The Bombay High Court has held that Maharashtra Government or any University in the State can prescribe higher standards of examination than laid down by the Dental Council of India for passing MDS course.
"It is open to a State University to prescribe a higher standard which will not impinge on or have an adverse effect on the standards of education in institutes of Higher Education," observed Justice D Y Chandrachud in a recent order.
"Where a minimum is laid down by a body constituted under central legislation, a State University cannot lower those standards. But the prescription of a higher standard of passing would sub-serve the purpose of excellence of education" Justice Chandrachud said.
This principle does not merely apply to matters of eligibility for admission but also applies to the standard of passing.
The minimum standard which has been prescribed by the Dental Council of India provides that a candidate must receive 50 per cent marks in the aggregate (150 out of 300 in four papers).
This may consequently result in a situation where a candidate secures extremely poor marks in one or more subjects which are counter balanced by marks awarded in other subjects such that the overall marks equal or exceed 150 out of 300.
"If Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS) has in the interest of maintaining and improving the standard of dental education prescribed that a student must secure at least 50 marks in each of the four papers, that would not lower the standard of education in dental education", opined the Judge.
"Ultimately, that is the test that is now enunciated by Supreme Court in cases such as this", the judge observed.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by Jasmin Rupani who had appeared for MDS final examination in June 2012 in Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics at Y.M.T. Dental College, Navi Mumbai.
In the results declared on August 4, the petitioner was declared to have failed the examination as she did not secure 50 per cent in every paper. She applied for revaluation on August 7, 2012, of which results are pending.
In these proceedings, the petitioner had challenged the legality and