- (1.) MR . Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the inspection was to be done within 15 March to 15 May for the academic session 2010 -11, but it was done on 1st June, 2010 when there were holidays, and therefore, only 23 faculties out of 90 were found. He further submitted that when regular inspection was done in April 2010, 83 faculties were found out of 90. He further submitted that if petitioner is given a chance, it will satisfy the Dental Council of India ('D.C.I.' in short) that they had adequate number of faculties for teaching the students; and that the students, were admitted in accordance with the rules and regulations and have completed their course properly.
(2.) MR . Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the D.C.I. on the other hand submitted that the regular inspection was done in April 2010 i.e. within the said period. The petitioner was asked to comply/rectify the deficiencies, but it was not done, and then a follow -up inspection was done on 1.6.2010. He further submitted that intimation about the holidays was not sent to D.C.I. by the petitioner. In reply, Mr. Jerath submitted that petitioner was inspected for the preceding three years and the holidays as per the University prospectus were known to D.C.I.; and that the petitioner rectified the deficiencies pointed out in their inspection held in April.
(3.) BE that as it may. Keeping in view that 85 students have been admitted under the order of this Court, D.C.I. is permitted to hold an inspection/inquiry. If it is satisfied that during the academic session 2010 -11, there were adequate number of faculties; and that the admission have been done as per the rules and regulation and the petitioner had rectified all the deficiencies; and the students have completed their course properly, it may allow the students to appear in the examination for the 2010 -11 sessions through the petitioner's college. .;