Swatanter Kumar, J.@mdashThis Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25.1.2001, vide which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed with no order as to costs.
2. The basic contention raised before the learned Single Judge in writ petition was that the condition of obtaining minimum 40% qualifying marks for seeking admission to the speciality of Pedodontics as a post graduate course in the Government Dental College is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, prospectus does not specifically provides for such a condition. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that such acondition was applicable to the subject, still the case of the petitioner will fall within the exceptions clause of condition 5-A(d) of the prospectus.
At this stage, we may refer to baste facts.
3. The appellant had taken entrance test for admission to post graduate Medical/Dental/Surgery courses for the year 2000-2001. Guru Nanak Dev University conducted entrance test on behalf of the State of Punjab. Out of the total seats available, 25% were to be filled up on All India basis and of the remaining 60% seats were to be filled amongst eligible PCMS/PCMS (Dental) PDES in-service doctor, while 40% were to be filled amongst non-PCMS graduates. The PCMS candidates were required to have three years of rural service. Unfilled seats under any of the afore-stated categories (60 : 40%) can be offered to the other category subject to the conditions of the brochure. The appellant had taken examination and obtained marks, which were not 40% as provided under condition 5-A(d) of the prospectus and the respondents refused to admit the appellant to post graduate course in Pedodontics, as preferred by the appellant, giving rise to the filing of the writ petition before the High Court by the appellant.
4. The facts of the case are hardly in dispute. The only material question that falls for consideration is, whether the condition 5-A(d) of the prospectus is applicable for the course of Pedodontics to which the appellant wanted to seek admission or not ?
5. Learned counsel for the appellant with great emphasis argued that the learned Single Judge in the judgment itself has observed "Of course there is a mistake in the printing of his prospectus when it is not clearly written that Dentistry will also be covered by 40% marks rule."
6. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is mis-conceived and is not based upon cumulative reading of the judgment. In continuation of the same lines, learned Single Judge has also observed "but nothing can be gathered clearly because it is a clinical subject. The petitioner is a doctor and he is fully aware about the nature of his job".
7. We have already noticed that if this observation is seen in the light of the entire judgment, then it is of no advantageous to the petitioner. In fact, if correct copy of Annexure R/1 i.e. letter dated 29th December, 2000 which was placed before the learned Single Judge, then we feel even this observation would not have come in the judgment, at all.
8. Reference to condition 5-A(d)of the prospectus, at this stage, would be appropriate, which reads as un-der-
"(d) Candidates securing at least 40% marks in the competitive examination will be eligible for admission in clinical subjects viz. Medicine, Surgery, Ophthamology, E.N.T., Orthopaedics, Gy-nae, Paediatrics, Skin & V.D., Psychiatry, Radio-Diagnosis and Anaesthesia. However, for submission to basic subjects viz Anatomy, Physiology, Bio-chemistry, Pharmacology, Pathology, Microbiology, Forensic-Medicine and Social - and Preventive Medicine, there will be no condition of minimum marks. Interview for MD/MS/MDS courses will be held in the office of Vice-Chancel lor, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot."
9. A bare reading of the above condition clearly shows that the distinction sought to be made is, between the basic subject and clinical subject. The reference to different speciality is merely an elaboration and must be read ejusdem generis to two basic subjects of post graduate courses. The subjects mentioned in the prospectus are only indicative of the broad classification and are not itself determining factors. The indication underlying the conditions must be understood in its correct perspective. The respondents have annexed R/1 to their reply in the writ petition. It is a letter written by Dental Council of India, where Pedodontics is not indicated as clinical subject.
10. During the course of arguments, we had directed the State counsel to seek instructions in this regard, as such decision was likely to have far-reaching consequences to the post graduate course of Pedodontics.
11. Learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing on behalf of Punjab filed an affidavit dated 6.7.2001, dur- ing the course of hearing, where original fax copy of Annexure R/1 dated 11.12.2000 was placed on record and even the correct typed copy of Annexure R/1 was annexed to the affidavit. The letter dated 11 th December, 2000 reads as under :-
"Dental Council of India
(Constituted under the Dentists Act 1948)
No. DE-15 (25)-2000/8794 Dated 11 Dec., 2000
Fax No. 0175-212055
To
The Principal
Govt. Dental College & Hospital,
Patiala.
Sub :- Reg. Clinical/Non-Clincial of P.G. Course subjects.
Sir,
Kindly refer to your Fax dated 11.12.2000 on the subject noted above.
In this connection, I am directed to clarify that the following subjects of MDS Courses are Clinical subjects.
1) Oral Surgery
2) Periodontics
3) Conservative Dentistry
4) Pedodontics
5) Prosthodontics
6) Orthodontics
Yours faithfully,
(A.L. Miglani)
Secretary,
Dential Council of India.
C.C.
Dr. R.K. Bali, BDS, MPH (USA) Padmashri Awardee
FASH, FADI, FPFA, FICO, FNAMS,
President,
Dental Council of India,
New Delhi.
12. At serial No. 4, Pedodontics has been shown and described as clinical subject. This letter has been issued by a statutory body which is constituted for providing and regulating the graduate and post graduate courses in Dentistry under the Dentists Act, 1948. Once, an expert body was described the subject as a clinical subject, it hardly requires any further argument or affirmation by this Court.
13. Another aspect of the matter is that the Pedodontics, admittedly is a branch of Dentistry related to children and it was hardly disputed before us that study of such subject at post graduate level would inevitably include examining of the child patient. The subject deals with prevention, curing and maintenance of teeth of children. The bare reading of the contents and preface of the known book Pediatric Dentistry Scientific Foundation and Clinical Practice by Ray E. Stewart and others, shows the importance of clinical work and attendance involved in Pedodontics. It will be worth to notice the following lines from that book :-"The contemporary definition of Pediatric Dentistry or the speciality of Pedodontics is the practice and teaching of comprehensive preventive and therapeutic oral health care of children from birth through adolescence. It is construed to include care for special patients beyond the age of adolescence who demonstrate mental, physical or emotional problems.
14. Further, the meaning and definition of expression Pedodontics is elucidated in the New Encyclopedia Britannica Vol (9) at page 235, which reads as under :-
"Pedodontics, also spelled PAEDODONTICS, dental speciality that deals with the case of children''s teeth. The pedodontist is extensively concerned with prevention, which includes instruction in proper diet, use of flueride, and practice of oral hygiene. The pedodontist''s routine practice deals basically with caries (tooth decay) but includes influencing tooth alignment. Lengthy treatment may be required to correct incipient abnormalities in tooth position. Braces or other correctional devices may be used. The Pedodontist needs patience and a basic knowledge of children''s behavioural patterns, as well as a knowledge of the effects on the mouth of physical and mental disease. In the U.S. a two-year postgraduate course leads to a certificate in Pedodontics."
15. The decision of the expert body to term this subject, as a clinical subject has to be taken as final and we see no reason to inter therewith particularly in view of the above authoritative references, which clearly show that Pedodontics is a clinical subject. The person, undertaking the course has to deal with the patients on regular basis. Thus, it is illustratively shown that the affidavit filed by the Dental Council of India cannot be construed to be incorrect in its effect. Undoubtedly, the Pedodontics is a clinical subject.
16. It cannot be, therefore, argued that the prospectus is silent or the case of the appellant falls in the exception clause of the condition. The differentiation is between two classes of the subject i.e. basic subject and the clinical subject, as already noticed by us.
17. Resultantly, the condition of obtaining minimum 40% qualifying marks would be squarely applicable to the case of the appellant as well. We are also unable to agree with the contentions raised by the appellant that Pedodontics is only preventive science and therefore, is not clinical. We have already noticed that it is not only a subject of preventive medicine but is the subject of prevention, maintenance and treatment of the child patients in relation to teeth.
18. The subjects mentioned in the Clause 5-A(D) are not exhaustive but merely indicative. They only elucidate two categories of the subjects mentioned in the condition. By no prudent principle of interpretation of such clause can it be held that the subjects mentioned are exhaustive in their nature and scope, on the principle of necessary implication would excuse the subjects specially mentioned in the clause. If the contention of the appellant was to be accepted, it would lead to serious repercussions, which may defeat the very object underlying the issuance of the prospectus. Furthermore, a large number of doctors pursuing their courses in other speciality (clinical subject) would lose various advantages provided to them under others. In order to avoid prejudice to the rights of the applicants to receive various benefits in the same category under the terms of the brochure, the interpretation put forward by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Such clauses must be interpreted in a liberal manner so as to achieve the basic purpose of high merit and proper admission to such courses. Condition (i) of the same clause of 5-A gives the special advantage to the PCMS doctor of an additional mark and the said clause does not refer to any kind of subject. If the Clause 5-A(d) is not applicable to the appellant, then he cannot claim benefit of this clause and many other clauses of the prospectus. Clause 5-A(d) is definite in its terms that a candidate must have secured 40% marks to make him eligible for admission to a clinical subject/course. The authority notifying the prospectus first indicated, as referred in the afore-stated conditions, admission to clinical subjects and then has merely explained (viz) i.e. or naming different subjects. Thus, the plea of exclusion as raised by the appellant deserves to be rejected. The condition of securing even minimum 50% marks in the entrance test has been held to be valid in medical courses by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Anu-pam Gupta etc., 1992(4) SCT 292 (SC) : J. T. 1992(4) S.C. 422.
19. A particular subject is clinical or not is a matter which has to be decided by the expert body and not by the court, unless such conclusion was perverse at the face of it. The Hon''ble Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that courts should accept the view given by the expert body and refrain from stepping into deciding such controversy contrary to the established practice. In regard reference can be made to the case of Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma and Ors., 2001(1) SCT 690 (SC) : J.T. 2000 (Supp. 2) S.C. 596.
20. For the reasons afore-stated, in addition to the reason given by the learned Single Judge, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the condition 5-A(d) would clearly apply to the case of the appellant. We find no error either in the judgment of the learned Single Judge or in the action of the respondents in denying admission to the appellant to the post graduate course in Pedodontics.
21. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. However, without any order as to costs.
22. Appeal dismissed.
