with law, obviously after following principles of natural justice.”
The Rajasthan High Court imposed a cost of ₹7.5 lakh per student on the three colleges—Vyas Dental College, Eklavya Dental College, and Maharaja Ganga Singh Dental College—for violating admission protocols.
“In case the fine is not paid by July 31, the Counseling Board shall not include the names of these colleges in the list of eligible institutions.”
The court relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University & Ors., where similar irregularities in college admissions were addressed.
The judgment makes it clear that the leniency shown towards students is a one-time exception based on humanitarian grounds and passage of time. However, for the colleges, the message is stern and clear—any future violations will not only attract financial penalties but may also result in cancellation of recognition and approval by regulatory bodies.
Accordingly, the petitions were disposed of.
Title: Pooja Punaram & Ors. v Rajasthan University of Heath Sciences & Ors., and other connected petitions
