Delhi High Court
Amita Jain & Anr. vs Ignou & Ors. on 27 September, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 19.09.2013
Judgment pronounced on : 27.09.2013
+ W.P.(C) 1644/2011
JINCY JOY AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Wills Mathews, Mr. Ginesh P. &
Mr. Robin Raju, Advs.
versus
INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL
OPEN UNIVERSITY AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Aly Mirza, Adv. for IGNOU.
Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Adv. for Indian
Nursing Council.
Mr. Sunil Kumar & Mr. Rajiv Ranjan
Mishra, Advs. for Delhi Nursing Council.
+ W.P.(C) 3036/2012
K. BHARTI SHAKTISAGAR KATRE & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Wills Mathews, Mr. Ginesh P. &
Mr. Robin Raju, Advs.
versus
INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Aly Mirza, Adv. for IGNOU.
Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Adv. for Indian
Nursing Council.
Mr. Sunil Kumar & Mr. Rajiv Ranjan
Mishra, Advs. for Delhi Nursing Council.
W.P.(C) 1644/2011 and connected cases Page 1 of 31
+ W.P.(C) 361/2012
MARYKUTTY GEORGE & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Wills Mathews, Mr. Ginesh P. &
Mr. Robin Raju, Advs.
versus
INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL
OPEN UNIVERSITY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Aly Mirza, Adv. for IGNOU.
Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Adv. for Indian
Nursing Council.
Mr. Sunil Kumar & Mr. Rajiv Ranjan
Mishra, Advs. for Delhi Nursing Council.
+ W.P.(C) 2774/2011
SAUMINI PRASANNAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Wills Mathews, Mr. Ginesh P. &
Mr. Robin Raju, Advs.
versus
INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL
OPEN UNIVERSITY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Aly Mirza, Adv. for IGNOU.
Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Adv. for Indian
Nursing Council.
Mr. Sunil Kumar & Mr. Rajiv Ranjan
Mishra, Advs. for Delhi Nursing Council.
+ W.P.(C) 4146/2012
SUNITA DIXIT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Wills Mathews, Mr. Ginesh P. &
W.P.(C) 1644/2011 and connected cases Page 2 of 31
Mr. Robin Raju, Advs.
versus
INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Aly Mirza, Adv. for IGNOU.
Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Adv. for Indian
Nursing Council.
Mr. Sunil Kumar & Mr. Rajiv Ranjan
Mishra, Advs. for Delhi Nursing Council.
+ W.P.(C) 5037/2012
CHANCHAL RANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashwin Vaish & Mr. V. Thomas,
Advs.
versus
IGNOU & ORS. .....
Respondents
Through: Mr. Aly Mirza, Adv. for IGNOU.
Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Adv. for Indian
Nursing Council.
Mr. Sunil Kumar & Mr. Rajiv Ranjan
Mishra, Advs. for Delhi Nursing Council.
+ W.P.(C) 5165/2012
D SHANTHI SANKAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Wills Mathews, Mr. Ginesh P. &
Mr. Robin Raju, Advs.
versus
W.P.(C) 1644/2011 and connected cases Page 3 of 31
INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL & ORS. .....
Respondents
Through: Mr. Aly Mirza, Adv. for IGNOU.
Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Adv. for Indian
Nursing Council.
Mr Amrit Pal Singh, Adv for R-3
Mr. Sunil Kumar & Mr. Rajiv Ranjan
Mishra, Advs. for Delhi Nursing Council.
+ W.P.(C) 6642/2012
SUSHIL MATORIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. G.S. Chauhan and Ashwin Vaish &
Mr. V. Thomas, Advs.
versus
IGNOU & ORS. .....
Respondents
Through: Mr. Aly Mirza, Adv. for IGNOU.
Mr. J.P. Tiwari, Adv. for Mr. V.S.R.
Krishna, Adv. for Indian Nursing
Council.
Mr. Sunil Kumar & Mr. Rajiv Ranjan
Mishra, Advs. for Delhi Nursing Council.
+ W.P.(C) 7719/2012
FIRDOS ZIA FAROOQUI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Wills Mathews, Mr. Ginesh P. &
Mr. Robin Raju, Advs.
versus
IGNOU & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Aly Mirza, Adv. for IGNOU.
W.P.(C) 1644/2011 and connected cases Page 4 of 31
Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Adv. for Indian
Nursing Council.
Mr. Sunil Kumar & Mr. Rajiv Ranjan
Mishra, Advs. for Delhi Nursing Council.
+ W.P.(C) 2175/2013
AMITA JAIN & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv.
versus
IGNOU & ORS. .....
Respondents
Through: Mr. Aly Mirza, Adv. for IGNOU.
Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Adv. for Indian
Nursing Council.
Mr. Sunil Kumar & Mr. Rajiv Ranjan
Mishra, Advs. for Delhi Nursing Council.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
V.K. JAIN, J.
Noticing that as against more than two lakhs registered nurses in
the counter, there were only nine programmes (Post Basic B.Sc. Nursing),
graduating 140 per year and further noticing the acute shortage of
teachers, administrators, supervisors at all levels of teaching,
administration, supervision and practice and realizing that it was neither
financially nor administratively feasible to start new colleges/structured
programmes, the respondent-Indian Nursing Council suggested starting
in-service Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) course at Indira Gandhi National
Open University (hereinafter referred to as „the University‟). The
Council suggested starting personal contact programmes at various
centres of the said University.
2. Vide letter dated 6.4.1994 the Council informed the University that
three years Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Programme at IGNOU was
approved by the Council in its General Body Meeting held on 17.2.1994
and the University may take the said course for notification by Pubjab
Nursing Registration Council. Vide letter dated 3.8.1999, the Council
informed the University that under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act
a team of Inspectors would inspect their Nursing Institute on the dates
mentioned in the programme attached to the letter. On receipt of the said
letter, the Director, School of Health Sciences of the University informed
the Programme In-charge of IGNOU study centre at Safdarjung Hospital
that the said Centre shall be visited on 18.8.1999. Vide Resolution No.
72/2000, the Council, in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (2) of
Section 13 of Indian Nursing Act, 1947 declared that the Post Basic B.Sc.
(Nursing) course conducted by the University was an approved course of
study for admission to an approved examination for the said course. The
number of students to be admitted to the said course was 25-30
admissions to each centre. A certificate dated 02.06.2000 was issued by
the Council in this regard and the said certificate was valid for a period of
03 years from the date of the meeting of the Council or till next
inspection.
3. The first inspection of the programme study centres at the
University was carried out between 16 to 20.08.1999 and according to the
University at that time it had as many as 21 programme study centres, out
of which 06 centres were selected by the Council for inspection on cross-
sectional basis. According to the University, based on the cross sectional
inspections, notification dated 02.06.2000 was issued by the council.
Vide letter dated 27.12.2006, the Council requested the University to
send inspection fee in respect of each Study Centre so that it could
organize inspection accordingly. Responding to the said communication,
the University vide letter dated 30.03.2007 sent a cheque of Rs 5 lakh
towards inspection fee initially for 10 programme study centres and
promised to send later, the inspection fee for the remaining centres. It
was also informed that as many as six centres, mentioned in the letter,
had already been inspected. Vide communication dated 21.05.2008, the
University sent a demand draft of Rs 8 lakh to the Council towards
inspection fee for the remaining centres, names of which were given in
the letter. It appears that out of 26 centres for which inspection fee was
paid by the University, 14 centres were inspected by the Council.
4. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 1644/2011 joined the aforesaid
course of the University at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. They
successfully completed the aforesaid course and thereafter applied for
admission to the M.Sc. course of Rajkumari Amrit Kaur College of
Nursing. The petitioners were required to obtain necessary approval from
the Council for the Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) course which they had
completed with the University. Since no such approval was forthcoming,
they have filed this writ petition, seeking a direction to the Council to
approve the said course and a direction to respondent No.4 to permit them
to appear in the Selection Test, 2011.
In W.P.(C) No. 7719/2012, the petitioners completed the Basic
B.Sc. (Nursing) course from the University in December, 2011/June,
2012 and are aggrieved from the Council not recognizing the said
programme conducted by the University through its Study Centre at
Safdarjung Hospital. Some of them also applied for admission to the
M.Sc. course of respondent No. 4 in this petition Nightingale Institute of
Nursing , but were refused admission to the said course on account of
non-recognition of the B.Sc. (N) course by the Council. They are also
seeking approval of the said course by Council, besides a direction to
respondent No. 4 in the writ petition to admit such of the petitioners, who
want to do M.Sc. Nursing course.
The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 5165/2012, completed their B.Sc.
Nursing Course from the University in 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-
2004 and 2004-2005, after studying at Safdarjung Hospital Study Centre
of the University and after completing the said course they also applied to
the M.Sc. Nursing course of respondent No. 4-Nightingale Institute of
Nursing. They also were refused admission on the ground that their B.Sc.
Nursing course was not recognized by the Council.
The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 5037/2012 completed her Nursing
Course in December, 2011 and sought admission in the M.Sc. Nursing
Course of Rajkumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing. She also was
refused admission on the ground that B.Sc. Nursing was not recognized
by the Council.
The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 361/2012 completed their B.Sc.
Nursing course through the University and some of them applied to the
admission in B.Sc. course of Rajkumari Amrit Kaur College and
Nightingale Institute of Nursing. They also were refused admission on the
same ground.
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4146/2012 joined B.Sc. Nursing
course during the period 2001-2004 and was awarded degree on
10.4.2006. She also applied for admission to the M.Sc. Nursing course of
Nightingale Institute of Nursing, but was denied admission on the same
ground.
The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 6642/2012 joined the aforesaid
course in the year 2009 and claimed to have passed all the papers in the
said course. They had studied at Sri Ganganagar Nursing College which
was one of the Study Centres of the University for the said course. They
are also challenging non-recognition of the course by the Council
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2175/2013 completed the aforesaid
course in December, 2006 and thereafter sought registration with Delhi
Nursing Council. The said registration was, however, not been granted
on the ground that they require a „No Objection‟ certificate from Indian
Nursing Council. The said „No Objection‟ certificate, however, has not
been granted to them.
The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 3036/2012 completed the aforesaid
course from Madhya Pradesh Bhoj University, Bhopal. They are qualified
from the resolution passed by the Council on 03.01.2012 resolving that
the candidates qualifying the said course from Madhya Pradesh Bhoj
University through distance education are not eligible for M.Sc. (Nursing
programme).
5. In its counter-affidavit, respondent-Indian Nursing Council has
stated that as a result of the inspection conducted by it, only 22 Study
Centres of the University have been approved for the purpose of Post
Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) course and only the candidates who passed out
from such Study Centres are eligible for admission to the M.Sc. (Nursing
Course). According to the Council, the course of study undertaken in
other Centres of the University is not recognized and, therefore, the
qualification earned by the petitioners who studied at such centres is not a
valid qualification for admission to the M.Sc. Nursing Course. It is
further stated that the course conducted by the University from
Safdarjung Study Centre is not a recognized course. This is also the
claim of the Council that the notification dated 02.06.2000 permitting the
University to conduct distance learning programmed in Post Basic B.Sc.
(Nursing) course is a notification only as regards the University, not a
general approval of all its Study Centres. It is emphasized in the counter-
affidavit of the Council that each Study Centre needs to be inspected to
ascertain whether it possess the requisite clinical, teaching and
infrastructural facilities to conduct the nursing course or not.
In its counter-affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No 3036/2012, the Council
has stated that in the absence of any application from the University,
seeking approval of the course, there can be no question of granting any
such approval. It is further stated that though earlier a communication
was issued, stating therein that Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) course
conducted by Madhya Pradesh Bhoj University, Bhopal through distance
learning mode was recognized in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the said
communication was issued inadvertently and in fact the said course is not
recognized at all.
6. A perusal of the Statements of Objects and Reasons for enactment
of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1974 would show that the Council
was set up for the purpose of prescribing minimum standards of
education and training for the nurses, midwife and health visitors and to
supervise examinations and maintain a schedule of qualifications
recognized for registration throughout the country. Section 10 of the Act
provides that for the purpose of the said Act, the qualifications included
in Part-I of the Schedule shall be the recognized „qualifications‟, whereas
the „qualifications‟ included in Part-II of the Schedule shall be the
recognized „higher qualifications‟. Section 11(1)(b) of the Act provides
that no person shall, after commencing of the Act, be entitled to be
enrolled in any State register as a nurse, midwife, health visitor or public
health nurse, unless he or she holds a recognized qualification. Section
13 of the Act enables the Executing Committee of the Council to appoint
inspectors for the purpose of inspection of any institution recognized as a
training institution and to attend examinations held for the purpose of
granting any recognized qualification or higher qualification. Such
inspectors are required to report to the Executive Committee on the
suitability of the institution for the purposes of training and on the
adequacy of the training therein or on the sufficiency of the examinations,
as the case may be. The report of the inspection is to be forwarded to the
authority or institution concerned and thereafter to the Central
Government or the State Government and State Council of the State in
which the authority or institution is situated, along with remarks, if any,
of the concerned authority or institution. Section 16 of the Act empowers
the Council to make regulations, prescribing inter alia (i) the standard
curricula for the training of nurses, midwifes and health visitors (ii) for
training courses for teachers of nurses, midwives and health visitors and
for training in nursing administration. Section 10(2) of the Act provides
that any authority within the State, which is recognized by the State
Government for the purpose of granting any qualification and which
grants a qualification in general nursing, midwifery, health visiting or
public health nursing, not included in the Schedule may apply to the
Council to have such qualification recognised and the Council may
declare that such qualification, or such qualification only when granted
after a specified date, shall be a recognized.
7. The petitioner in WP (C) Nos.1644/2011, 5037/2012, 361/2012,
4146/2012, 7719/2012, 2175/2013, 2774/2011, 5165/2012, completed
their Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) course from Safdarjung Hospital Centre
which admittedly was a Study Centre of the University. It is an admitted
case that no inspection of Safdarjung Hospital was carried out by the
Council at any point of time. The case of the Council is that since
Safdarjung Hospital Study Centre of the University was never inspected
by it, it does not know whether or not the said centre possessed, at the
relevant time, the requisite educational, training and other infrastructure,
which would render it a suitable institution for the purpose of nursing
training, there can be no question of its having recognized the said Centre
in terms of Section 10(2) of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947. The
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned
counsel for the University, on the other hand, was that i) no Study Centre-
wise approval was required; (ii) the notification, issued by the University
on 02.06.2000 permitted admission in each centre with intake of 25-30 in
each centre and having granted approval without carrying out inspection,
it is not open to the Council to deny recognition at a later date on the
ground that it did not, in the first instance, carry out inspection of all the
Study Centres, (iii) the qualification referred in Section 10 of the Act is
the degree in B.Sc. Nursing, awarded by the University, irrespective of
the Centre in which the students had undergone study of the course and
no Study Centre-wise recognition is envisaged under the Act, (iv)
IGNOU having deposited requisite fee for inspection of its Study Centres,
including Safdarjung Hospital Study Centre, it is not open to the Council
to now say that in the absence of inspection, it could not have taken a
view on the suitability of Safdarjung Hospital Study Centre for the
purpose of assessing its suitability for the training of nurses; and
7A. In W.P.(C) No.5604/2010, Ms. Bessy Edison and Another vs.
Indira Gandhi National Open University and Ors., decided on
26.10.2010, the petitioners before this court completed their Post Basic
B.Sc. (Nursing) course from Safdarjung Hospital Study Centre of
IGNOU in the year 2008-2009. When they sought admission to the
M.Sc. Nursing Course of Nightingale Institute of Nursing, the NOC
required by the said Institute, was refused by the Council. Being
aggrieved, they preferred the aforesaid writ petition seeking approval of
the course so as to enable them to pursue the M.Sc. Nursing course. The
stand taken by the Council, however, was that it was required not only to
grant recognition of qualifications, but also assess the suitability of
individual institution to impart training for awarding the said qualification
and Safdarjng Hospital Study Centre was not one of the 18 centres of
IGNOU, which the Council had inspected and approved. Allowing the
writ petition, this Court, inter alia held as under:-
"7. On the facts and documents it is clearly
established that in the recognition granted to
IGNOU and/or in any of the
correspondence/documents of the corresponding
time there is nothing to indicate that approval of
study centre was to be taken. Though the question
of inspection did come up in the year 1999 after
the grant of recognition in 1997 but admittedly no
inspection of any of the study centre was carried
out. The recognition certificate without any such
limitation was issued in June, 2000. The question
of inspection was thereafter raised only in
November, 2006 and by which time the petitioners
had already joined the course/programme with the
study centre at Safdarjung Hospital.
8. It thus appears that IGNOU was under a bona
fide belief that it was not required to obtain any
approval for each of its study centres. IGNOU
continued to admit students to the said
course/programme with study centre at Safdarjung
Hospital representing that upon successful
completion of the course/programme Degree
recognized by INC will be awarded. INC also did
not take any steps to disturb the said position.
9. ...Safdarjung Hospital wherefrom the
petitioners have done their graduation is also a
large premier government hospital with thousands
of patients everyday and with most eminent
persons in its faculty. No particular fact has come
on record to show that the study centre of IGNOU
at Safdarjung Hospital even if having no formal
approval, was not equipped to impart the necessary
education/training to the petitioners. Nursing is a
profession with much more emphasis on practice
and experience than on theory. I find it hard to
believe that the petitioners in their three years
graduation course at study centre in Safdarjung
Hospital would not have imbibed the necessary
practical experience and education for graduation
in nursing. Even otherwise, the examination for
conferring the Degree is held by the University.
According to INC also some of the study centres
of IGNOU and the Degree in B.Sc. Nursing of
IGNOU were approved. The examination held by
IGNOU for students of the approved and
unapproved study centres was the same. The very
fact that the petitioners have cleared the said
examination shows that the petitioners did not lack
in any theoretical knowledge also of the subject.
11. ....It is however clarified that nothing
contained in this order shall tantamount to this
Court holding that the approval as contended by
INC to be necessary of study centres of IGNOU
is not so necessary or entitle any other student of
the said study centre to any benefit from INC the
relief to the petitioners having been granted in the
peculiar facts aforesaid."
An appeal against the above-referred order is stated to be pending.
8. This can hardly be disputed that before granting recognition in
terms of Section 10 (2) of the Act the Council can and, in fact, should
direct inspection by the Inspectors in terms of Section 13 (1) of the Act
since in the absence of such inspection it may not be possible for the
Council to verify as to whether the Institution meets the conditions, if
any, prescribed by the Council in terms of Section 16 (1) (h) of the Act
for admission to courses of training and standards of examination and
other requirements prescribed, in terms of Section 16 (1) (i) of the Act.
For instance if the council has prescribed the qualification and experience
for the teaching faculty, the Institution seeking recognition in terms of
Section 10 (2) of the Act must necessarily employ faculty which is so
qualified. Similarly, if the council prescribes any infrastructural
requirement such as size and number of class rooms, the training
equipment to be made available to the students, etc., the institution
seeking recognition must possess the prescribed infrastructure before it
can be recognized by the Council. But, then, the Council must
necessarily prescribe all such requirements by way of regulations in terms
of Section 16(1). If the Council does not prepare regulations, prescribing
such requirements, a meaningful inspection of the institution concerned
will not be possible since in that case, the recommendation of the
Inspectors would be based upon a subjective assessment with respect to
availability of teaching faculty and physical infrastructure. A perusal of
the Regulations framed by the Council in exercise of the powers
conferred upon it by sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act, however,
does not indicate that the Council had by way of those Regulations,
prescribed such infrastructural and other requirements before an
institution could be recognized in terms of Section 10 (2) of the Act.
Regulation 63 (5) (e) of the aforesaid Regulations require the Inspectors
to report on the adequacy of the teaching programme with particular
reference to class and demonstration rooms, teaching equipment, number
of nursing tutors, facilities for practical experience, supervision of
practical work, etc. The Regulations are however silent as to on what
basis the Inspectors have to assess the adequacy or otherwise of such
infrastructural facilities. Even the counter affidavit of the Council is
silent as regards the infrastructural requirements, if any, prescribed by the
Council, by way of statutory regulations, for the institutions seeking
recognition in terms of Section 10 (2) of the Act.
9. Admittedly, no inspection of any study centre of the University
was carried out by the Council before the letter dated 6.4.1994 came to be
issued by it to the University. The aforesaid letter contained no condition
or stipulation either for inspection of the study centres by the Council or
the provision of any particular infrastructure in such centres. There is no
explanation from the Council as to why such a blanket approval was
granted by it without first carrying out an inspection in terms of Section
13 of the Act. Had the Council insisted upon carrying out inspection of
the study centres before issuing the aforesaid letter dated 6.4.1994, or had
it granted conditional approval subject to inspection of the study centres
in terms of Section 13 of the Act, it would not have been possible for the
Unviersity to start Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course, on the strength of
the letter dated 6.4.1994, unless such an inspection carried out. Having
allow the University to set up study centres and admit students by
granting such a blanket approval, it would be difficult for the Council to
refuse recognition to the aforesaid course.
10. The case of the University is that the first inspection of its study
centres was carried out by the Council between 16th and 20th August,
1999. According to the University, the Council, instead of inspecting
each and every study centre chose to inspect only six (6) centres on cross-
sectional basis, though it had as many as twenty-one (21) study centres
functioning by that time. This is also the case of the University that the
notification dated 2.6.2000 came to be issued by the Council on the basis
of the aforesaid cross-sectional inspections. A perusal of the resolution
dated 2.6.2000 would show that this was an unconditional and
unqualified approval to the Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) course of the
University, without any stipulation with respect to inspection of the
individual study centres or the provision of any particular infrastructural
requirement. I, therefore, see no good reason to reject the case of the
University that the aforesaid resolution dated 2.6.2000 was based upon
cross-sectional representative inspections carried out by the Council to
assess the availability of infrastructural and other facilities available in
various study centres of the University. It appears to me that considering
that IGNOU is a statutory University, not actuated by any monetary
considerations, the Council chose not to inspect each and every study
centre of the University since it felt that the infrastructure available in the
centres which it had inspected shall also be available in other study
centres of the University, and that is why the resolution dated 2.6.2000
was passed without physical inspection of all the study centres of the
University.
11. In view of the approval dated 6.4.1994 coupled with the resolution
dated 2.6.2000, the Council in my view would be precluded from refusing
recognition to the Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) course of the University
considering that the students taking admission to the aforesaid course
would not be aware of the correspondence between the University and the
Council and on being apprised of the approval dated 6.4.1994 coupled
with the approval/resolution dated 2.6.2000, they would certainly be
entitled to assume that the aforesaid course of the University was duly
recognized by the Council. It would, therefore, be highly unjust, unfair
and unreasonable to the students if after having passed the aforesaid
course or taking ad interim therein, they are denied recognition by the
Council solely on the ground that each and every study centre was not
inspected by it.
As noted by this Court in Ms. Bessy Edison and Another case
(supra), Safdarjung Hospital is a large premier hospital being visited by
thousands of patients everyday. It would be difficult to even say that the
aforesaid hospital did not have adequate infrastructure required for the
Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) course. This is more so when the Regulations
framed by the Council do not prescribe the infrastructural requirements in
such centres and this is not the case of the Council in the counter affidavit
that Safdarjung Hospital and Sriganganagar Centres, in fact, did not,
possess the infrastructure necessarily required for the aforesaid course.
12. As noted by this Court Ms. Bessy Edison and Another case (supra)
the issue of inspection was raised by the Council for the first time in
November, 2006. As noted earlier, the first inspection by the Council
was carried out in August, 1999. Thereafter the Council passed the
resolution dated 2.6.2000 granting unconditional approval to the aforesaid
course. For more than six (6) years after passing the resolution dated
2.6.2000 the Council did not seek inspection of any study centre nor did it
ask the University to stop admissions in the study centres which had not
been inspected by it. If the intention of the Council while passing the
resolution dated 2.6.2000 was to approve only those study centres which
had been inspected by it there could be no reason for the Council not
asking the University to stop making admissions to the study centres
which had not been inspected by it. It would be pertinent to note here
that this is not the case of the Council that prior to November, 2006, it
was not aware of the University admitting students to the study centres
which it had not inspected.
Admittedly, Shrimati Shashi Chugh, the then Secretary of the
Council was a part of the faculty in Safdarjung study centre of the
University. Considering her presence in the said centre it would be
difficult to say that the Council was not aware of the students studying in
the said centre. Despite that, the Council never asked the University not
to admit students at the aforesaid study centre.
13. As noted earlier the University vide letter dated 30.3.2007 sent a
cheque for Rs.5.00 lakh to the Council towards inspection fee for ten (10)
study centres and promised to send inspection fee for the remaining study
centres at a later date. By that time six (6) study centres mentioned in the
aforesaid letter had already been inspected by the Council. This was
followed by communication dated 21.5.2008 whereby another draft of Rs
8.00 lakh was sent to the Council towards inspection fee for the
remaining study centres mentioned in the said letter. There is no
explanation from the Council as to why all the study centres of the
University were not inspect by it despite receipt of the aforesaid
inspection fee. If the fee received by the Council was deficient it could
always have asked the University to pay the balance fee. No such course,
however, was adopted by the Council. Therefore, failure to inspect the
remaining centres is attributable solely to the inaction on the part of the
Council. In any case even if I assume that the University also needs to
share the responsibility for the inspection of the remaining study centres,
the students who have taken already passed out or have admission to the
aforesaid course cannot be made to pay for the negligence/inaction on the
part of the Council and/or the University, since while taking admission in
the study centre of a statutory University they had no reason to suspect
that the course in which they were taking admission was not recognized
by the Council.
14. It was contended by the learned counsel for the Council that the
students should have verified from the website of the Council as to which
were the study centres of the University which had been approved by the
Council and had they done so, they would have come to know that only
some of the study centres, names of which appear on the website were
approved by the Council. There is nothing on record to show as to
whether the list of the all the inspected study centres was available on the
website of the Council at the time the petitioners before this Court took
admission in the aforesaid course. In any case, it would be unrealistic to
expect the students to visit the website of the Council to verify as to
which were the study centres approved by the Council for the aforesaid
course. In the absence of any public notice from the Council they had no
reason to suspect that the study centres of a statutory University such as
IGNOU would not have the statutory approval of the Council.
During the course of arguments, along with his written submissions
the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed the guidelines and
minimum requirements to establish Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) course.
However, it cannot be ascertained as to when the aforesaid guidelines
came to be framed by the Council. The guidelines do not have a statutory
force and cannot be substituted for the regulations in terms of Section 16
(1) of the Act. In any case this is not the case of the Council that
Safdarjung Hospital study centre and Tantia Higher Education Institutes
Campus Sri Ganganagar study centre of the University did not have the
infrastructure stipulated in the aforesaid guidelines.
15. As regards the petitioners in WP (C) No.3036/2012, I find that the
aforesaid petitioners passed their Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) course from
respondent No.2/Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University, Bhopal.
Admittedly, the aforesaid qualification of Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open)
University, Bhopal was never recognized by the Council either in
principal or otherwise. In its counter affidavit, the aforesaid University
does not claim that it had sought recognition from the Council in terms of
Section 10 (2) of the Act. The plea taken in the counter affidavit is that
the resolution of the Council, resolving that the candidates qualifying
Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) course from the aforesaid University for
M.Sc. is ultra vires the Constitution of India as the aforesaid University is
duly recognized by the University Grants Commission (for short „UGC‟).
However, the aforesaid University has not been able to show how the
resolution passed by the Council with respect to Post Basic B.Sc.
(Nursing) course from the said University is ultra vires the Constitution.
Mere recognition by the UGC does not absolve the University from a
statutory obligation to seek recognition from the Council in terms of
Section 10 (2) of the Act. In the absence of any such recognition from it,
the Council was fully justified in taking the stand that the aforesaid
degree awarded by Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University, Bhopal is
not recognized by it. It appears that vide communication dated 25.9.2009
the Council had informed the Registrar of the University that its Post
Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) course was valid for working within the State of
Madhya Pradesh. According to the Council, the aforesaid letter was
issued inadvertently and was later on withdrawn. Be that as it may, even
the aforesaid letter dated 25.9.2009 does not amount to recognition of
Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) course of the said University by the Council
outside Madhya Pradesh.
16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I am of the view that though
the petitioners before this Court except the petitioners in W.P(C)
No.6642/2012 must necessarily get benefit of Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing)
course of IGNOU in future, the University should not make any further
admissions for the study centres which have not been inspected and
approved by the Council.
17. In view of the foregoing, WP (C) No.3036/2012 is hereby
dismissed without any orders as to costs. WP (C) Nos.1644/2011,
5037/2012, 361/2012, 4146/2012, 7719/2012, 2175/2013, 2774/2011,
5165/2012 and 6642/2012 are disposed of with the following directions:
i. It is hereby declared that the Council had duly recognized, in terms
of Section 10 (2) of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, the Post basic
B.Sc. (Nursing) course of the respondent Indira Gandhi National Open
University, in respect of the students who have already passed out or have
already taken admission to the aforesaid course, irrespective of the study
centre from which they had passed out or in which they are studying.
ii. The respondent-Council shall grant the necessary permission/NOC
to the petitioners in the above-referred writ petitions for admission to the
M.Sc. (Nursing) course if the petitioners have already approached or
approach it in future seeking requisite permission/NOC, on the strength
of Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) degree awarded to them by Indira Gandhi
National Open University.
iii. The respondent-Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing and
Nightingle Institute of Nursing shall not refuse admission to the
petitioners in the above-refereed writ petitions, in their respective M.Sc.
(Nursing) course on the ground that the Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing)
degree obtained from Indira Gandhi National Open University is not
recognized by the Indian Nursing Council.
iv. The respondent-Indira Gandhi National Open University shall not
make further admission to its Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) course,
wherever such course is to be pursued at a study centre which is not
already inspected and approved by the Council in terms of Section 10 (2)
of the Act.
v. Within two (2) weeks from today the University shall send to the
Council a list of the study centres which are yet to be inspected and
approved by the Council. On receipt of the said information the Council
shall intimate the fee, if any, required to be paid to it for the purpose of
the aforesaid inspection. While raising a demand in this regard, the
Council shall adjust the unutilized fee, if any, paid to it. The University
shall remit the deficient fee, if any, to the Council within two (2) weeks
of demand raised by the Council in this regard. The Council shall carry
out inspection of the study centres in respect of which fee is paid to it by
the University within eight (8) weeks of the receipt of the requisite fee.
(vi) A final decision on the recognition of such study centres shall be
taken by the Council within four (4) weeks of carrying out inspection and
removal of deficiencies, if any. If any deficiencies are found during the
course of inspection the same shall be communicated to the University
within two (2) weeks of the inspection and the University shall remove
those deficiencies within four (4) weeks thereafter.
The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to
costs.
V.K.JAIN, J
SEPTEMBER 27, 2013
BG/rd
