- (1.) This order will dispose of a bunch of ten Civil Writ Petitions no. 5371, 5925, 6190, 6667, 6977, 7382, 7870, 8116, 8177 and 12409 of 2001 in which common questions of law and fact arise. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP 5371 of 2001.
(2.) Petitioners herein were students who studied in the B.D.S. course conducted by the Dashmesh Institute of Research and Dental Sciences Faridkot (for short 'the Institute'). Some of them joined in the year 1994-95 while others joined the said course in the academic year 1995-96. It is common case of the parties that the petitioners have successfully completed the course. The Institute was at the relevant time affiliated to the Punjabi University, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as 'the University'). The primary grievance of the petitioners is that even though they have passed the B.D.S. course and obtained degrees from the University, the Punjab Dental Council (hereinafter called the Council) is not recognising those degrees to enable them to either practice in the medical profession or to take up a job or even to go in for higher studies. The Council is not granting registration to the petitioners under the Dentists Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). the petitioners have filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for a mandamus directing the Council to grant registration to them as they are holding recognised degrees from the University.
(3.) In response to the notice of motion, respondents no.2 and 3 have filed their written statements controverting the claim made by the petitioners. It is not necessary for us to go into the details of the stand taken by the respondents as in our opinion the dispute herein is squarely covered in favour of the petitioners by a Division Bench judgment of this court in Arti Aneja v. State of Punjab, 2001 2 SLR 785. Shri Anil Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 has not been able to point out as to how this case does not cover the petitioners herein. What he contends is that the decision of the Division Bench requires reconsideration since the learned Judges therein had not taken note of the provisions of Sections 10-A and 10-B of the Act which were introduced in the year 1993 and the Regulations framed thereunder. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, contends that the amended provisions which were introduced in the year 1993 do not apply to the case in hand and that in any case, the Institute is now in the process of being recognised by the Central Government on the recommendations made by the Dental Council of India and, therefore, respondent no.2 be directed to grant registration to the petitioners as was ordered by the Division Bench of this court in Arti Aneja's case .;