The single judge bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal of the Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Florence School & College of Nursing V. State of Haryana and others rejected the claim of the council that the petitioner doesn’t possess adequate infrastructure as it was not supported by any reasons.
Brief Facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was granted a no objection certificate by the state of Haryana regarding the annual intake of 50 students for each course i.e Basic B.Sc. Nursing and Post Basic B.Sc. Nursing. The Haryana Nurses and Nurse-Midwives Council (hereinafter referred to as the Council) granted its approval for a period of one year. The said approval was extended on an annual basis till 2013. Thereafter, the Indian Nursing Council (INC) published a list of nursing colleges mentioning the number of students they were entitled to admit. Moreover, it was declared by the Karnataka High Court that the INC had no authority in the matter of recognition of Nursing Institutions and was accordingly restrained from publishing material on its website which would imply that recognition was to be obtained from it. The petitioner submitted a representation to the council to further increase the student intake from 40 to 50. The council further responded by stating that the petitioner is to continue admitting 40 students only and that for an increase in strength necessary consent of Pandit B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences (University) was necessary. Accordingly, the consent was taken from the affiliation, and despite the consent of affiliation, the intake strength was not increased by the Council. The representation has been decided and the request for increase in strength has been rejected on the ground that inspections conducted from 02.05.2018 to 31.05.2018 permitted an intake of 40 students for the Basic B.Sc. Nursing Course and 30 students for Post Basic B.Sc. Nursing Course as also seats going vacant every year because of which the State Government had decided not to consider any seat enhancement. This order is under challenge in the writ petition.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the no objection certificate which was granted by the state of Haryana was provided keeping in view the infrastructure available. Further, the council has also examined the infrastructure and permitted the intake of 50 students and the same being extended from time to time until the INC unilaterally reduced the intake. It was further argued that the rejection of the claim is manifestly arbitrary because it would be absurd to claim that infrastructure available at the start of the course has since depleted. In its response, the State Government stated that it lacks jurisdiction in the matter, and thus the reason given in the impugned order that rejection is due to the State's decision to limit intake due to seat wastage is patently false.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the council has contended that on the basis of inspection thereof permitting rejection of the claim is manifestly arbitrary because it would be absurd to claim that infrastructure available at the start of the course has since depleted. In its response, the State Government stated that it lacks jurisdiction in the matter, and thus the reason given in the impugned order that rejection is due to the State's decision to limit intake due to seat wastage is patently false.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further rebutted that the rejection of the claim is manifestly arbitrary because it would be absurd to claim that infrastructure available at the start of the course has since depleted. In its response, the State Government stated that it lacks jurisdiction in the matter, and thus the reason given in the impugned order that rejection is due to the State's decision to limit intake due to seat wastage is patently false.
Court’s Observation
The hon’ble high court stated that it is evident that the state of Haryana has granted NOC for the annual intake of 50 students each. Thereafter, the intake capacity was reduced without providing any valid reason. It thus, appears that the reduction in seats to 30 and subsequent increase to 40 was whimsical. The report of the inspection conducted on 30.05.2018 has not been placed on record. Only a one-page inspection proforma has been placed on record as along with the rejoinder to the replication which does not reveal anything of relevance. Thus, the argument raised on behalf of the Council that the petitioner does not possess adequate infrastructure cannot be accepted for the reasons (a) the infrastructure installed in the year 2007 and admittedly available till 2013 could not disappear over the next five years and (b) reason of lack of infrastructure has not been mentioned in the impugned order and the reasons mentioned therein cannot be supplemented by affidavit.
At last, the writ petitions are allowed and the Council is directed to pass a fresh order within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In case, there is any grievance regarding non-payment of fees, the same may be communicated to the petitioner.
CASE NAME- Florence School & College of Nursing V. State of Haryana and others
CITATION- CWP Nos.997 & 999 of 2022
CORUM- Justice Sudhir Mittal
DATED- 13.09.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
